Maori Land Court and Appellate Court
In re Proprietors of Te Uranga B2 Block
Aotea MB, 19 October. 1995 Savage J
An incorporation applied under s358/1993 for an order that 401 hectares of land be reclassified as investment land. Section 358 provides that incorporations may apply to have lands acquired after their establishment reclassified as investment lands, and their status changed to general land, freeing them from the restrictions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. At the suggestion of the court when the application was first raised, the incorporation passed a special resolution supporting the application by roughly 2 shares to one. The incorporation also applied to have its objects made unlimited under s358A/1993.
Held: under the 1993 Act incorporation land is no longer owned by an incorporation except as trustee, the land belonging to the beneficial owners who are shareholders. The effect of an order under s358 is that the investment land is removed from the trust and the incorporation becomes the sole owner, the beneficial owners lose their interest and merely retain incorporation shares in relation to that land. The committee of management of the incorporation may then alienate the land as they see fit. This is a serious step as it takes away rights from owners, their descendants and members of the preferred classes of alienees. Prima facie such an order runs counter to the objects of the 1993 Act but can be justified as the land is acquired after the formation of the incorporation and is not taonga tuku iho, although the owners may still have important links with it. Unfortunately there was no clear statement here of what the land meant to the owners.
Neither the resolution, the accompanying notice and statements explaining the resolution, or minutes of the meeting to consider the special resolution indicated that the owners had been made aware that they had rights which would be extinguished by a s358 order and that the land would cease to be Maori land. The court was reluctant to make an order where those two points had not been made clear, and there was not "substantial support well in excess of the majority" in favour of the application. This was a situation quite foreign to the general law of Aotearoa, allowing an owner of an interest in land to have that interest taken, perhaps even against their express wishes. The incorporation is kaitiaki for the owners, and the court will not change the status of Maori land or take away owners interests lightly. A majority voting for the conversion to investment land is significant but the rights of the minority are also important (s17(2)(d)/1993). Leave was given to make a further application after a fresh approach had been made to the owners.
As to the application to have the objects of the incorporation made unlimited, Parliament had not intended that incorporations established before the 1993 Act should automatically have their objects made unlimited, otherwise it would not have given a discretion to the court. The incorporation was well managed and financially sound. It was keen to use its assets as a base for financial ventures off the incorporation lands. Accordingly, the court ordered that the objects be redefined to conform with s353(a)-(b)/1993 but subject to the limitation that no activity conducted off the corpus land should involve the pledging or mortgaging of that land or otherwise encumbering it for the purposes of security.
Turangi Township Report 1995
11 September 1995. GS Orr (presiding officer), IH Kawharu, HR Young, EM Stokes
In 1963 the Crown had developed detailed plans for the Tongariro Power Development scheme, involving the collection of waters from catchments in the central plateau region of the North Island and the construction of 2 power stations, one being at Tokaanu on the shores of Lake Taupo. The Ngati Turangitukua hapu of Ngati Tuwharetoa owned lands in this area. Four sites were identified by Crown officials for a town to accommodate workers for the scheme. While only a temporary town was required, the Crown preferred to build a permanent township, and favoured a site on Maori owned land over other sites on Crown owned land.
In May 1964 a first meeting was held with the owners and the township proposal was outlined. Undertakings were given that full compensation would be provided for lands taken. The proposal was endorsed in principle by the meeting. A further meeting with owners (as opposed to meetings with individuals and a liaison committee) was held on 20 September 1964. The following day Cabinet approved the construction of the TPD and the compulsory taking of 900 acres and lease of 200 acres of Ngati Turangitukua land. Ten days later bulldozers began entering the township site, operating on tight deadlines to develop the area.
Implied power to enter the land was provided by Order in Council under s311 Public Works Act 1928 giving authority to construct all necessary works in connection with the utilization of water power and with no provision for prior notice or objections. In December 1964 the Turangi Township Act provided for a form of local government for the township, but without specific representation for Maori owners (although Maori practically did participate), and in a section added to cover legal concerns (s11), empowered the Crown to take by proclamation, again without notice or right of objection, 1540 acres and then sell it privately for the purpose of a permanent town. In 1965 the first gazette notices taking the land appeared.
It was doubtful whether the Crown had the legal authority to enter onto Maori land under s311 Public Works Act 1928 or s11 of the Turangi Township Act 1964 (which referred to s311) before lands were taken by proclamation, and prior notification of entry may have been a legal requirement (as opposed to some verbal then written notification which was voluntarily given). The engineering work on the ground proceeded far ahead of legal and clerical work required to complete procedures for Crown proclamations taking land or to begin negotiations on compensation for the owners.
Many of the more than 20 undertakings given by the Crown at the meetings of owners were not honoured either in part or in whole. Although the Crown undertook that no more than 800-1000 acres would be taken, 1665 acres were eventually taken. An assurance that 186 acres required for industrial development would be leased and not acquired was broken. There was a failure "in numerous instances" to protect waahi tapu. There had also been problems with a water supply reserve, water reticulation to some dwellings, river development works and some degradation of waterways and fishing areas.
The sovereignty gained by the Crown under article 1 is limited by the guarantee of rangatiratanga and other matters under article 2. This limited sovereignty does not create a constitutional problem, as few if any western governments enjoy unqualified sovereign power (membership of international organisations being one example). The Crown may override article 2 guarantees only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort in the national interest. The Ngai Tahu Ancillary Claims Report 1995 expressed the provisional view that the power of compulsory acquisition of Maori land for a public work be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and as last resort in the national interest. A lesser test is insufficient. Court of Appeal comments that Treaty principles cannot place "unreasonable restrictions" on the right of an elected government to follow its policy (NZ Maori Council case) do not justify a lesser test. The Crown obligation according to the Court of Appeal is 'active protection to the fullest extent reasonably practicable'. While conservation may be one of these exceptional circumstances, there is a critical difference between legislation providing for the control and management of resources and that providing for their expropriation.
The tribunal rejected a Crown contention that it apply other than present Treaty standards to actions in the past. It also could find no evidence to support a Crown contention that the claimants had revised over the intervening years the value (apart from inflationary adjustment) they placed on land and waahi tapu. Nor did it find helpful the submission that the onus of proof lay entirely on the claimants. The tribunal is not a court but a commission of inquiry and looks to all parties to assist in completing its inquiry. Nor should contemporary documentation be given automatic preference over the personal recollections of those involved.
The provisions of the 'draconian' 1928 and 1964 Acts were tantamount to a "unilateral abrogation" of article 2 rights in that they allowed Maori land to be compulsorily acquired, and without a legal requirement of prior consultation or notice. Although the Public works Act 1981 amends some of these matters, it still fails to acknowledge Crowns obligations as a partner under the Treaty. The Crown was under an obligation to ensure no other land was available for the township, give consideration to gaining a leasehold rather than freehold, and ensure that there was provision for the return of any land no longer required for the public work. Consequently, there had been a failure:
- to adequately investigate alternative sites or assess the likely social or environmental impact;
- to give adequate consideration to the desirability of protecting rangatiratanga by acquiring the leasehold rather than the freehold of lands for the township and water supply reserve;
- to make provision in the 1928 and 1964 acts for the return of surplus lands at least cost and inconvenience to former Maori owners. While the 1981 Act makes provision for an offer back, it is inconsistent with Treaty principles in that it allows the Crown in certain circumstances to dispense with an offer back, without consultation with the former owners, and to set the offer back at market rates, without taking full account of the detriment of the original taking. It also allows the Crown to retain the full profit from the sale;
- the Crown failed to consult fully with the owners about the land to be taken for the township before it was taken;
- apart from a few notable exceptions, it failed, during construction of the township, to treat Ngati Turangitukua with the respect due to them as tangata whenua. In particular there was a failure to recognise and protect the sensibilities of kaumatua;
- there was a failure to keep Turangitukua properly informed about government intentions and actions as the township was developed;
- there was also a failure to honour undertakings that waahi tapu would be protected, by the adoption of a reactive rather than proactive approach to protection;
- there was a failure to act upon the high importance owners placed on conservation matters, leading to some degradation of waterways and fishing, and increased flooding;
- inadequate consultation led to a failure to mitigate the adverse social repercussions and trauma of the development.
The 1928 Act failed to provide adequate compensation for the takings. Having chosen to take ancestral land and disperse claimants from it, there was a heavy obligation on the Crown to treat the people generously. Because of poor consultation, Turangitukua could not be said to have been willing sellers. There was also a failure to consider preserving a sufficient economic base of land for Turangitukua.
The tribunal endorsed the view of the Ngai Tahu Ancillary Claims Report 1995 that before any compulsory acquisition of Maori land can occur, Treaty principles require that:
- owners are given adequate notice and the Crown must seek to obtain informed consent by full consultation;
- if the owners are unwilling to sell, the compulsory acquisition power might be used only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort in the national interest;
- a lease or interest less than the freehold should be sought, and on terms to be agreed or determined by arbitration. If it is felt that the freehold must be acquired, that question should be determined by an independent body.
This tribunal added the requirement that the Crown not seek Maori land without first ensuring no other suitable land is available.
The Public Works Act 1981 should be amended to take account of these requirements, and it should also provide that for lands taken and later found to be surplus to requirements:
- the Maori owners be consulted where there is any intention not to offer the land back to the former owners;
- any offer back should be at the earliest possible opportunity and at least cost and inconvenience to the former owners;
- when setting an offer back price, provision should be made to; share with the former owners the increased value arising from development of the land, have regard to the means of the former owners to take up the offer, have regard to circumstances surrounding the original compulsory acquisition, and the special problems of multiple ownership;
- an offer back to a wider hapu or tribal group to which the former owners belong should be possible if the former owners are unable or unwilling to purchase;
The 1981 Act should also be amended to provide that the Act be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
As to the Turangitukua grievances, the tribunal recommended direct negotiation with the Crown, with the possibility of a further hearing on remedies if either or both of the parties request it.
[ed: most previous tribunal reports have dealt with the actions of persons long dead, or with events in the immediate past. This report deals with events a little over 30 years ago and many of the persons criticised in the report are still alive. The tribunal did not hear directly from the government officials involved at the time, and the report has been criticised in the media on that basis.
This is the second report in 1995 to express strong views about the limits which ought to be placed on compulsory acquisition of Maori land. This is linked to a notion which the report develops of 'sovereignty limited by the Treaty'. The tribunal says that while there is an obvious case for the Crown to override article 2 guarantees in order to conserve endangered species and limited natural resources, interference with rangatiratanga over Maori land for social and economic planning purposes is a different matter, and moreover, a constitutional one. The implications of this are far reaching.]
New Waitangi Tribunal member
John (Hone Te Kauru) Clarke has been appointed a member of the Waitangi Tribunal. He has Ngati Porou and Nga Puhi tribal affiliations and is 53 years of age. He was the Race Relations Conciliator from 1992-1995. He has also been the manager of Human Resources in the Department of Justice, Chief Executive of Manatu Maori from 1989 to 1991 and principal of Wellington High School and Community Institute from 1986 to 1989. In 1991 he was a Crown negotiator in discussions to settle the Ngai Tahu claim.
Memorandum following 8th hearing of Ngati Awa and other claims of the eastern Bay of Plenty
Wai 46 & Others, 27 September 1995. GS Orr for the tribunal
In this memorandum the tribunal considered whether it had power to make findings on the legality of Crown actions taken under the NZ Settlements Act 1863 confiscating large areas of Maori land in the Bay of Plenty. The tribunal determined that it does have jurisdiction, in appropriate circumstances, to determine questions of the legality of Crown action, and this included actions under the 1863 legislation relating to these claims.
The tribunal also made comments about its powers under s6(3) to consider remedies for well founded claims. It noted the preliminary view of some members that this includes the ability to consider the present and future needs of tribes rather than simply making an accounting for past loss. Also, assessing past loss solely on the basis of those actually in occupation of land at the time it was expropriated may fail to take into account other important values of Maori culture eg associational interests of those not in occupation.
Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu Ltd v Attorney-General & Others
CP 199/95 HC Wellington, 3 October 1995. Doogue J
The plaintiff sought an interim order by way of declaration that the Crown and Land Corporation agencies not permit any change in the present status of certain lands within the Ngai Tahu rohe. The basic concern was that no Crown land owned by a Crown agency such as a State-owned Enterprise (SOE) should pass from Crown control or ownership until the principal Ngai Tahu claim is settled. Discussions between the parties had reduced the properties concerned to those where there were no current offers to buy the lands.
Held: the Court of Appeal decision in the NZ Maori Council case ( 1 NZLR 641) resulted in s27 State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 being amended to provide that the existence of any claim under s6 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 does not prevent the transfer of land out of Crown or SOE hands, and ss27A-27D provided for titles to such lands to carry memorials providing for compulsory return to Maori claimants if the Waitangi Tribunal recommended it. The critical issue was whether this statutory regime sufficiently protected the plaintiff s interests pending determination of the substantive proceeding and the plaintiff s land claims.
The plaintiffs argued that various problems of a legal, political and human nature could arise which would not allow the protective mechanism of ss27A-D to operate in the simple way the Crown contended. A third party land owner could seek to avoid an application for compulsory return. A purchaser of land, because of the existence of the memorial, could run it down rather than improve it. It was not clear whether vacant possession would pass on resumption of the land by Maori where a third party purchaser had granted a lease either long-term or in perpetuity. Also, where many properties were involved, Ngai Tahu might have considerable difficulty persuading the Waitangi Tribunal to make all the necessary orders for return. Litigation in this respect was pending (CP 215/95 Wellington Registry see Maori LR Sept 1995). It was also argued that ss27A-D were passed with the expectation that claims would be dealt with promptly, the failure of the Crown to sufficiently fund the tribunal meant there was no certainty the plaintiff s claim would be dealt with in the reasonably forseeable future.
This was an application for interim relief. The balance favoured the plaintiffs, who arguably could be prejudiced through a failure to make the interim order sought. The status quo was in favour of a situation where the Landcorp lands remained not subject to sale. The presence of a land bank in favour of Ngai Tahu was not relevant. Once land was sold by Landcorp it was outside the immediate control of the Crown who would have to resort to the statutory scheme and powers under the Public Works Act 1981 to resume it, which made future problems 'almost inevitable'. The longer the delays in dealing with the plaintiff's claim the greater these inevitable problems would become.
An undertaking by the plaintiffs as to damages would not be required in respect of the interim order as, for example, the parties might in the meantime agree to alter the parcels of land the subject of the interim order.
[ed: although affecting only 37 properties in the South Island, this is a significant decision, suggesting that the court might, at the substantive hearing, accept that practical difficulties have overwhelmed the original intent of the resumptive scheme in some regions.]
Faulkner v Tauranga District Council
AP 29/94, 8 September 1995. Blanchard J
The appellant held a lease over just over 12.5 hectares of land vested in a s438/1953 trust. The district council successfully sued for rates. The appellant appealed on the basis that the land was Maori customary land, which is exempt from rates under s182(1) Rating Powers Act 1988.
Held: the land at issue had been continuously occupied for centuries, and the Ngaiterangi iwi had title by right of conquest prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. Ngaiterangi fought alongside Kingitanga followers at Tauranga and surrendered to the Crown in 1864. At a meeting with the Governor in August 1864 the mana or authority to decide the fate of the land was placed at the discretion of the Governor. He exercised that discretion by agreeing with the iwi not to confiscate more than one quarter of Ngaiterangi's land. An Order in Council in May 1865 confiscated Ngaiterangi lands under the NZ Settlements Act 1863. The Tauranga District Lands Act 1867 validated the confiscation and mentioned the agreement with the iwi, leaving it to the Governor to set apart lands for Ngaiterangi within the confiscation after "due inquiry". It was not until 1885 however that a Native Land Court judge, HW Brabant, acting as Commissioner of Tauranga Lands, issued a certificate of title for a block, Ohuki No 1, including the land now in dispute. In 1888 Brabant, acting now as a Native Land Court judge, issued a succession order for one of the former owners in Ohuki No 1 under the Native Land Court Act 1886.
The Native Land Court Act 1894 provided that "customary land" included all land held under Maori customs and usages whose title had been ascertained by the court or "other duly-constituted authority", and that all such land was held in fee simple and subject to the Land Transfer Act. This position was preserved by subsequent legislation in 1909, 1931 and 1953.
The land block the subject of this case was created by partition orders affecting Ohuki No 1 in 1914 and 1921. The s438 trust order made in 1972 described the land as Maori freehold land. In 1986 the District Land Registrar issued a title stating that the trustees held a fee simple estate in the land.
While the Rating Powers Act 1988 does not define Maori customary land, it is unlikely Parliament intended that phrase when used in the Act to mean other than the term as defined in the then Maori Affairs Act 1953 and now Te Ture Whenua Maori 1993 (the difference in the wording of the definition between the 1953 and 1993 Acts does not appear to be significant).
Customary land in the 1953 Act is land the ultimate or allodial title of which is, as with all NZ land, vested in the Crown, but in respect of which Maori continue to have a customary title recognised by the common law and confirmed by Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi - R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 387 and Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Officer  1 NZLR 680. It was noted however that Crown land as defined under the Land Act 1948 specifically excludes Maori customary land. Customary or aboriginal title is a burden on the Crown s feudal title which can be extinguished only by means of a deliberate Act authorised by law and unambiguously directed towards that end. Unless there is specific statutory provision, customary title remains even where the Executive grants land to someone other than the customary owners, Nireaha Tamaki v Baker (1901) NZPCC 37. Customary title does not disappear by a side wind. Extinguishment must be plainly intended, as Mabo v The State of Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 64 and Te Weehi demonstrate. But neither of these cases dealt with the effect on customary title where land is brought under the Torrens system and an indefeasible fee simple title issued.
Neither the differing decisions of the Privy Council in Kapua Haimona  AC 761 and Te Paea v Tareha  AC 56 as to the effect of proclamations and orders in council under the NZ Settlements Act 1863, nor the fact that the Order in Council of May 1865 did not refer to land being "taken", nor the issue of a commissioner's certificate rather than a Crown grant, could defeat the clear words of the Tauranga District Lands Act 1867 that the whole of the Tauranga District was taken for settlement. Consequently the customary title was extinguished. When Ngaiterangi had the Ohuki lands later restored to them the commissioner's certificate was equivalent to an order of the Native Land Court. The Native Land Court Act 1894 also confirmed that customary land included lands where the owners had been ascertained by a duly constituted authority, in this case the commissioner, and placed them under the Land Transfer Act as fee simple estates. While In re Rotomahana and Taheke Blocks (1909) 24 NZLR 203 did suggest that some provisions of the 1894 Act were purely registrarial in effect, it did not contradict the above conclusion. This was confirmed in the case of A-G v Ruritana (1909) 24 NZLR 228.
Where land is held by way of an estate in fee simple, especially where title is registered under the Land Transfer Act, the title must be regarded as one derived from the Crown. It is impossible to say that such a title is merely Crown recognised and continues, so far as the fee simple owners are concerned, to be held according to custom. This is supported by comments in Te Paea v Tareha p65. This does not however prevent the registered proprietors holding the land beneficially for an iwi or a section of an iwi. The rights of the beneficial owners may continue to be governed by custom. Comments made by Sir John Salmond in the introduction to the Native Land Act 1909 about the intent of the Native Land Court Acts of 1886 and 1894 also supported this conclusion.
Accordingly, the council was entitled to recover rates from the land.
[ed: the Rating Powers Act 1988 also provides at s182 that on the recommendation of the Maori Land Court and with the consent of the relevant district council, the Governor-General may exempt Maori freehold land from rates. Over 1500 hectares in the Ruapehu district have recently been exempted under this provision - see NZ Gazette 5 October 1995 p3511.]
Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995
19 October 1995
Changes by the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee and government before the final reading included:
- changing references to "Waikato-Tainui" to "Waikato";
- insertion of a Maori translation of the preamble;
- an amended reference to the Sim Commission;
- including 2 further claims in the list of claims covered by the settlement, and adding considerably to the list of claims not affected by the settlement most notably claims of Hauraki groups;
- tightening up of references to Hauraki interests in Maramarua lands covered by the settlement to better secure those interests;
- requiring the Tainui Maori Trust Board to file final accounts before dissolution;
- adding several properties to the list of properties within the settlement area where resumptive memorials will remain on the title;
- adding provisions amending the Public Works Act 1981 to allow for solatium or consolation payments to be made to persons who, but for Waitangi Tribunal recommendations or legislation, would have been entitled to an offer back of land compulsorily taken. In determining the amount of any solatium payment the Land Valuation Tribunal is to have regard to, among other things, the likelihood of the former owner being financially able to accept an offer back and the degree of attachment the former owner has to the land, in particular by having been associated with it for a long time.
[ed: pressure from several farmers who would have been entitled to an offer back resulted in the amendments to the Public Works Act. These amendments are not limited to the Tainui settlement but apply toall situations where the Waitangi Tribunal or Parliament orders the return to Maori of land taken under the Public Works Act. It is ironic to see that the owners' attachment to the land must be taken into account in determining the value of any solatium payment. This amendment was forced on the government because it did not otherwise have the majority to pass the measure. The select committee rejected a submission from the Tainui Maori Trust Board to have marginal strips excluded from the settlement. The Queen will give her royal assent to the legislation when she visits in November.]
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1995
No 54. 3 October 1995
Sections 6 to 12 of this Act provide for the creation and operation of a Ngati Whakaue Education Endowment Trust Board to manage former Ngati Whakaue lands that have for many years been an education endowment for the benefit of local high schools. Ngati Whakaue representatives (from the Pukeroa-Oruawhata trust) have 6 positions on the 11 member board.
Second Interim Report of the Maori Affairs Committee (Maori Education Authority)
I-9C. Hon KT Wetere (chair), P Gardiner, T H‰nare, M Laws, Hon G Lee, S Lee, Hon R McLay, T Ryall, Hon TWM Tirikatene-Sullivan
In April 1989 the Maori Affairs Select Committee resolved to conduct an inquiry into Maori education. The major recommendation of this report is that Te Puni Kokiri in consultation with the Ministry of Education and other groups co-ordinate an investigation into the benefits of developing a Maori education authority. In its first report the committee dealt with resources for promotion of Te Reo and recommended removing the cap on Maori Language Factor Funding and greater input from the Maori community into the development and implementation of accountability and monitoring mechanisms for this funding (I9A).
Hepatitis B Screening Programme for Maori. Report of the Maori Affairs Committee
I-9B. Hon KT Wetere (chair), P Gardiner,T Henare, M Laws, Hon G Lee, S Lee, Hon R McLay, T Ryall, Hon TWM Tirikatene-Sullivan
Of 40,000 carriers of this virus, 18,000 are estimated to be Maori. Complications from it can be fatal. This report records a sorry and cautionary tale of inaction over the problem. Under the Health and Disability Services Act 1993, regional health authorities (RHAs) are required to consult with the community and take the special needs of Maori into account. This very requirement appears to have allowed the RHAs, the Ministry of Health and Te Puni Kokiri to disregard mounting concern expressed by the Hepatitis Foundation that a screening programme was urgently required and insist that nothing more than community education programmes about the disease were needed. The select committee recommended, among other matters, that a screening programme be established as soon as practicably possible.
Focus on Employment. The Government's response to the Employment Task Force and the Multi-Party Group Memorandum of Understanding
19 October 1995
Apart from receiving improved assistance through the extension of "Job Action" and "Youth Action" schemes (providing intensive personal assistance to long term and youth unemployed) and by changed benefit abatement rates for those on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, the government has developed a Maori Labour Market Strategy. This combines immediate measures such as re-establishment of the Wahine Pakiri scheme (providing business training to Maori women) and limited subsidies to communities to undertake development of Maori-owned assets, with education initiatives to reduce unemployment over the longer term.
Draft Minerals Programmes
Energy & Resources Division Ministry of Commerce. September 1995
Separate draft programmes have been publicly notified (30 September 1995) for Coal, Industrial Rocks and Building Stones, and Metallic and Non-Metallic Minerals, pursuant to s14 Crown Minerals Act 1991. All 3 draft programmes, in accordance with s4/1991 (principles of the Treaty be taken into account when powers are exercised) provide that consultation occur in the preparation of each minerals programme, and before any prospecting, exploration or mining permits are issued or extended. Mount Taranaki and associated Pouakai, Pukeiti and Kaitake ranges are excluded from the programmes in recognition of their importance to Maori. The draft programme for Metallic and Non-Metallic Minerals notes the government policy that in view of ongoing discussions to settle Ngai Tahu claims, no permits will be available for pounamu. Consultation hui have already been held over these draft programmes. An iwi discussion document on the programmes is available on request. Submissions are required before 27 November 1995.