"Here's the kicker, my client hapu didn't consent to be in there."
Mr Kahukiwa said in the Waitangi Tribunal's report into the Crown's recognition of Tuhoronuku's mandate to negotiate claims on behalf of Ngapuhi, the tribunal determined that hapu will be prejudiced if their Treaty claims were negotiated and settled without consent and that prejudice will be exacerbated in cases where the claims involve Crown forest assets, as they do in his clients' case.
He was not the only claimant counsel to draw similarities between the Ngapuhi mandate inquiry and the Ngatiwai mandate inquiry.
Kelly Dixon, claimant counsel for Wai 745 and 1308 - Patuharakeke, said there were issues which were "strikingly" similar to those in the Ngapuhi mandate inquiry "that Patuharakeke strongly endorse" including:
- lack of consent and support by hapu to the mandate
- lack of hapu representation on the mandated body
- The absence of a workable withdrawal mechanism
- The inappropriateness of the application of the Crown's Large Natural Grouping policy to the claimant community.
She said Patuharakeke was in a unique situation as its claims are captured by several entities - including the Ngatiwai Trust Board - in a "partial settlement regime endorsed by the Crown".
"Patuharakeke have never disputed the whanaungatanga and whakapapa that it has to hapu and iwi...However, it is the nature in which the Crown has manipulated that whakapapa and drawn artificial boundaries in order to comply with its ruthless Treaty settlement at all costs policies. That is also impacting the exercise of tino rangatiratanga and mana whenua of Patuharakeke," she said.
The hearing continues today and tomorrow.