Maori Agents - challenging flawed laws:

The Human Rights Review Tribunal recently cited two interesting precedents in the matter of Mihaka v Housing New Zealand Corporation.  The first one is cited in the Minute dated 13 October 2016 (copied below for ease of reference) - the Tribunal cites Mihaka v Police 1981 1 NZLR 54.

 What's interesting here is that the Tribunal didn't have any problem addressing Mrs Raue as Maori Agent in its Minute dated 9 June 2016, as evidenced below:

The Minute of the HRRT dated 9 June 2016 clearly states "REPRESENTATION:  Mr TRMN Mihaka in person assisted by Ms K Raue, Maori Agent" -

Mr Mihaka, as a descendant of the original inhabitants of this land, he uri o nga tangata whenua, has the sovereignty, te tino rangitiratanga, to appoint a person of his own choosing to speak for him.

Tangata whenua have always had the right to appoint a kaikorero of their own choosing, and it is ridiculous to assert that the quasi colonial 'government' acting on the questionable and ultra vires authority of a treaty claimed by the English to grant them all our mana and all our tino rangitiratanga by some sleight of hand smoke and mirrors.

Mr and Mrs Mihaka cite the Law Practitioners Act 1955, which refers to the role of Maori Agents but does not define the role.  In fact the 'Maori Agents' who claimed authority under this Act were infamous for cheating Maori out of their land - which is likely why attempts are being made to expunge all evidence from the historical record and pretend it didn't happen.

So let's have a closer look at Mihaka v Police 1981 - did the Crown attempt to trick Mr and Mrs Mihaka by the use of clever legal language?  Here are the relevant paragraphs, the problem's not that hard to spot - there's a question of law here:

Mrs Mihaka's trial was not in the High Court, it was in the District Court - she was charged with Wilful Damage.  Barristers don't normally bother with District Court work, they stick to High Court work, and they are required to be instructed by solicitors normally.






This decision cites sections 13 and 14 of the Law Practitioners Act 1955 - it completely ignores the infamous section 17 - which relates to solicitors and Maori Agents:

The role of McKenzie Friend is rather misunderstood - the original McKenzie Friend is Ian Hangar QC - an Australian barrister, and a qualified barrister at the time of his involvement in the McKenzie case.  Not a layman at all.  It seems there are currently moves underway to 'reform' the role of McKenzie Friends in NZ Courts.

Why this is important is because Dun was royally ripped off by the two pettifoggers assigned by Legal Aid to conduct his appeals - neither noticed he'd not been provided with Disclosure - let alone what that Disclosure contained.

And then just when you think you've got it sussed you find the Hardie Boys decision.

Transcript of Human Rights Review Tribunal hearing on 3 August 2016, Office of Human Rights Proceedings:

Dear Ms Raue

Thank you for your email message and attached letter received today.

As discussed with you in our telephone conversation on Wednesday 17 August, the Commission recently undertook an electronic migration to the ‘cloud’. 

Regrettably, during that process our OHRP mailbox went offline for two weeks due to matters completely beyond our control.  The contractors have still not been able to restore emails sent to our OHRP mailbox during that time.  Consequently we have not been able to access the Application for Legal Representation which you indicated you sent by email to the OHRP mailbox on Friday 12 August.  However, as the mailbox is now working again it would be appreciated if you would re-send the application to ohrp@ohrp.org.nz.

We very much apologise for this considerable inconvenience.

Thank you.
Pam Rowe

The link to the transcript of the first part of the hearing held in the Human Rights Review Tribunal on 3 August 2016 is at this link, click to view.

The transcript of the second part of the hearing is at this link.

Readers will note that an adjournment was granted for the purposes of Mr Mihaka making application to the Office of Human Rights Proceedings for representation in the proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Mr Mihaka's Maori Agent emailed the application form as instructed promptly, however the response from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings was less than inspiring, and is copied below, apparently, since they 'moved to the cloud' they've been - and still are - unable to access ten days worth of emails, which is a very unfortunate state of affairs, but par for the course as far as government agencies information sharing policies and procedures, such as the information sharing between Housing NZ Corporation and NZ Police:

 26 August 2016:

Tena koutou katoa

Attached is the letter referred to in our application for assistance and supporting correspondence regarding Mr Mihaka's medical appointment in support of his application for an adjournment because the nominated dates are unsuitable as he cannot reschedule his appointment and the stress of having a two day hearing condensed into one day, starting earlier is not conducive to Mr Mihaka's health or the concept of fair justice.  Housing NZ Corporation was granted an adjournment when their witness requested one on medical grounds and it is only fair that Mr Mihaka is treated in the same manner - HNZC were not simply told to attend on the other day and we'd squeeze it in, and it is not fair on Mr Mihaka, whose health was already compromised by Police who are also a party to these proceedings, a letter from Mr Mihaka's doctor regarding that recent incident, which is relevant to this matter, contains the following statement:
    "This gentleman is seventy four years old and had a number of medical problems.
    I am unclear of the recent circumstances surrounding the night he spent on a road in his car near National Park village, but regard it as inappropriate that any person of seventy four years old should, of necessity, sleep in a car on that stretch of road at that time of year."
Nga mihi
Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 "Dear Ms Raue

Thank you for your email message and attached letter received today.

As discussed with you in our telephone conversation on Wednesday 17 August, the Commission recently undertook an electronic migration to the ‘cloud’. Regrettably, during that process our OHRP mailbox went offline for two weeks due to matters completely beyond our control. The contractors have still not been able to restore emails sent to our OHRP mailbox during that time. Consequently we have not been able to access the Application for Legal Representation which you indicated you sent by email to the OHRP mailbox on Friday 12 August. However, as the mailbox is now working again it would be appreciated if you would re-send the application to ohrp@ohrp.org.nz.

We very much apologise for this considerable inconvenience.

Thank you.

Pam Rowe
Registered Legal Executive/EA to the Director
Office of Human Rights Proceedings
PO Box 6751
Wellesley Street
AUCKLAND"

The application was mailed through NZ Post immediately we became aware of the inability of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to access their emails, there has been no response to date, or any acknowledgement of receipt of the application.

The following email was sent to the Human Rights Review Tribunal and Meredith Connell (Housing NZ Corporation's taxpayer funded legal team) today:

Tena koutou katoa,

Regarding the transcript of the Tenancy Tribunal hearing on 24 September 2014 before Adjudicator Janet Robertshawe.  On page 9 of the transcript of proceedings the Adjudicator questions Meredith Connell representative, saying "there's a feeling . . . that there's been something unjustified about that decision [to evict Mr Mihaka], . . . Are you aware of that?"

Ms Smith responded "I am, the 90-day notice was issued prior to us breaching the tenant for the alleged assault."  This would appear to be blatantly untrue and Ms Smith should have been well aware that it was untrue.

This untruth certainly influenced the Tribunal, and it is a serious matter to which we would appreciate an immediate response.

Secondly, the information provided by HNZC contains an email exchange involving Karaka Tuhakaraina of Housing NZ Corporation, in which Karaka Tuhakaraina claims that "Mr Mihaka has assaulted another resident, admits it and continues to antagonise others."

This is outrageous - Mr Mihaka has NEVER admitted assaulting another resident - the 'other resident', presumably Mr Dickie - has admitted assaulting Mr Mihaka - several times!  There is NO information to suggest that Mr Mihaka"continues to antagonise others" whatsoever!  In fact here is no evidence that there were any complaints against Mr Mihaka from any resident other than Mr Dickie!

Thirdly, NZ Police have now confirmed in writing that they hold no information such as that allegedly told to Housing NZ Corporation staff regarding Mr Mihaka's alleged drug use, etc, we have provided a copy of the letter from Police saying so and we insist that either Housing NZ reveal the identity of the Police office who allegedly told staff that, or correct the information in the face of the EVIDENCE provided by NZ Police!

We insist that this information is corrected immediately, and an explanation provided regarding the statements of Ms Smith - evidence shows that Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote to Mr Mihaka informing him of the breach WELL PRIOR to the issuing of the 90 day notice!

Fourtlhy, regarding the claim that Mr Mihaka's previous lawyer agreed to this matter being heard under urgency - Mr Mihaka states that he most certainly never agreed to any such thing, the need to evict him was certainly NOT urgent - Mr Dickie was relocated thereby ending the problem created by his unwanted and uninvited touching of Mr Mihaka!  We strongly oppose the decision to limit the hearing to one day starting earlier instead of a two day hearing as originally set down - Housing NZ Corporation was granted an adjournment to another 2 day hearing on their application regarding a medical appointment for their witness and we insist on equal treatment!

Furthermore, we received advice from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings that they have "recently moved to the cloud" or something and as a result of this they are still unable to access their emails for a certain period of time, including the email we sent.  This is not Mr Mihaka's fault!  We mailed the application as well as emailed it, but have to date received no response - this also is NOT Mr Mihaka's fault!  We request an adjournment pending the Office of Human Rights Proceedings finding a way to access their emails, as well as Mr Mihaka's medical appointment - his doctors have expressed disquiet regarding the proximity of the dates of the hearing and Mr Mihaka's medical procedure and this rush is unnecessary, unseemly and totally unwarranted!

Nga mihi
Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka