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
No comments:
Post a Comment