4 October 2008.

Rt Hon Helen Clark,
Prime Minister,
Parliament Buildings,
Wellington,
New Zealand. Emailed, hard copy to follow by Post.

Dear Prime Minister,

Re, Attorney General Failed in His Duties

Why is it, the Crown could increase Te Roroa's compensation from $9.5 million to $15.5 million, but were unable to pay Mr Allan Titford any compensation when the Crown acquired his land using "corrupt" documents and procedures to settle this "alleged" claim? This breaches the Treaty of Waitangi, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Article 7 and 8 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it discriminates against Mr Titford and his right to fair and just compensation.

Te Roroa were given joint legal title to this land with Parore te Awha in 1876, but both decided to sell it to the Crown on a "willing seller/willing buyer" basis on the 8 February 1876. The Deed of Conveyance showing the areas sold and the one reserve "Taharoa" given to Parore. Since this time, many "legal" inquires have been held, all found this was a "legal" sale without any further reserves.

After many "legal" sales over 110 years, Mr Titford became the "legal" owner of this land with a "freehold title" issued by the Crown, therefore he must also be entitled to fair and just compensation under the Treaty of Waitangi, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Article 7 and 8 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, when it was acquired by the Crown to settle Te Roroa's "alleged" claim.

It was only when the Crown, without one documents of evidence, signed an "Agreed Statement of Fact" with Te Roroa in 1990, that gave the Waitangi Tribunal no other option than to falsify evidence to enable it to recommend this land be returned to Te Roroa.

From this time on, the Crown and its Ministers and officials have lied to the people of New Zealand to allow this claim to proceed, but no more so than the Maori Affairs Select Committee, who heard the Submissions into this claim, lied to Parliament to allow it to proceed.

In the case of the Attorney General's responsibility, a Select Committee made up of Te Roroa-linked individuals carrying heavily biased opinions against the interests of the Titfords and Harrisons, should have led to intervention of the Attorney General.

Not only was Mr Titford discriminated against in being refused fair and just compensation, the Crown has admitted this was only an "alleged" claim and the Maori Affairs Select committee was a "racially biased" committee (8 Maori - 1 European) consisting of people related to the claimants or with a vested interest who misled Parliament on many occasions for this Bill to proceed, a fact that has been brought to the Prime Minister's and Attorney General's attention many times. Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Attorney General failed in his duties to the people of New Zealand.

Below are the duties of an Attorney General.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Commenced: 25 Sep 1990
I: General Provisions
7 Attorney-General to report to Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights

7. Attorney-General to report to Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights---Where any Bill is
introduced into the House of Representatives, the Attorney- General shall,---
(a) In the case of a Government Bill, on the introduction of that Bill; or
(b) In any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill,---

bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights.

Dr Cullen failed his duty as the Attorney General, "To bring the House of Representatives any provisions in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights". Being Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations as well as Attorney General, there is no denying he would have known there were "inconsistencies in this Bill".

It is a concern to the One New Zealand Foundation Inc, that as well as being Attorney General, Dr Cullen is also Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations. This is a conflict of interests. There is no denying that Dr Cullen and the Prime Minister have been in favour of this Bill being passed for many months, therefore there is no doubt, this was the reason Dr Cullen failed to bring to the House of Representatives, the inconsistencies in this Bill. Dr Cullen and the Prime Minister closed a blind eye to allow this "corrupt" Bill to proceed.

Before this Bill is given its "Royal Assent", there must be an inquiry into the failure of the Attorney General to uphold his duties to the people of New Zealand under the Treaty of Waitangi, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Article 7 and 8 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yours sincerely,

Ross Baker.

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

cc. Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem.
Governor General, The Honourable Anand Satyanand

This letter will appear on the One New Zealand Foundation Inc website