1

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

NEW ZEALAND

IN THE MATTER OF te Tiriti o Waitangi (not the Treaty of

Waitangi)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND

IN THE MATTER OF a claim by Jason Koia concerning the Post

Settlement Governance Entity of Te

Runanganui o Ngati Porou

APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated 9 January 2012

Jason Koia

42 Darwin Road

Gisborne 4010

Telephone + 646 8684371

Email koia@xtra.co.nz

2

MAY IT PLEASE THE TRIBUNAL

1. I Jason Matthew Koia apply for recusal of Judge Coxhead from presiding over my

claim under urgency dated 9 January 2012. .

2. I allege that His Honour who presided over the Wai 2190 urgent hearing in

December 2009 and Wai 900 in relation to the East Coast District has been

influence by political corruption. That is to say, influenced by politics to ensure

the Ngati Porou settlement continues by all means necessary.

3. I allege His Honour is unable to give me an impartial hearing for the following

reasons;

(1) The Wai 2190 Tribunal failed to exercise its statutory functions and inquire fully

into the claim before it. That is the claim that the express mandate of Ruawaipu

was not obtained by TRONP to enter into settlement negotiations on Ruawaipu’s

behalf.

(2) To the advantage of the Crown, the Tribunal played the numbers game, that is to

say, it looked at how much support TRONP obtained without considering the

issue of informed consent, or exclusive resourcing.

(3) In doing so, the Tribunal viewed the mandate of TRONP to enter into

negotiations was valid. This was seriously flawed because the Tribunal could

have only made such a finding if it had inquired into the claim before it of express

mandate.

(4) Furthermore, the Tribunal Report dated 18 May 2010 was also in conflict with the

Supreme Court Judgement 19 May 20111, in particular forcing a claimant to

participate in and to benefit from commercial redress of the claims of others was

found not to be acceptable by the Supreme Court [at para 99].

(5) Judge Coxhead, who deferred the Wai 900 Inquiry (the inquiry to hear Ruawaipu

historical claims), has maintained his stance that the TRONP mandate to settle all

Ruawaipu historical claims is valid.

(6) On 8 July 2011, my lawyer Mr. Darrell Naden asked the Presiding Office for the

Wai 900 Inquiry (Judge Coxhead) to review its decision to adjourn the East Coast

Inquiry (Wai 900, #3.1.417). In this memorandum, Mr. Naden asserted that there

was no mitigation of the prejudice to the claimants who oppose the Ngati Porou

settlement.

(7) On 22 September 2011, Judge Coxhead in his Memorandum – Directions (Wai

900, #2.5.63) declined Mr. Naden’s request. At para 37, His Honour stated;

1 [Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal NZSC 53 ]

3

[37] The findings of the Waitangi Tribunal East Coast Settlement Report remain the

same and have not changed. While the Wai 2190 Tribunal recommended as far as

possible that the settlement benefit all those for whom TRONP claims a mandate,

the Tribunal did not recommend that the settlement between the Crown and TRONP be

delayed. [ My emphasis added]

(8) The context of His Honour’s statement above is not in the full context of his

previous recommendations below.

Having rejected the other options, we therefore recommend that the Crown ensure, as

far as possible, that the settlement will benefit all those for whom TRONP claims a

mandate. To that end we would expect, for example, that the Crown will ensure that

the post-settlement governance entity is inclusive of all those for whom TRONP has

obtained a mandate. This includes those who opposed the mandate as well as all

those who supported it. A further example is provided by the proposed two-week

recorded hearing of historical claims before the Crown. We would urge the Crown to

ensure that it is open to all those for whom TRONP is mandated.

We note that the Crown has already acknowledged that the negotiation framework can

cater for small groups and individuals. In November 2007, in response to an inquiry from

Hemi Te Nahu, the then Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Dr

Michael Cullen, confirmed that TRONP had approached the Crown in order to settle their

historical Treaty claims, including the claims of Ruawaipu and Uepohatu. “The Crown

considers; he continued:

that negotiations with large natural groupings are more likely to be lasting and

allow the parties to develop a settlement package that covers a wide range of

redress. Further, the interests of particular iwi, hapu groups or individuals need

not be subsumed during the negotiations process. The negotiations framework

can allow for these various interests to be addressed. 2 [My emphasis added]

(9) I allege that His Honour in his 22 September Directions, at para 37, misconstrued

the context of the Wai 2190 recommendations to avoid the issues and conflict

with my lawyers request.

(10) It is clear that to help alleviate prejudice towards opposing claimants, that

“opposing” groups were to be catered for. Mr. Naden made it clear that

mitigation was not being provided to those TRONP had claimed a mandate for, in

this regard, those that opposed the settlement.

2 East Coast Settlement Report 2010, page 65

4

(11) Judge Coxhead in his Directions, at para 37, makes no referrence to or gives no

consideration to those who opposed the TRONP settlement. In this case, all of

Mr. Naden’s claimants’.

4. The Waitangi Tribunal is bound to the principles of natural justice, in which I am

entitled to impartial and competent adjudication.

5. Therefore, by way of relief I ask for the recusal of Judge Coxhead from presiding

over my urgency application.

Dated this 9th day of January 2012

Jason Koia

To the Registrar, Waitangi Tribunal