DOCSLIB.ORG

NZCA 680 BETWEEN NGĀTI TE ATA Appellant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NZCA 680 BETWEEN NGĀTI TE ATA Appellant IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA547/2017 [2019] NZCA 680 BETWEEN NGĀTI TE ATA Appellant AND MINISTER FOR TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS First Respondent HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Second Respondent NGĀTI TAMAOHO SETTLEMENT TRUST Third Respondent REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND Fourth Respondent Hearing: 27 August 2019 (further submissions received 22 October 2019) Court: Clifford, Courtney and Wild JJ Counsel: J P Kahukiwa for Appellant S M Kinsler and T R Simpson for First and Second Respondents T T Kapea for Third Respondent No appearance for Fourth Respondent Judgment: 19 December 2019 at 4 pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant is to pay one set of costs to the first and second respondents for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. ____________________________________________________________________ NGĀTI TE ATA v MINISTER FOR TREATY OF WAITANGI NEGOTIATIONS [2019] NZCA 680 [19 December 2019] REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Clifford J) Introduction [1] For some years now, the Crown has been in the process of endeavouring to settle the historical Treaty claims of the iwi of Tāmaki Makaurau. That process has been controversial. In particular, a 2006 agreement in principle between the Crown and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei was seen by other iwi as inimical to their interests and contrary to the Crown’s Treaty obligations to them. As part of resolving that controversy the Crown entered into a settlement deed with the group of iwi known as the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau collective (the Collective). The Crown subsequently legislated for that settlement pursuant to the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 (the Collective Redress Act). [2] Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho are both iwi of Tāmaki Makaurau, and as such part of the overall settlement process with the Crown and members of the Collective. [3] In April 2017, the Minister of Treaty Settlements gave notice that two properties previously designated right of first refusal (RFR) land pursuant to the Collective Redress Act for commercial redress for the Collective and its members were required for the settlement of Ngāti Tamaoho’s claim and the properties would therefore no longer be RFR land. A sale and purchase agreement was executed the same day.1 [4] Ngāti Te Ata unsuccessfully challenged the legality of that action in the High Court. Whata J found, contrary to the Crown’s position, that action was justiciable.2 But it was — in a judicial review sense and on the basis challenged — lawful. Ngāti Te Ata now appeals. 1 Transfer of the properties was delayed pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings. We understand that transfer of the properties has since taken place. 2 Ngāti Te Ata v Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations [2017] NZHC 2058. The High Court decision [5] Section 3 of the Collective Redress Act records its purpose: 3 Purpose of Act The purpose of this Act is to give effect to certain provisions of the collective deed, which provides shared redress to the iwi and hapū constituting Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau, including by— (a) restoring ownership of certain maunga and motu of Tāmaki Makaurau to the iwi and hapū, the maunga and motu being treasured sources of mana to the iwi and hapū; and (b) providing mechanisms by which the iwi and hapū may exercise mana whenua and kaitiakitanga over the maunga and motu; and (c) providing a right of first refusal regime in respect of certain land of Tāmaki Makaurau to enable those iwi and hapū to build an economic base for their members. [6] The RFR referred to in s 3(c), over what the Collective Redress Act terms RFR land,3 is held and administered by a limited partnership established by the members of the Collective. The terms of the limited partnership include mechanisms whereby the benefit of the RFR is shared, including by rotation, between the iwi members. [7] RFRs over what can loosely be termed Crown land are a regular feature of modern Treaty settlements. The relevant legislation — here, the Collective Redress Act — typically provides a comprehensive scheme for such rights independently of, but in conjunction with, the normal provisions of the Land Transfer Act 2017. Here, that substance is found in pt 4, sub-pt 1 of the Collective Redress Act. That substance: (a) provides for memorials of the status of RFR land as such to be recorded on the computer registers for such land;4 and (b) establishes comprehensive mechanisms for controls over dealings in RFR land, including pursuant to the RFR itself.5 3 Generally, all Crown land in Tāmaki Makaurau. 4 Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 [Collective Redress Act], ss 148–150. 5 Sections 121–147. [8] Thus, rights in respect of RFR land under the Collective Redress Act exist distinctly from rights in land more generally under the Land Transfer Act. [9] The deed of settlement between the Crown and the Collective provided for RFR land nevertheless to be available for individual Treaty settlements. That agreement no doubt reflected the extent to which the RFR land comprised the bulk of Crown land in Tāmaki Makaurau and hence looked to, by both the Crown and iwi, as land to be used for redress in individual historical settlements.6 As relevant, that deed provides: LAND REQUIRED FOR COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENTS 6.3 The iwi and hapū of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau record their agreement that the RFR is not to apply to any land (including a cultural redress property or land used for financial and commercial redress) that is required for the settling of historical claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, being those relating to acts or omissions of the Crown before 21 September 1991. 6.4 To give effect to that agreement, the Tāmaki Makaurau collective legislation will, as provided by section 119 of the draft bill, provide for the removal of any land required for another Treaty settlement. [10] That agreement is reflected in ss 118 and 120 of the Collective Redress Act. Section 118 of the Collective Redress Act provides that land ceases to be RFR land when notice is given under s 120 that it is required for another Treaty settlement. Section 120 then provides that the Minister of Treaty Negotiations is to give notice to the RFR landowner and the limited partnership under s 120 of the Collective Redress Act when the land is so required: 120 Land required for another Treaty settlement ceasing to be RFR land (1) The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations must, for RFR land required for another Treaty settlement, give notice to both the RFR landowner and the Limited Partnership that the land ceases to be RFR land. (2) The notice may be given at any time before a contract is formed under section 127 for the disposal of the land.[7] 6 There are very helpful, more detailed, discussions of this background in the decisions of both the majority and Elias CJ in Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney-General [2018] NZSC 84, [2019] 1 NZLR 116 [Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei]. 7 Section 127 provides for the disposal of RFR land where the Collective has exercised the right of first refusal. (3) In this section, RFR land required for another Treaty settlement means RFR land that is to be vested or transferred as part of the settling of historical claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, being the historical claims relating to acts or omissions of the Crown before 21 September 1992. [11] Explaining their concern at the Minister’s action, Ngāti Te Ata said the Disputed Properties held deep ancestral meaning and significance for them. They fell within their mana whenua. It was only in the 1950s–1960s that the Crown had become the registered proprietor of the Disputed Properties, following their initial alienation in the nineteenth century. Since that time Ngāti Te Ata had been prohibited from going on to and using and occupying that land. Removing the Disputed Properties from the RFR land would permanently prevent Ngāti Te Ata from using and occupying that land, and hence restoring its mana whenua. It would effect a change to the mana whenua exercised by Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho that was not in accordance with tikanga. To do so would be both ultra vires and unreasonable. [12] It would be ultra vires because the Collective Redress Act implied limitations on the Minister’s powers to dispose of RFR land. Those limitations restricted the Minister from giving a s 120 notice where a mana whenua iwi had objected to the disposal of the land in question to another mana whenua iwi, for reasons of mana whenua, and had taken steps to resolve the matter, as Ngāti Te Ata had done here. [13] It would be unreasonable in those circumstances to decide that such RFR land was required for another Treaty settlement. [14] The Crown defended those claims on the basis that the Collective Redress Act did not imply the pleaded limitations. Rather s 120 meant what it said: it was a notice requirement, and did not confer a veto right on those asserting mana whenua in relation to properties identified for particular settlement. Moreover, the Minister had complied with the requirements of the Collective Redress Act. [15] Similarly, the Crown submitted, the Minister had not acted unreasonably. [16] Whata J characterised the questions before him as:8 (a) Is the decision by the Minister to dispose of the properties for the purpose of an individual Treaty settlement justiciable? (b) Does the Minister have the power to dispose of RFR land for the purpose of an individual Treaty settlement? (c) Is a decision by the Minister to dispose of RFR land for Treaty settlement purposes unreasonable where another mana whenua iwi objects to it and has taken steps to resolve the matter? [17] To answer those questions the Judge comprehensively recorded both the basis upon which Ngāti Te Ata described how it had traditionally exercised mana whenua in the area where the Disputed Properties are located, and the more recent history of Tāmaki Makaurau.9 We gratefully adopt that narrative.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Values and Uses of the Tukituki Catchment
    Te Manaaki Taiao; Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga Cultural Values and Uses of the Tukituki Catchment Final Report May 2012 Prepared for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 5/16/2012 Cultural Values and Uses of the Tukituki River Catchment by Heretaunga Marae/Hapu; Cultural Impact Assessment of the Ruataniwha Water Storage and Makaroro Dam Site Projects on Heretaunga Marae/Hapu Cultural Values and Uses. INDEX MIHI 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... Page 3 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... Page 5 2.1 LOWER TUKITUKI RIVER: HERETAUNGA MARAE/ HAPŪ What, Why, Who, When 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................... Page 6 3.1 CONSULTATION GUIDELINES Consultation Parameters Participants Report Constraints Report Scope Report Timeframe Results Format Context 4 RESULTS .................................................................................... Page 9 4.1 HERETAUNGA ARARAU ......................................................... Page 9 4.1.1 WHAKAPAPA 4.1.2 MARAE/ HAPŪ FEEDBACK – WHAKAPAPA 4.2 HERETAUNGA HAUKUNUI ..................................................... Page16 4.2.1 WAI-AWA 4.2.2 MARAE/ HAPŪ FEEDBACK - WAI-AWA 4.2.3 MAURI ............................................................................ Page 21 4.2.4 MARAE/ HAPŪ FEEDBACK – MAURI 4.2.5 WĀHI TAPU ............................................................................ Page 25 4.2.6 MARAE/ HAPŪ FEEDBACK - WĀHI TAPU 4.3 TE HAARO O TE KAAHU ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Waikato-Tainui Settlement Act: a New High-Water Mark for Natural Resources Co-Management
    Notes & Comments The Waikato-Tainui Settlement Act: A New High-Water Mark for Natural Resources Co-management Jeremy Baker “[I]f we care for the River, the River will continue to sustain the people.” —The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 165 II. THE EMERGENCE OF ADAPTIVE CO-MANAGEMENT ......................... 166 A. Co-management .................................................................... 166 B. Adaptive Management .......................................................... 168 C. Fusion: Adaptive Co-management ....................................... 169 D. Some Criticisms and Challenges Associated with Adaptive Co-management .................................................... 170 III. NEW ZEALAND’S WAIKATO-TAINUI SETTLEMENT ACT 2010—HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...................................... 174 A. Maori Worldview and Environmental Ethics ....................... 175 B. British Colonization of Aotearoa New Zealand and Maori Interests in Natural Resources ............................ 176 C. The Waikato River and Its People ........................................ 182 D. The Waikato River Settlement Act 2010 .............................. 185 Jeremy Baker is a 2013 J.D. candidate at the University of Colorado Law School. 164 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y [Vol. 24:1 IV. THE WAIKATO-TAINUI SETTLEMENT ACT AS ADAPTIVE CO-MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Supplementary
    1 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS FOR: 2 3 CASCADING IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE ON 4 INDIGENOUS CULTURE 5 6 Yletyinen, J., Tylianakis, J.M., Stone, C., Lyver, P.O.B. 7 8 9 10 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS TABLE OF CONTENTS: 11 12 Table S1: Description of values 13 Table S2: Most frequent values and ecosystem elements in the interview coding 14 Table S3: Node degrees in the comprehensive social-ecological value system 15 Table S4: Sensitivity of values and biophysical elements to link weight thresholds 16 17 Figure S1: Ego networks for ecosystem elements with path length two 18 Figure S2: Mean path length distribution of 1000 randomized two-mode networks 19 20 1 21 Table S1. Value descriptions. Key primary and secondary values with descriptions applied to transcripts of interviews with Ngātiwai kaumātua 22 (elders), kaitiaki (environmental guardians) and representatives, Northland, New Zealand. This study examines the secondary values, which have 23 a finer resolution. Primary value set revised from 1 and 2. 24 1° values Abbreviations 2° Values Value descriptions for 2° Values 1. Connection PTA PEOPLE TO ANCESTORS • Whakapapa (genealogy) integral to relationship with ancestors and identity • Whakapapa connects individuals with their ancestors and defines their obligations and relationships to the wider family group and their localized species and environment • Waahi tapu (sacred) sites such as burial grounds known and protected by Ngātiwai • Occupation on the land and sea links the individual with ancestors PTP PEOPLE TO PEOPLE • Whakapapa and strengthening of relationships between whānau (family) and whānaunga (extended family) • Relationships and connections between whānau, hapū (sub- tribe) and Iwi (tribe) • Building community spirit and sense of togetherness • Islands facilitate the whānaungatanga (inter-relatedness) of whānau and community • Open and respectful communications • Ngātiwai networking with other Iwi • Ngātiwai networking with the Crown (NZ government) • Ngātiwai networking with non-government organisations (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Be(Com)Ing' Ngāti Kahungunu in the Diaspora: Iwi Identity and Social
    ‘Be(com)ing’ Ngāti Kahungunu in the Diaspora: Iwi Identity and Social Organisation in Wellington Christina M. González A thesis submitted in fulfilment of a Master of Arts (MA) in Māori Studies Victoria University of Wellington Te Whare Wānanga o te Upoko o te Ika a Māui 2010 Abstract Ngāti Kahungunu is an ideal example to investigate the processes of identity management and socio-political representation within and outside of their traditional tribal territory. It is the third most populous iwi in Aotearoa/New Zealand, with approximately 60,000 members, and boundaries that span from the Wairoa district down to the Wairarapa region. Kahungunu’s complexity and dynamism are not restricted to its territorial boundaries. A large portion of Kahungunu members form expatriate tribal communities located beyond their tribal district. The Wellington region hosts the largest number of Kahungunu members dwelling outside of their tribal territory, as well as the Ngāti Kahungunu Embassy. The Embassy is an organisation which, like many other expatriate Māori tribal bodies, faces the challenges of locating and reaching its tribal members to connect them to their Kahungunu home and heritage, while simultaneously representing their particular, Wellington-specific voices. This thesis explores the ways that Ngāti Kahungunu identities are articulated, maintained and transformed by individuals and institutions in Wellington today, by analysing qualitative interviews with ten Kahungunu men and women, and a case study on the Kahungunu Embassy. Three chapters on iwi identity, home and social organisation illustrate how Kahungunu voices in Wellington can more adequately be heard, and their experiences included, in the tribe, despite their apparent geographic and cultural distance.
    [Show full text]
  • Te Whanganui a Tara Customary Tenure, 1750–1850
    Te Whanganui-a-Tara Customary Tenure 1750-1850 Penny Ehrhardt ( Te Whanganui-a-Tara Customary Tenure 1750-1850 Penny Ehrhardt A Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal December 1992 Waitangi Tribunal Division Department of Justice Wellington Contents Introduction .................................................. 3 1: Literature Survey 1.1 Primary Sources ............................................ 4 1.2 Secoundary Sources ......................................... 5 2: Historical Narrative 2.1 Te Whanganui-a-Tara (Wellington) before 1820 .................. 11 2.1.1 Te Whanganui-a-Tara before Ngati Ira move into the district 11 2.1.2 Ngati Ira ........................................... 10 2.1.3 Two Northern Taua .................................. 12 2.2 Migration of Kawhia and Taranaki tribes to Kapiti ............... 14 2.2.1 Te Rauparaha's decision to migrate south ................ 14 2.2.2 Te Ati Awa join the heke .............................. 15 2.2.3 Response of the Southern Tribes ........................ 16 2.2.4 Waiorua ........................................... 17 2.2.5 Further Heke to the Kapiti Coast ....................... 19 2.3 The Changing Occupation of Te Whanganui-a-Tara .............. 19 2.3.1 Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga move to the region ........ 19 2.3.2 Origins of Ngamotu's claims in Te Whanganui-a-Tara ...... 22 2.3.3 Haowhenua ......................................... 23 2.3.4 Ngati Mutunga leave Te Whanganui-a-Tara .............. 24 2.3.5 Ngati Mutunga's gift ................................. 25 2.3.6 Interests in Te Whanganui-a-Tara between Ngati Mutunga's departure and the arrival of the Tory ........................ 26 2.4 Pakeha involvement in Te Whanganui-Tara ..................... 28 2.4.1 Land made tapu for the Wesleyan Mission ................ 28 2.4.2 New Zealand Company "purchase" ..................... 29 2.4.3 Maori Perceptions of the "sale" ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 3: Explanation to Go with Hard
    Appendix N: Kaitiaki Plan The Kaitiaki Plan with Ngati Te Ata dated 1 March 2011 is appended to this Agreement in accordance with Designation condition 123. Its attachment to this Agreement does not impose contractual obligations on either party and is not intended to alter either party’s rights or obligations under this Agreement. DOC REF 14063992_8 Kaitiaki Plan 16 Kaitiaki Plan Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitu te whenua People come and go, the land remains For the Purpose of the PPP Prison Project at Wiri Ngāti Te Ata 1 March 2011 1 Contents 1. Purpose of the Kaitiaki Plan .............................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Mana whenua and the Wiri site .............................................................................................. 4 1.2 Why a Kaitiaki Plan? ............................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Relationship between this Kaitiaki Plan and the Land Designation (RMA) process ................... 5 2. What's important to us ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Meaningful relationships ......................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Kaitiakitanga outcomes ........................................................................................................... 6 3. Protocols and assumptions guiding engagement .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Iwi Population Spatial Distribution Summary Māori
    NIDEA Brief No. 5 IWI POPULATION SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION September 2015 How do patterns of iwi identification vary by Table 6: Number & distribution of iwi identified and ‘don’t know iwi’ region? In 1996 and in 2013 the largest number populations by Regional Council, 1996 & 2013 of Ma ori descendants reporting at least one iwi Regional Council (RC) Iwi identified population Don't know iwi (%) of lived in Auckland, followed by Waikato, and the Māori Descent1 within RC Bay of Plenty. This is to be expected, given that 1996 2013 1996 2013 Northland Region 34,386 40,287 17.8 13.6 TE AO HURIHURI these regions also have the largest Ma ori Auckland Region 101,361 129,552 22.5 18.4 IWI IDENTIFICATION I N THE CENSUS populations. What about the regional distribution Waikato Region 58,980 73,338 19.5 17.1 of Ma ori who do not know their iwi? Table 6 Bay of Plenty Region 54,018 62,994 14.3 12.2 Gisborne Region 17,250 18,009 9.7 8.1 Tahu Kukutai and Moana Rarere shows that there is tremendous regional Hawke's Bay Region 25,575 29,967 18.8 15.5 variation. In 2013, only 8 per cent of Ma ori living Taranaki Region 11,307 14,919 28.1 23.6 Inside this issue: in the Gisborne region did not know their iwi, Manawatu-Wanganui Region 30,984 36,933 23.8 18.8 Wellington Region 40,872 53,277 19.9 15.9 MĀORI IDENTITY CATEGORIES Māori identity 2 compared to nearly one quarter of Ma ori in the Tasman Region 2,007 3,195 30.6 23.2 categories West Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Tā Te Tumuhere O Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi O Ngāpuhi
    TĀ TE TUMUHERE O TE RŪNANGA-Ā-IWI O NGĀPUHI CEO’s Report Takiwā Te Rōpū Kaumātua Kuia o Te Whare Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi Tapu o Ngāpuhi Te Hau Ora Ō Ngāpuhi Ngāpuhi Iwi Social Services Ngāpuhi Asset Holding (THOON) (NISS) Company Ltd (NAHC) 18 Lorraine Toki Tumuhere – CEO E te Iwi nui tonu o Ngāpuhi, tēnā koutou kātoa. I am proud to stand here before you and present this year’s Annual Report – the year in review. I am especially proud of the way our kaimahi have responded to the challenges we face. We have commenced a journey of change. The steps taken so far have gone some way to resetting our priorities and restoring confidence in our Ngāpuhi whānau. Put simply, our task now is to build on this and nourish these small gains. We need to continue to listen to our Ngāpuhi whānau while at the same time be realistic about what it is we can do and recognise our limitations. With our reach, our footprint, our skills and capabilities, we will be perfectly placed to lead. When I look at our business, I see opportunities. My overriding message is to keep it simple. Too often we complicate things and lose focus on why we are here. CONFRONTING ISSUES IDENTIFYING ISSUES THROUGH A As we embark on this journey of change, we recognise the STRUCTURED PROCESS responsibility and opportunity that comes with the choices we In order to understand and prioritise the issues that matter make. Doing the right thing for Ngāpuhi in a way that supports to our Ngāpuhi whānau and our business the first step is communities and the environment will be crucial to our future considering the following: success.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ngātiwai Mandate Inquiry Report
    Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz T H E N G Ā T I W A I M A N D A T E I N Q U I R Y R E P O R T Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz t h e N g ā t i w a i M a n d a t e I n q u i r y R e p o r t W A I 2 5 6 1 W A I T A N G I T R I B U N A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 7 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz The cover design by Cliff Whiting invokes the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequent interwoven development of Māori and Pākehā history in New Zealand as it continuously unfolds in a pattern not yet completely known National Library of New Zealand Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the National Library of New Zealand ISBN 978-1-86956-327-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-1-86956-328-8 (PDF) www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Typeset by the Waitangi Tribunal Published 2017 by Legislation Direct, Lower Hutt, New Zealand Printed by Printlink, Lower Hutt, New Zealand 21 20 19 18 17 5 4 3 2 1 Set in Adobe Minion Pro and Cronos Pro Opticals Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz HE MIHI KI A TE RANGI KARAITIANA MCGARVEY Tātai whetū ki te rangi, mau tonu, mau tonu Tātai tangata ki te whenua, ngaro noa, ngaro noa Te Tama a Tūhoe Pōtiki, te tama a Ngāti Whakaue Kua ngaro rā koe ki te pū o mahara Kua wahangū te reo whakapākehā
    [Show full text]
  • Muriwhenua Land Report
    MURIWHENUA LAND REPORT WAITANGI TRIBUNAL REPORT 1997 MU RIWHENUA LAND REPORT MURIWHENUA LAND REPORT W A I 45 WAITANGI TRIBUNAL REPORT 1997 G P PUBLICATIONS The cover design by Cliff Whiting invokes the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the consequent interwoven development of Maori and Pakeha history in New Zealand as it continuously unfolds in a pattern not yet completely known A Waitangi Tribunal Report is b n 1-86956-202-x © Crown copyright 1997 Produced by the Waitangi Tribunal Published by GP Publications, Wellington, New Zealand Printed by GP Print, Wellington, New Zealand Set in Times Roman LIST OF CONTENTS Letter of transmittal........................................................................................................ xvii Preface...............................................................................................................................xix Chapter 1: O verview .........................................................................................................1 A summary of the claim and findings Chapter 2: The People and the L a n d ......................................................................... 11 On the nature of the Maori social system and law which conditioned the Maori view of the first land transactions; This law is directed not to property but to relationships between people; Maori and Europeans on first contact 2.1 Initial issues - conflicting laws and contractual mutuality..................................11 2.2 Original occupation.................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Whakatōheaōhea PRE-SETTLEMENT CLAIMS TRUST Pre-Settlement Claims Trust Mandate Strategy 201 4 MANDATE STRATEGY
    WHAKATWhakatŌHEAōhea PRE-SETTLEMENT CLAIMS TRUST Pre-Settlement Claims Trust Mandate Strategy 201 4 MANDATE STRATEGY April 2016 1 | Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The Tū Ake Whakatōhea Collective with the support of the Whakatōhea Maori Trust Board have prepared this comprehensive draft Mandate Strategy and Trust Deed for the proposed Whakatōhea Pre-Settlement Claims Trust to progress treaty negotiations for Te Whakatōhea. This is an acknowledgement to ngā uri, kaumātua, whanau, and hapū who have contributed to the development of these documents to benefit ngā uri katoa o Te Whakatōhea. Contact Name Address Contact Details Graeme Riesterer 122 St John Street, Ōpōtiki E: graeme.riesterer@gmail.com Chairperson Tū Ake Whakatōhea PO Box 207, Ōpōtiki M: (027) 6869362 Collective 2 | Page TABLE OF CONTENTS WHAKATŪWHERA ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 A FRESH APPROACH ......................................................................................................... 7 1.3 TE ARA TONO MO TE RAUPATU ........................................................................................ 7 2 TE KAUPAPA .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 THE PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IN the MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and in THE
    IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF Landuse Consent for the proposed quarry at 971 Fitzherbert East Road, Aokautere, Palmerston North BETWEEN Hoult Contractors Ltd AND Palmerston North City Council and Horizons Regional Council STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF SIOBHAN KARAITIANA REPRESENTING RANGITĀNE O MANAWATŪ November 24, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..…………….….3 Rangitāne o Manawatū Values Statement……………………………………………..…..3 Defining the rights and responsibilities of Rangitāne o Manawatū……………..7 Consultation……………………………………………………………………………….…………….10 Assessment of Effects………………………….…………………………………………………….12 Conditions Proposal…………………………….…………………………………………………….12 Conclusions.………………………………………………………………………….……………………14 Introduction 1. My name is Siobhan Karaitiana. I work in Te Ao Turoa Environmental Centre. I have worked as the principal planner for Rangitāne o Manawatū for three years. 2. I have the following qualifications and experience 2.1 I hold an Honours Degree and Bachelor of Science Degree majoring in Ecology from Massey University, Palmerston North 2.2 I have married into Rangitāne, thus my role is to facilitate Rangitāne in fulfilling their duties as kaitiaki of their rohe within Resource Management. 2.3 I have written a number of Cultural Impact Assessments on behalf of the iwi including a wide range of Subdivision Plan Changes, Te Ahu a Turanga Manawatū- Tararua Highway Project, and the new Pohangina Quarry. 2.4 I provide regular advice to Rangitāne o Manawatū on consenting matters that may impact the values the iwi hold with the environment within the Manawatū and I provide consultation facilitation services. 2.5 I have recently participated in the Designation and Environmental Court proceedings for Te Ahu a Turanga Manawatū- Tararua Highway Project on behalf of Rangitāne o Mananwatū.
    [Show full text]