Unconditional surrender.

More than three years ago, on 31 October 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation began trying to evict Te Ringa Mangu 'Dun' Mihaka from his home, serving him with a 90 day notice under section 51(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, on the basis of a false allegation from another tenant, fuelled by the prejudice and bias of NZ Police.

On 2 December 2014 the Tenancy Tribunal issued an order terminating Mr Mihaka's tenancy and granting possession to Housing New Zealand Corporation from noon the following day, 3 December.  Mr Mihaka was approximately 73 years old at this time.

Nearly 3 years later, on 2 November 2017, Sir David Carruthers issued a carefully worded Minute. following the hearing of an appeal of the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal.  Our response was to challenge the 'Minute' of Judge Walker which is referred to in Judge Carruthers's Minute, inter alia (among other related matters which we are challenging in the various Courts and Tribunals established by the colonial governance structure).  During the hearing it also came to light that Housing New Zealand Corporation had issued not one but two eviction notices, which raised some interesting questions (explored in more detail at the link above).

Preceding this hearing, on 2 October 2017, Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote to Mr Mihaka with an offer of settlement, which was conditional on Mr Mihaka withdrawing all his Court action against Housing New Zealand Corporation, and promising not to take any further Court action against Housing New Zealand Corporation.  Rather ironic, as it was Housing New Zealand Corporation who initiated the litigation in the first place, and played hardball all the way down the line, until long after they realised there was more to these matters than met the eye.

The High Court deemed that the original offer of settlement from Housing Corporation on the condition that he cease his Court action against Housing Corporation and promise not to take them to Court for anything in the future to be blackmail.  The Judge was a former Solicitor General.  Mr Mihaka almost didn't make it into the courtroom to state his case, after he was unlawfully detained in the foyer of the Court for carrying the flag of Te Wakaminenga.

On 28 November 2017 Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote another letter to Mr Mihaka, to say that he can remain in his home, regardless of the conditions proposed in the offer of settlement the previous month, as wisely indicated by Judge Carruthers.

While there is still a very long way to go to any real justice regarding these matters, as documented on this website, we have reached a significant milestone.  The manner in which we have achieved our goals thus far and gained so much ground is much more significant.  We will continue to fight for our rights, and fight for justice and fiduciary accountability, for as long as it takes.

"Justice the seed, peace the flower" - the words on Dun's chosen shirt of the day.

Judge Collins at Wellington High Court 20 November 2017:

Former Solicitor General David Collins heard the matter of Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka v Human Rights Review Tribunal and Housing New Zealand Corporation in the High Court at Wellington today (20 November 2017).

At twenty past four Judge Collins issued a Minute which can be read at this link.

It says that under the High Court Rules Mr Mihaka seeks to appeal a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Housing New Zealand [Corporation] have sought security for costs in relation to the appeal, Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent opposed the application for security for costs on the grounds that Mr Mihaka is impecunious.

Judge Collins then noted the matters involving Mr Mihaka's lawyers, which are under
investigation by the Law Society, the Privacy Commissioner and the New Zealand Police.

Judge Collins noted that Mr Mihaka's efforts to secure the services of a lawyer had been "futile".

Judge Collins mentions "a tranche of litigation" involving Mr Mihaka's dispute with Housing New Zealand Corporation.  He then goes on to say that in the Court's assessment it is better to have these matters properly ventilated as expeditiously as possible.  He has allocated a one hour fixture on 28th February,

Mr Max Clarke-Parker for Meredith Connell on behalf of Housing New Zealand did his job.  Mr Mihaka and his agent enjoyed a korero with Mr Clarke-Parker after our appearance before Judge Collins, this korero was very constructive.

Of particular note were the actions of the young(ish) security guards at the High Court today.  While the more mature guard, Richard, was downstairs these young oafs told Mr Mihaka he couldn't take "that" in to the Court, pointing at his tokotoko (walking stick).

When Mr Mihaka's Maori Agent questioned this, and asked if the guards enforced this ban on everyone using a walking stick or just our 'Maori' kaumatua, the guard replied that it wasn't the actual walking stick he was referring to as "that", it was the flag thereon.

When Mr Mihaka and the Maori Agent expressed incredulity at this and asked the guard what was so bad about the flag he replied "Well we can't have him waving it around in there."

The Maori Agent said "We'll see about that" and went to the Courtroom to tell the Judge that Mr Mihaka had been detained in the Court foyer.

The guard then entered the Courtroom, and asked to see Judge Collins out the back - it was already a chambers list hearing.  After the little tete a tete they returned and Judge Collins said it was fine for Mr Mihaka to bring his toko toko and his flag into the Court which we did, without further incident.

The 1835 flag has never been decommissioned, and according to Te Tiriti o Waitangi tangata whenua are guaranteed unrestricted use of and access to ALL our taonga, including our flag.

Ironically, the Court coat of arms features a (usually blonde) female holding a British flag, and a Maori gentleman holding a taiaha.

Our tipuna Hone Heke chopped down the flagpole three times because the British refused to honour our flag - our taonga - and fly it alongside the British flag of "New Zealand" - a country allegedly named by a Dutchman who never set foot on this land!

John Key spent twenty six million dollars trying to con everyone into thinking 'New Zealand' only had one flag - we need to honour the original flag and honour the treaty.

High Court Submissions on appeal:

Weapons of law

Submissions regarding appeal to High Court of decision of Human Rights Review Tribunal

CIV-2017-485-736

1.     The appellant appealed the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal for good reasons.  The appellant is 76 years old and due to issues including his health and a new road route between his home in Paraparaumu and the Court in Poneke he was late to the last Court fixture although he made every effort to be present for the Court sitting.

2.    At that sitting the Human Rights Review Tribunal were apparently struck out or removed as respondents.  The appellant strongly opposes this and reasserts his appeal of the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal dated 4 April 2017.

3.    Page 47 of the transcript of the hearing of the Human Rights Review Tribunal shows that the hearing reconvened on that the 4th April following the recusal of Ken Shirley the previous day. 

4.    Following the stress of the hearing on the 3rd April 2017 at which Mr Mihaka successfully applied for the recusal of Ken Shirley over the racist rant he wrote in the Herald the Chairperson, Rodger Haines QC, drafted in a Ms Wendy Gilchrist for the second day of the hearing.

5.    It was entirely inappropriate for Ms Gilchrist to take up her position at such late notice and with such a lack of prior knowledge of the matters under consideration, half way through the hearing.  The decision to recuse Mr Shirley validated the earlier applications for Mr Shirley's recusal, which had been previously refused by Mr Haines.

6.    Mr Mihaka, and his Maori Agent, both awoke on the 4th feeling generally unwell, with a range of influenza-like symptoms.  Mr Mihaka contacted his doctor to arrange an appointment as soon as he could, and notified the Tribunal as soon as he could.

7.    Following visits with his doctor, Mr Mihaka forwarded the required medical certificate to the Tribunal in support of the validity of the reason for his absences and other related matters.

8.    Despite providing valid medical certification that he was too unwell to attend the sham hearing on the 4th April, Haines issued a decision which breaches natural justice and breaches Mr Mihaka's rights.

9.    The Tribunal is not entitled to know private details of Mr Mihaka's medical conditions and has no right to require the information.  Mr Mihaka contends that the letters from his registered medical practitioners are sufficient evidence of the fact that he was too unwell to attend the hearings.  His doctors simply did not know when he will be well enough to attend.

10.    Mr Mihaka is currently pursuing a number of legal avenues in order to correct what is clearly and indisputable a serious miscarriage of justice, and again applies to have the decision of the appeal judge, Simon France, recalled.

11.    Judge Kelly is refusing to recall her decision and is completely ignoring the fact that a serious miscarriage of justice occured on top of the errors previously identified during the appeals, in that Mr Mihaka never received Disclosure as he is legally entitled to under the Criminal Disclosures Act 2008.  Judge Kelly completely ignored this Fact in her refusal to grant a rehearing or recall her decision and this is clearly a breach of natural justice.

12.    Other Courts have recently noted the blatant injustices involving these matters and we wish to make further submissions kanohi ki te kanohi, face to face, in the High Court on 20 November if Mr Mihaka is well enough to attend and able to get there in time by 10 a.m.  

13.    Mr Mihaka is suffering further prejudice as a result of the actions of lawyers Chris Tennet, Seth Fraser, Brett Crowley and Nathan Bourke which are subject to formal complaint and include complaints involving refusal of counsel to provide information, forgery of Court documents, attempts to pervert the course of justice, and other very serious allegations.

14.    Mr Mihaka intends providing further evidence from his medical practitioners regarding his health and his right to privacy.   He is also appealing several other decisions of the Court based on sound grounds of appeal, after the failure of his counsel to do so as instructed.

15.    Housing New Zealand Corporation made an offer of settlement to Mr Mihaka but it was unfair in that it was conditional on Mr Mihaka withdrawing all Court action against them and agreeing not to take any further action.  There has been a serious miscarriage of justice.  Housing New Zealand Corporation is maintaining their claims based on false information, and they continue to refuse to correct false and erroneous information regarding Mr Mihaka, information on which they based their decisions.  Mr Mihaka is certainly not going to relinquish his legal rights to have that information corrected and have the injustices associated with this matter put right.

16.    Recent revelations contained in a bundle of documents provided for a hearing in Porirua District Court raise issues of retaliation by Housing New Zealand Corporation in response to Mr Mihaka requesting information be corrected and availing himself of his other legal rights and basic human rights, in addition to the discrimination evident in their actions and decisions.

Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

Minute of Sir David Carruthers, Porirua District Court:

Following a hearing in the Porirua District Court, Judge Sir David Carruthers has issued a Minute.

We acknowledge the respect and fairness shown by Sir David during our hearing, and in granting it in the first place without requiring the over $200 "security for costs" which was previously requested by the Court, and in the careful and considered wording of his Minute.

A few days prior to the hearing Housing New Zealand Corporation made an Offer of Settlement to Dun, offering to let him stay in his home if he withdraws all his Court actions against Housing New Zealand and promises not to take any further legal action against them.

The problem is that Housing New Zealand Corporation have slandered and defamed Dun and continue to refuse to correct information that is clearly false, and they continue to act in bad faith towards him.  Dun wore a shirt featuring the Palestinian flag, and the words "Justice the seed, peace the flower."  Without truth, there can be no justice, without justice, there can be no peace.

Housing New Zealand Corporation started all this by initiating litigation against Dun in the first place.  They did so on the basis of a tissue of lies and misinformation which amounts to slander and defamation.

Judge Carruthers' Minute further highlights the fact that the law is an ass.  It is not fit for purpose.

The Labour Party pledged to abolish "no cause terminations".

Dun's Maori Agent has requested a copy of the Minute of Judge Walker which is referred to in the Minute of Judge Carruthers, and have responded as follows:

We respectfully submit that there were procedural failures in the manner in which the possession order was originally granted, and draw to the Court's attention section 51(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which says that a notice can only be issued if the former one is revoked (attached).

We respectfully request the Court to consider that in accordance with section 51(6)(b) in particular the application of 21 November 2014 would have negated the earlier application of 31 October 2014, which was later relied on (as per paragraph 10, 19-25, of Judge Carruthers' Minute) after Housing New Zealand Corporation repented of their earlier discriminatory and deeply unjust decision to evict Mr Mihaka on the basis of allegations and information which can not be relied on, and which has been proven to be untrue and unreliable. 

We ask the Court to consider the proposition that according to section 51(6)(b) the initial, original notice, which was made under section 51(1)(d), would have had to have been revoked prior to the application of 21 November, made under section 56(1), and could not therefore be relied upon to grant possession.

We will be appealing the decision of Judge Walker and providing evidence as to the error of the decision that the allegations of Housing New Zealand Corporation were irrelevant to the eviction, and responding further to these matters in the near future.

Decision of Human Rights Review Tribunal:

Behold - the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Curious in many ways.  Not least the assertion that the McKenzie Friend was required to turn up and speak on behalf of the Plaintiff and provide a 'proper' medical certificate.  How ridiculous.  And what an outrageous breach of natural justice, on top of the existing miscarriage of justice.

Mr Mihaka is appealing this decision to the High Court.

Maori Agents - challenging flawed laws:

"Justice the seed, peace the flower."  T-shirt of the day.

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.

April Fool - Transcript of proceedings - Human Rights Review Tribunal 4th April 2017:

Following the stress of the hearing on the 3rd April 2017 at which Dun successfully forced the recusal of Ken Shirley over the racist rant he wrote in the Herald the Chairperson, Rodger Haines QC, drafted in a Ms Wendy Gilchrist for the second day of the hearing.

It was entirely inappropriate for Ms Gilchrist to take up her position at such late notice and with such a lack of prior knowledge of the matters under consideration, and validated the earlier applications for Mr Shirley's recusal, which had been previously refused by Mr Haines.

Mr Mihaka, and his Maori Agent, both awoke on the 4th feeling generally unwell, with a range of influenza-like symptoms.  Mr Mihaka contacted his doctor to arrange an appointment as soon as he could, and notified the Tribunal as soon as he could.'

Following the visit with his doctor, Mr Mihaka forwarded the required medical certificate to the Tribunal in support of the validity of the reason for his absence on the 4th.

Despite providing valid medical certification that he was too unwell to attend the sham hearing on the 4th April, Haines issued the following decision:



The file can also be accessed at this link.

The transcript of the hearing on the 4th begins at page 47 of the transcript.

The transcript is full of factual errors - the paragraph adjacent to the number 20 in the left margin says that Haines would be grateful if counsel for Housing New Zealand were to correct him as ''we'' go through.  Mr Mihaka wishes the opportunity to "correct" Mr Haines, who is either seriously mistaken or deliberately dishonest.

The last paragraph of page 47 of the transcript refers to Ms Furfie's "replacement brief of evidence" which was provided the night prior to the hearing on the 4th after Furfie's previous "evidence" was seriously discredited!  Filing a replacement brief and finding a replacement member of the Tribunal the night before the hearing is outrageous and unacceptable.

The paragraph adjacent to the number 5 on page 50 of the transcript refers to me as Catherine and is further evidence of the errors made by the Tribunal.

Page 53 discusses Ms Theron's assertion that as McKenzie friend I should have attended and spoken in Mr Mihaka's absence which is ridiculous.  The Tribunal then goes on to discuss the issues relating to natural justice.

Page 55 alludes to the plainly evidence inadequacy of the planned matter of disposition of the matter, and confirms that if a medical certificate is provided that is grounds for an adjournment.

Page 57 refers to the risible arguments of Housing New Zealand's counsel regarding their clients' position.

Page 62 states that Mr Mihaka is required to produce a medical certificate from a registered practitioner "setting out the reasons why Mr Miahka has been unable to attend the hearing today.  Second, that the certificate set out the length of time for which Mr Mihaka will be medically unfit to participate in the Tribunal hearing."  Mr Mihaka's medical practitioners are just that - medical practitioners, not clairvoyants.  They don't predict the future, or what Mr Mihaka's health will be like next week or next month, and these demands are a breach of Mr Mihaka's rights and of his privacy.

"At the resumption of the hearing two days is to be set aside" it says on page 62.

Dun provided letters from his medical practitioners regarding several matters involving these proceedings, including this one:

Another recent letter from Dun's registered medical practitioners says:

"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."

We await the decision of Hardhearted Haines and his peers.

Minutes of Human Rights Review Tribunal April 2017:

In response to the brief of evidence filed by Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka the hearing has been adjourned for the second time, and the following Minutes issued by the Tribunal.

Brief of evidence of Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka 3 April 2017 - HRRT

1.    I did not assault Warren Dickie.  Warren Dickie started touching me while I was asleep, I got up and left.  Housing NZ Corp have discriminated against me by prefering the word of Mr Dickie without testing the evidence fairly.

2.    Housing NZ Corporation did not give me a fair opportunity to respond to the false allegation against me.

3.    Housing NZ Corporation did not even record the allegation against me, despite this being a clearly stated requirement of their policies.

4.    This statement is true and correct:

5.    The second brief of evidence of Katherine Furfie at para 4 refers to "the statement from Mr Dickie that I referred to at paragraph 30(a) of my 22 July 2016 brief of evidence."

6.    Para 5 states that the evidence consisted of the summary of facts from Police and a statement from Mr Dickie.

7.    The Police summary of facts does not come up to scrutiny or qualify as "credible sources".  This is because it has since been established (and could have been established much earlier if Mr Mihaka hadn't been discriminated against) that the summary of 'facts' was incomplete and misleading, and it discriminated against Mr Mihaka in that it conveniently (for Mr Dickie), omitted the Fact that Mr Dickie touched Mr Mihaka first while Mr Mihaka was asleep.  Evidence of this is contained in the statement Mr Dickie made to Police, among other things.

8.    The Police summary of facts is clearly discriminatory in that it omits to mention the fact contained in Mr Dickie's statement to Police that he touched Mr Mihaka first while Mr Mihaka was asleep.  The onus is on Housing NZ Corp to verify information, and at page 36 of the bundle of documents it is clearly stated: "Does the available evidence support our claim?  For example, information about police charges should be supported wth the evidece on which police are relying to bring charges, Housing NZ should be cautious about termingating tenancies solely on the basis of charges brought by police without supporting evidence."

9.    The evidence does not support the claims made by Housing NZ Corp, some of the claims are outrageous, and certainly unsupported.  Police have denied telling Housing NZ Corp that any member of police told Housing NZ Corp that Mr Mihaka is "a serious cannabis smoker" and uses methamphetamine and lives in a suspected P house.

10.    Mr Mihaka's lawyer Mr Bourke wrote to police claiming slander and defamation regarding the outrageous claims made by Housing NZ Corp, which police deny.  There is no evidence to support the claims and there is considerable evidence of serious breaches of Mr Mihaka's privacy as the letter from Mr Bourke states.  Mr Bourke also warned Police that the communications between them and Housing NZ Corp prejudiced a fair trial for Mr Mihaka and were extremely ill judged - the communications which Police deny.  Mr Mihaka wihes to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Mr Bourke's letter to Police dated 27 November 2015 and the strongly worded condemnation of the actions of the Police, and by inference, the actions of Housing NZ Corp if the statements of Housing NZ Corp are proven to not be true - as is clearly and indisputably the case.

11.    Adding to the unreliability (and discriminatory nature) of the police summary of 'facts', if what Mr Dickie said on oath at the trial of Mr Mihaka was true, what the summary of facts said happened could not have occured.

12.    This is an example of Police bias against Maori, which Police have acknowledged.  It is difficult to say whether this is conscious or unconscious bias, but it is indisputably discriminatory, prejudiced, and biased.

13.    We turn now to 'the statement from Mr Dickie';  Which does not exist.  Despite para 6 of Ms Furfie's second brief of 'evidence' dated 4 November 2016, which says "As I said on 3 August 2016, I was referring to a conversation I had with Mr Dickie at his residence on 5 September 2016 at around 1:30 pm about the incident."  This is over two years after the allegation was made.  Ms Furfie is confused, careless, and plainly wrong.

14.    It seems that the 3 August 2016, near the end of the hearing, is the first time Ms Furfie said anything at all about this "conversation".  Which also raises the question of whether Ms Furfie has psychic powers that enable her to see into the future, as the conversation refered to in her second affidavit at para 6 hadn't actually happened yet.

15.    What happened at this meeting between Ms Furfie and Mr Dickie - did Mr Dickie say, "I touched him and he assaulted me" or something?  Which would have immediately raised the issue of self defence, which wasn't actually raised until the High Court appeals.  Did Mr Dickie mention that he had 'touched' Mr Mihaka first, touched him while he was asleep?

16.    How long was this "conversation"?  What was said?  There is no record whatsoever of this conversation.  Ms Furfie has never written any notes of what was said, let alone fulfil the requirements of the policies and procedures of Housing NZ Corp.

17.    Page 20 of the bundle of documents at 8 - Guidance on key process steps advises "how" to carry out key process steps in the flow charts (refer page 19 of the bundle).  The first step is to "gather information" regarding the behaviour.  This would obviously include recording a statement from the complainant in the first instance.  That was never actually done.

18.    The second step is to "meet with tenants".  Ms Furfie discriminated by meeting with Mr Dickie but not meeting with Mr Mihaka.  Ms Furfie could have offered to meet Mr Mihaka at his home for a conversation, each could have had a support person in attendance if required, that didn't happen.

19.    Why didn't Ms Furfie avail herself of the opportunity to visit Mr Mihaka while she was at 17 Michael St, and ask him if the allegation was true, and ask him for his side of the story?  Ms Furfie discriminated against Mr Mihaka by going and having a "conversation" with Mr Dickie, but not going and having a "conversation" with Mr Mihaka, particularly while she was at the property anyway.

20.    At 8.1 "Gathering information regarding the behaviour" it clearly states:  "be transparent; provide strong-enough evidence to stand up to public scritiny." (sic)  This evidence does not stand up to public scrutiny.

21.    Below this is says "To ensure accuracy and usability:  collect information as soon as possible after the incident."  Ms Furfie says she has this "conversation" on 5 September 2014, over two months after the alleged incident occured.

22.    Below this is says:  "collect information from direct witnesses wherever possible".  There is no evidence of a conversation between Ms Furfie and Mr Dickie until the hearing on 3rd August 2016.

23.    Below this it says:  "place the information on record as soon as practical including putting notes in Kotahi."  The Kotahi records and customer activity notes for Mr Mihaka's tenancy are included at pages 107-136 of the bundle of documents.  There is no record whatsever of any record of any conversation between Ms Furfie and Mr Dickie on 5 September or any other day.

24.    Below this it says:  "information is to be stored in the S drive (S:\WLG\HI Hsg Initiatives\oo All Properties) using appropriate folder and subfolder adn a copy is put on the tenant hard file."

25.    None of this ever took place as far as any "information" or "evidence" of the "conversation" between Ms Furfie and Mr Dickie.

26.    On page 21 of the bundle of documents it clearly says:  "Get complainant or third party to write everything down in an incident summary form (T-463) or on a note pad if you do not have a form with you.  Details needed to be recorded are:"  Below this are listed eight points referencing exactly what needs to be written down by the complainant.

27.    Below this is is the policy regarding interviewing vulnerable people such as young or elderly people, those with communication "difficulties" (Mr Mihaka's native language is te reo a o tatou matua tupuna) inter alia.  Housing Corporation are aware of these issues and have done nothing to mitigate them, they have not developed policies on elderly people or Maori, which is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and as such the proper place to korero is Te Tii, not a "conversation" with Mr Dickie of which there is no record.

28.    Housing NZ Corp clearly discriminated against Mr Mihaka by not doing any of these things in his case.  He was clearly an exception to the rule, none of the other tenants at 17 Michael St were treated in this manner, which originated through Police bias and discrimination, which Police have admitted.

29.    Below this are requirements relating to a Dialogue Plan, this also doesn't exist.

30.    At the bottom of the page it says "what was the unacceptable behaviour".  Housing New Zealand clearly discriminated by ignoring the fact - the evidence of the fact, as stated by Mr Dickie himself - that Mr Dickie touched Mr Mihaka inapropriately while he was asleep, they focused only on Mr Dickie's unsubstantiated allegation that Mr Mihaka assaulted him.

31.    On page 22 of the bundle of documents it lists about eleven more details which are supposed to be recorded - in writing - including "who caused it".  Clearly, Mr Dickie caused it, and Housing NZ Corp discriminated further against Mr Mihaka by arbitrarily deciding that Mr Mihaka must have somehow caused it on the basis of not giving sufficient weight to the credibility of Mr Mihaka compared to that of Mr Dickie.  Mr Mihaka has consistently denied assaulting Mr Dickie; Mr Dickie has consistently admitted that he caused it by touching Mr Mihaka inappropriately, and although Mr Dickie has been very consistent in his evidence as to the fact that he caused it by touching Mr Mihaka while Mr Mihaka was asleep, several other aspects of his evidence have been proven extremely unreliable.  Housing NZ Corp discriminated against Mr Mihaka by not doing fulfilling any of the requirements noted above and elsewhere in the ASBG.

32.    As stated in Mr Bourke's letter to Police regarding the seriousness of the defamatory and slanderous statements made by Housing NZ Corp regarding Mr Mihaka, which are denied by Police, there have been serious breaches of Mr Mihaka's privacy, and extremely inappropriate communication between Housing NZ Corp and Police.

33.    Mr Mihaka states that he never gave permission for Constable Michael Tahere to share information or "have a conversation" with Housing NZ Corp regarding Mr Mihaka's affairs as stated by Housing NZ.

34.    On page 62 of the bundle of documents is an email from Constable Tahere to Bobby Akinini of Housing NZ Corp, on 4 August 2014 in which Police Constable Tahere seeks a meeting with Bobby and states that he is "looking for a way that helps Frederick tenant at 17f Michael Road, Paraparaumu."  As a Police iwi liason officer Constable Tahere had a statutory responsibility to look for a way that helped Mr Mihaka.

35.    Mr Mihaka states that Constable Tahere has demonstrated bias and ill will toward him in the past, and that he finds Constable Tahere adversarial, and that he does not uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

36.    It has been established that Ngapuhi nui tonu never ceded sovereignty.  Te ture tikanga a o tatou matua tupuna is a taonga, enshrined in te tiriti.  Housing NZ Corp discriminated against Mr Mihaka by not acknowledging Mr Dickie's own evidence that the only agreed fact was that he (Mr Dickie) caused the incident and that he inappropriately touched Mr Mihaka.

37.    Here we also turn to the discriminatory statements made against Maori by Ken Shirley which have recently come to our attention, and statements made by Dr Huhana Hickey, making further mockery of the principles of natural justice and te ture tikanga.  Attached

38.    Mr Mihaka has the right to be tried by his peers, and the manner of the recusal of Dr Hickey and the refusal of Ken Shirley to recuse himself make a mockery of justice and defy te ture tikanga.

39.    On pages 24 and 25 of the second half of the transcript of the hearing held on 3 August 2016 reference is made to an "email" - which is actually a file note - on page 120 of the bundle of documents.  This file note states that "Police have confirmed tnt to be a serious cannabis smoker and although they can not conifirm [sic] they have heard that the tenant is using meth"

40.    Police deny saying any such thing.

41.    It is unacceptable that Housing NZ Corp refuses to identify the police officer who they allege receiving this information from, the statement is completely unsubstantiated in any way shape or form and Police have denied telling Housing NZ Corp any such thing, the fact that it is included in the bundle of documents and Housing NZ Corp are denying discriminating against Mr Mihaka is just ridiculous.

42.    We challenge the Tribunal to find any member of the Police who told Housing NZ Corp the statement.

43.    There is no Housing NZ Corp record or file note of any communication from any police on 21 April 2015.  No record of any "conversation".

44.    Nor is there any record of any conversation with Mr Dickie as refered to in Ms Furfie's second brief of evidence, nothing in the Kotahi system, or the S drive, or the tenant's hard file, or anywhere, regarding any conversation with Mr Dickie on 16 September 2016 or 2014 or 2015 and no record of any "conversation" with any police on 21 April 2015 or thereabouts.

45.    Mr Mihaka wishes to draw the attention of the Tribunal to page 25 of the second part of the transcript of the hearing on the 3rd August and the statements of the Chair regarding the dates of the communication with the Police.  The Chair says "you need to bear in mind the chronology here before talking about a gap between the date of the file note and the date of communication with the Police.  Mr Mihaka wishes to draw to your attention that his Maori agent was correct and the Chairperson was perhaps 'missing the point' she was making, which was that the contact she was refering to was the communication refered to above at para 34 that Constable Tahere was looking for a way to help Frederick, tenant at 17f.

46.    Mr Mihaka claims that Constable Tahere has demonstrated discrimination against him in the past and agent Raue was pointing out that the Chairman was comparing the dates of the file note, 21 April 2015, and the date of October 2014 when the 90 notice was served, and the 'fact' that Housing NZ Corp are saying they didn't have that information from the police in their possession.

47.    Mr Mihaka challenges the Chairperson's assertion that Housing NZ Corp did not have that information in their possession at the time the 90 day notice was served because there was clearly communication with Police on 9th December 2014 and 5 August 2014, not to mention the statements on page 71 of the bundle of documents which is part of the request for termination of tenancy, which also refer to Constable Tahere, who was clearly the point of contact between Housing NZ Corp and Police.

48.    The date, on page 76 of the bundle, is illegible.

49.    Further discrimination also involving communication with Police is strongly indicated in the email from Karaka Tuhakaraina dated 3 October 2014.  This email contains the extraordinary statement that "Mr Mihaka has assaulted another resident, admits it and continues to antagonise others."

50.    This is outrageous discrimination and it is inextricably linked to the Police and the admission of Police that they are "unconsciously biased" against Maori.  Firstly, Mr Mihaka has never ever admitted assaulting Mr Dickie - Mr Dickie has admitted assaulting Mr Mihaka, by touching him inappropriately while he was asleep.

51.    Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr Mihaka antagonised any "others".  Mr Mihaka gets on very well with all his neighbours now that Mr Dickie has gone.

52.    On page 72 of the bundle of documents questions are asked about whether the evidence supports the claim.  It says the Corporation should be cautious about terminating tenancies solely on the basis of charges brought by police, without supporting evidence.  There was no supporting evidence, there was discrimination amounting to a witch hunt against Mr Mihaka as a result of Mr Dickie's false allegation and the discrimination demonstrated by Police.

53.    Housing NZ Corp discriminated against Mr Mihaka by failing to collect information and evidence, they breached Mr Mihaka's privacy, and prejudiced his trial.

54.    Further down the page Housing NZ Corp says:  "Tenants are all elderly and live in close proximity to each other, they try and stay away from Mr Mihaka due to abuse."  There is no evidence of this at all from even one of Mr Mihaka's neighbours with the exception of Mr Dickie, and the way this file note is worded is insidious, it contains clear racial overtones, making out that Mr Mihaka is the bogeyman and everyone - all the tenants, it says - are afraid of him.  This is not true and it wasn't true at the time it was written, Mr Mihaka gets on very well with his other neighbours.  There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

55.    The reference to all the tenants being elderly also points to the discrimination against Maori, and against elderly Maori in particular by the fact that Housing NZ Corp have no policies for elderly tenants or Maori, and are clearly acting against the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Links to the complete bundle of documents:
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Ken Shirley and his golden shower of money on all things 'Maori':

Ken Shirley wrote a rather racist rant published in the NZ Herald - who were only too happy to publish it of course.


In a snide aside to 'Washday at the pa', Ken attempts to cast an allegory with the introduction: "Graduation day at Te Wananga.  Soon after the Labour Government came to office it started showering money on all things Maori."

What follows can only be described as the racist rant of a person with little insight into the history of this country, the relevance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, among other things.

So who is Ken Shirley?

Party positions held:

• Labour Party MP 1984- 1990
• Ranked third on ACT Party List for 1996 elections
• ACT Party MP 1996- 2006

Government appointments:

• Appointed to Human Rights Review Tribunal by Justice Minister Simon Power, in December 2009.

Statements on Maori:

“Graduation day at Te Wananga. Soon after the Labour Government came to office it started showering money on all things Maori. ” – NZ Herald

“Soon after the Labour Government came to office, ushering in its flagship ‘Closing the Gaps’ programmes. It started showering money on all things Maori. ” – Ibid

“Out of this Te Wananga o Aotearoa pocketed $5.8 million and said that would go a long way towards providing for its growth. ” – Ibid

“But the Government went further. Closing the Gaps demanded even more taxpayer money be thrown at Maori. ” – Ibid

“Despite its apparent concern, it has continued to shovel huge sums of taxpayer money to this institution – all in the name of the treaty. ” – Ibid

“The Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commissioners have foreshadowed that the decision to allow the Maori Land Court to hear iwi claims to the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds opens the way for similar claims around the country” ACT New Zealand Deputy Leader Ken Shirley said today.

I now call upon Prime Minister Helen Clark to act consistently, and to declare such claims off limits -as she recently did in the case of the claim for oil and gas reserves. In this instance, it was made quite clear that oil, gas and mineral reserves were vested in the Crown by legislation in 1937.” – Press releases on Court of Appeal decision on foreshores and seabed, Recreation Access

“I am again calling on the Labour Government to act decisively. It must spell out the bounds to claims – in order to prevent undue anxiety for tens of thousands of New Zealanders, and to ensure that iwi don’t waste any more time and money pursuing claims that should be off limits.” – Ibid

Hopefully Mr Shirley’s anti-Treaty and knee-jerk anti-Maori  beliefs will not be carried over to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.  I'm not holding my breath.

Most folk won’t remember who Ken Shirley was, prior to his current ‘gig’ as  CEO of the Road Transport Forum (RTF), representing road transport interests since July 2010.
From 1984 to 1990, Shirley was nominally a Labour Party MP. He was closely aligned with the likes of Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, and other right-wingers who had seized control of the party during the 1980s.
From 1996 to 2005, Shirley was an ACT Party MP. As such, he was an acolyte of  the neo-liberal school of economics and a strong adherent of free market forces. Part of ACT’s policies is to scrap the minimum wage.
Indeed, to under-score ACT’s abhorrence of the minimum wage, ACT’s current leader (and sole MP), David Seymour, condemned a recent rise in minimum wage levels. On 26 February this year, Seymour was scathing;

“The new $15.25 minimum wage will hit regional employers especially hard… In Auckland, $15.25 might not sound like much, but small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost. Hikes to the minimum wage will discourage new employment, and lead to more lay-offs and business failures.
The first employees to suffer will be young, low-skilled workers who won’t be offered a chance to prove their worth. Pulling up the jobs ladder will only add to poverty in low-income areas.
This is a wage set for the distorted Auckland economy. Why should the rest of the country have to bear the same costs?”

[Fun Fact: As a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Seymour is currently a taxpayer-funded beneficiary on a salary of $185,098 p.a. – which equates to nearly $89 per hour. One wonders if “small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost” of Seymour’s salary?]
But returning to Ken Shirley; as an ex-ACT member of Parliament he is still most likely an  advocate for the abolition of the minimum wage.
On 5 May, Shirley was invited to be a commentator on Radio NZ’s afternoon Panel, hosted by Jim Mora;

 “Ken Shirley of the Road Transport Forum discusses what’s behind logging truck crashes and what needs to be done.”

At one point in the discussion, a suggestion was made that low wages in the trucking industry is not attracting the most highly-skilled and experienced workers;
@ 7.50

Jim Mora: “How bad do you think, Ken, is this situation with truck driving?”
Ken Shirley: “Oh, the spate we’ve had in Northland is just unacceptable. There’s no excuse for roll-over[s]. We know we have some difficult roads in New Zealand with topography, Northland’s is particularly difficult.
But there’s an obligation on the drivers and the forestry companies who hire the drivers to make sure they drive to the conditions. That’s the obligation on all drivers, and the spate we’ve had is just unacceptable, and I think inevitably it seems it’s not mechanical failure, it is driver error.
Whether it’s speed, inattention, or fatigue.”
Jim Mora: “So, it’s a…what, is it a hiring of drivers problem, hiring the wrong drivers, or is it a keeping-costs down problem, Ken? What do you think?”
Ken Shirley: “Well, the two are related of course. We have a chronic shortage of H5 drivers in New Zealand. That’s the heavy combination driver, the truck and trailer. It’s a global problem, but it’s particularly severe in New Zealand at this time. We’ve had it for many years, but with the activity in the economy now, that we are currently having, there is a chronic shortage of drivers.
Many of our members throughout the country are just saying they simply cannot get drivers. And I guess inevitably, you can, in that situation, such a tight situation, out of desperation, you can perhaps hire someone who’s not as skilled as you would like or need, out of sheer necessity. But at the end of the day, there’s no excuse. This should not be happening. We’re taking it very seriously.
We’ve actually instigated a series of roll-over prevention seminars in conjunction with NZTA around the country. They started some six weeks back. And these are actually very good seminars. But we have to educate the drivers, the loaders, the dispatchers, the transport operators themselves, but we must not have this level of roll-over.”
Jim Mora: “Ken, is it the… what is it deep down? Is it the meager wages paid, as some people are saying? You’re just not attracting the skills to the industry?”
Ken Shirley: “Ah, no, you do, it’s, you know, you can have a driver error. But it’s, it’s… you have to have better training, better awareness, that has to be the answer.”
Jim Mora: “So, there was this work-force development strategy, wasn’t there, ah, put into place a wee while back to try and try to entice more people to become truck drivers because of that shortage. But what is the point of a work-force development strategy if we know what the problem basically is, which I’m interpreting as maybe a lack of training and a lack of procedures put in place in the industry – [garbled].”

After a further exchange between Jim More, Peter Elliot (one of the panelists), and Ken Shirley, the host returned the discussion to the matter of wage rates;

Jim Mora: “It does seem though, with the wage rates that we see talked about, that you might not be getting the optimum recruits for the job? Is that a fair criticism, or not?”
Ken Shirley: “Well we know that the skilled labour market across the economy, whether it’s a diesel mechanic, a skilled driver, all of of those industries are, are, reporting severe chronic shortages. And because they are so highly skilled, reliant on a high level of, of, of, experience, when there is a chronic shortage, there is a temptation to often, out of desperation [to] take what you can get. And, and, that’s, that’s when you start to get into issues that like we are seeing and that’s when you start introducing potential road safety problems.”
Jim Mora: “I understand, but would you solve your chronic shortage if you paid higher wage rates?”
Ken Shirley: “Well, indeed, and all the members I speak to want to, but there’s been a race to the bottom, it’s –
[panelist scoffing (?) noise]
… such a fiercely competive industry…”

Shirley’s admissions are astounding.
His comments appear to be a frank admission that the free market has experienced a spectacular  failure on a key point in the Northland logging industry;  that if there is a shortage of  skilled labour, the price of that labour (heavy-truck drivers in this case) should rise – not fall – to attract skilled labour. That is a basic tenet of supply and demand in the free market system.
As the guru of free market economics, Milton Friedman put it;

“But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm[s] competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody’s expense. “

And Investopedia described a free labour market thusly;

Assuming there are a large number of employers in a region, or that workers are highly mobile geographically, the wages that a company will pay workers is dependent on the competitive market wage for a given skill set. This means that any company is a wage taker, which is simply another way of saying companies must pay competitive wages in order to obtain workers.

None of which seems to be happening in Northland at present.
To the contrary, logging companies – according to their own spokesperson, Ken Shirley – are engaged in a “a race to the bottom” with drivers’ wages.

To compound the problem, in April of this year, Shirley specifically opposed and condemned outright any attempt to increase the wages of drivers;

“The link between remuneration and road safety is highly questionable and as a recent PWC report highlights, the system will result in a net cost to the Australian economy of more than A$2 billion over 15 years.
It is therefore very concerning that the Labour Party here advocated for the same policy and campaigned on it during the last election.”
National awards and government-imposed orders are not the way to lift industry wage rates or make the industry safer. All they do is saddle the industry with inflexible and time-consuming obligations and additional costs.
Let’s not repeat Australia’s mistake in New Zealand. It has been proven that national awards burden the economy and cost jobs and I hope that Labour and other political parties here will accept that reality and ditch the concept once and for all.”

Shirley’s comments last month are in stark contrast to his public lamentations on Radio NZ.
Not only has the free market failed in one of it’s key tenets – but Shirley is actively opposed to raising wages by any means necessary, to attract skilled, experienced truck drivers.

This should serve as a clear lesson that the innate contradictions of the free market ideology – many of which are little more than articles of faith – will eventually become more and more apparent.


Unfortunately, knowing how the system operates  in this country,  it will takes catastrophic events with several tragic deaths, before the government acts on this growing problem.
That’s how we roll in New Zealand.

Over bodies.

.

.


(Acknowledgement: Frankly Speaking, David M. and Tumeke)

References
Wikipedia: Ken Shirley
ACT NZ: Welfare and family
ACT NZ: Minimum wage hike whacks regional employers
Parliament: Current MPs – David Seymour
Parliament: Salaries payable under section 8 of Members of Parliament
Radio NZ: The Panel with Peter Elliott and Susan Guthrie
Good Reads: Milton Friedman
Investopedia: Breaking down ‘Demand For Labor’
Scoop media: Government imposed remuneration orders have no place in NZ
NZ Herald: Tourist dies in logging truck crash near Matamata
Additional
Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal: About road safety remuneration orders

Ken Shirley is not a judge, he's a former Act Party list MP now working as a paid lobbyist for corporate interests in the transport industry - as if we haven't got enough carnage on the roads in the muriwhenua with all the logging truck crashes etc.

Dun Mihaka is a former candidate for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum to the Act Party,
.
We are issuing a wero for the recusal of Ken Shirley for the third time, citing the comments published in the Herald (above).  This time it's indisputable that Ken Shirley must be recused!

Gordon Holmes v Police and Housing NZ Corporation:

Below are four published decisions of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding complaints from Gordon Holmes.  These decisions illustrate the futility of making complaints through a flawed system to a faulty and ineffective Tribunal which is a waste of taxpayers' money and a damning indictment on the colonial "justice system".

These decisions are relevant to the manner in which the Tribunal is dealing with Te Ringa Mangu (Dun) Mihaka, the complaints bear remarkable similarity - they refer to information sharing between Police and Housing NZ Corporation and unfair policies and practices, and both include the involvement of General Counsel Karaka Tuhakaraina and raise serious questions regarding the integrity and competence of Karaka Tuhakaraina and the Tribunal.

The decisions are a damning indictment on the imbalance and disconnection from reality infecting the echelons of colonial legislative and judicial power.  From the report of the Privacy Commissioner:

The decision below is interesting for several reasons, no the least is the fact that the Chairperson of the Tribunal recused himself in response to Mr Holmes expressing in "somewhat frank terms, dissatisfaction with the way in which he considers the previous Chairperson of the tribunal conducted the first proceedings held at Dunedin on 15 June 2009.":

Paragraph 39 is particularly poignant:

This matter started when Housing NZ Corporation implemented a policy of closing their offices and forcing clients to phone a call centre - assuming their homeless clients have phones.

About three months after implementing the decision the government made an abrupt about turn.

This "Mr Bean" type management resulted in Housing NZ Corporation losing Mr Holmes's letter, but General Counsel and the designated Privacy Officer for Housing New Zealand Corporation, Karaka Tuhakaraina, the only witness called by Housing New Zealand Corporation, 

 



Readers of the Privacy Commissioner's blog can view the official spin doctored success story - Mr Holmes was awarded the grand sum of $400 after his claim for $20,000 was refused.  Let's have some transparency into the remuneration paid to Mr Haines, Ms Gilchrist, Ms Scott, Ms Paterson, Mr Tuhakaraina and the staff of Housing New Zealand Corporation and an objective evaluation of the performance of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.



Here is the decision regarding the matter of the Department of Corrections and their medical treatment and record keeping, which is a damning indictment on the care of prisoners in this country, and the outrageous incompetence of prison staff regarding this man's medication and treatment and the standard of information recording, which was described by an expert witness as demonstrating "a level of incompetence to a standard that is professionally embarrassing", and not only did it fall below acceptable standards, but that "the nursing care in relation to safe medical administration was a severe departure from the expected standards."