Reccomendations to TIMA: Structural Improvement

If we are promoting moving ahead with a cluster of hapū, how do we factor in the commercial redress into our planning. Does our proposal assume TIMA will be seeking quantum for all Ngāpuhi or only the population for the "yes" hapū. I can see that Piripi ma will question this

Massive question, considering the end results of separation/ ideally we should only move forward with a majority of hapū> we must give confidence to others to join. Any other option looks frankly weak. It would mean calculating the $$ value of grievances only for affirmed 35+ Hapu, which would entail borderland disputes between our affiliates and other neighbors. The energy spend cost there is (IMO) larger than the energy cost spent here and now, to attract those on the fence.
Settling for where we are because its 'hard' to establish unity is tantamount to surrender for me.
Let's aim for the majority, that makes things a whole lot easier down the road.

This one is a very complex question that could either "make or break" the support we get from TIMA. Even if we get a "majority" uptake of hapū, are we still essentially "settling" for all of Ngāpuhi? I think either way, we are going to have to be very clear and strategic on how we approach this in our presentation :)

To help thinking, I'd want to pull historical references from prior examples up the line> (pros + cons) May spend time first looking to enlist help as the potential research is huge... Really wish we could just ask all Ngapuhi to join this discussion now and crowd source the research lol.
Hei ano, another way is to focus on the next 2 largest settlements first i.e Tainui & Ngai Tahu and look for past insights > Link attached

yep I know those pages on the GOVT site very well lol. I have gone through a lot of the Terms of Negotiations to compare the "Objectives of the Negotiations" and compared whether other ToN's have "he whakaputanga" as a clause. So far I've only found it in Ngāpuhi's ToN but the advisors keep saying that we have to have it in there???? hmmmm

Do you mean a clause which precludes us for negotiating for our Sovereignty? And that this is not stipulated in any other TON?

Yep, this is the clause that the opposition used to spark fear leading up to the hapu endorsement hui last year. Jump to pg3 of our ToN and it states

"4.2.3 Ngapuhi:
3
(a) say that it signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi and regards it as the binding
document;
(b) holds the view that sovereignty was not ceded under Te Tiriti o
Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi; and
(c) does not intend for any sovereignty to be ceded through these
settlement negotiations;
4.2.4 the Crown does not accept the views recorded in clause 4.2.3(a) and
(b) and enters into these negotiations on the basis that it holds
sovereignty."

The Whangarei crowd were insistent on having this removed, which is understandable, however the other flip side of the coin is that the purpose of a ToN is where both parties state their positions when entering negotiations.

This is a good pick up Anna. I heard this clause being read down here in Whangarei hui more than once. Would the continued education with the hapu we support re: the purpose of each of the key negotiation documents be something that we should embark on? So simplifying the language (sometimes our lawyer whanaunga are hard to understand) or perhaps some short video explanations - similar to the ones done by Tuhono but not the same personnel:)

We should need to break everything down, all new info along the road and beyond to common language, graphics and videos yea...Simplify everything down to options, from where our Hapū Kaikoreo can gain consensus from their people, and update the collective as to their respective positions on different issues. Makes sense we should mold future decisions based off the consensus view of our Hapū communicators, on a per issue basis.

Yea, those terms are included because we are legitimate Sovereigns, with robust claim and the sharks to follow through> I actually agree however now is not the time for that line, we're not ready until we have far superior organisation. So long as we're not impeded from future negotiations or actions, there is no substantial problem. We need to explain this korero for our people. Because the shade cast over us, that perception isn't good.