Judicial review – unlawful delegation of Waitangi Tribunal decisions - Baker v Waitangi Tribunal  NZHC 1176 by Leo H Watson
Judicial review – use of land in a Treaty settlement – Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and others  NZHC 1128 by Leo H Watson
Māori in the seafood sector (fisheries and aquaculture) – the year in review by Justine Inns
Constitutional development and decolonisation in the South Pacific - Professor Tony Angelo from Victoria University of Wellington will deliver the next of our 2014 lunchtime seminars on 31 July 2014 at the Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.]]>
Judicial review – use of land in a Treaty settlement – Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and others  NZHC 1128 by Leo H Watson
Māori in the seafood sector (fisheries and aquaculture) – the year in review by Justine Inns
Download the Māori Law Review June 2014 (480 KB PDF).]]>
Commercial seafood production accounts for around 3.5% of New Zealand’s total national exports, and the Ministry for Primary Industries has estimated $1.51 billion in seafood export earnings for the year ended June 2013. 1 Export markets are diverse, but China has become the sector’s largest single export market in recent years, accounting for more than 20% of earnings and certain to increase in importance for some time yet.
This level of earnings is fairly static compared with preceding years, but seafood export earnings are forecast to increase by an annual average of 4.5%, rising to $1.8 billion by 2016/17. This prediction is based primarily on achieving higher prices and assumes only modest increases in the volume of wild capture and aquaculture that will be exported over the period.
The export volume of wild capture fisheries is only expected to increase by 0.2% per annum, with growth coming from fish stocks that have completed rebuild programmes, and may have higher catch limits set to increase use. It is generally accepted that there is little potential for further growth in wild capture production beyond this.
It is therefore essential to develop new and higher-priced products and markets in order to increase export revenue. Research initiatives, such as the Precision Seafood Harvesting programme, 2 are seen as key to increasing the value of seafood products. The programme began in April 2012 and is focused on developing new harvesting technology to land fish fresher and in better condition. It is jointly funded to the tune of $52 million (over six years) by the country’s three largest fishing companies: iwi-owned Aotearoa Fisheries Limited (AFL), the Sealord Group, and Sanford, as well as the Government’s Primary Growth Partnerships (PGP) fund.
Overall financial results for AFL for the year ended 30 September 2013 are mixed. AFL’s own operations, focused on inshore fishing, pāua, kōura (crayfish), and farming of Pacific Oysters (through its Pacific Marine Farms subsidiary) performed strongly, reporting a gross profit of $14 million; $2 million more than the previous year and 7% above budget.
However, once AFL’s 50% share in Sealord Group was factored in, the picture became less rosy, with Sealord reporting a total loss of $46 million. As a result, AFL reported an overall loss of $6 million, its first loss since the company was formed in 2004. The Māori Fisheries Act 2004 (MFA04) requires AFL to distribute 40% of its net profit to iwi, by way of a dividend. Unsurprisingly, AFL was unable to pay in 2013.
The Sealord loss resulted from the disposal of its interests in Argentinian company, Yuken, after several years of loss on the investment. This was due in part to rampant inflation in Argentina increasing fishing costs by as much as 75% per annum. Low local catches of squid, Southern Blue Whiting, and other pelagic species also contributed to the loss, though total catch across all species exceeded expectation.
In October 2013, AFL, Sealord and Te Ohu Kaimoana (Te Ohu) collaborated to purchase key assets of Auckland-based Anton’s Seafoods Limited, including a large processing facility and a significant package of quota, particularly in the Orange Roughy fishery. The quota package was shared 50/50 between Sealord on the one hand, and AFL and Te Ohu on the other, with the latter package recently offered for sale to iwi wishing to partner with Sealord for a more active involvement in the industry.
Aquaculture comprises only 17% of total seafood exports and suffered declines in both volume and value for the year ended June 2013, although the value of exports from this sector is forecast to increase by an annual average of 6% over the next 3-4 years.
Mussels, oysters and salmon are the three main species farmed in New Zealand, with green-lipped mussels accounting for around three-quarters of the sector’s earnings. Mussels suffered a decline in export volume for a number of reasons, including La Niña weather conditions and drought, while the availability and quality of mussel spat has increasingly constrained development. Another PGP-funded project, SpatNZ, is attempting to address this issue through selective breeding of spat in hatchery conditions. 3
Oyster farmers continue the slow process of recovery from the OsHV-1 virus that hit farms in Northland in 2010, causing the loss of up to 80% of juvenile oysters on some farms, with level of production remaining well below historic highs. This appears to be a worldwide issue, with decreased international production similarly attributable to disease issues. Reduced international supply and strong demand raised export prices, largely offsetting lower volumes.
Similar issues with global salmon supply since 2009 have seen demand for New Zealand-farmed salmon grow strongly. The gruelling experience of The New Zealand King Salmon Company, New Zealand’s largest salmon farmer, in applying for consent to significantly increase their number of farm sites in the Marlborough Sounds (see below), has resulted in some pessimism about the capacity of the sector to expand.
Sadly, late 2013 saw the demise of one of New Zealand’s largest mussel farming companies. Greenshell New Zealand, which had been named Food and Beverage Exporter of the Year by industry group ExportNZ only months earlier, was placed in receivership by its bankers. Iwi-owned mussel farms in the Hauraki Gulf that had been involved in joint ventures with Greenshell were impacted by this receivership, and the ultimate purchase of the bulk of the company’s assets by Sanford marked another stage in the continuing consolidation of the aquaculture industry by a small number of large, vertically-integrated companies.
The Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill continued its slow progress through Parliament in 2013-14. The Bill, introduced in February 2013, is the Government’s response to concerns about employment conditions of crew on foreign-owned and operated vessels chartered by New Zealand companies to fish in New Zealand waters. The primary objective of the Bill is to require all vessels fishing in New Zealand waters after 1 May 2016 to be ‘New Zealand-flagged’ (registered under the Ship Registration Act 1992). In addition, the Bill would significantly expand the role of the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), through new powers and discretions to refuse, suspend, cancel, or place conditions on the registration of vessels under s 103 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (FA96).
The Bill prompted concern that these measures would adversely impact the value of the Fisheries Settlement quota owned by iwi. It was feared that the policy would result in a reduction in the total number of ships in the deepwater fleet (reducing competition to purchase ACE), increased compliance costs and decreased certainty, which would discourage investment. An Iwi Leaders’ Group (ILG) was convened to engage with the Government. While strongly committed to fair employment practices and to maintaining New Zealand’s international reputation, the ILG sought to ameliorate the potential negative impacts of the Government policy.
It seemed that these concerns had been heard and addressed, at least to some extent, when the Primary Production Select Committee reported the Bill back to Parliament on 25 July 2013. 4 The Committee recommended a number of amendments to constrain the powers of the Chief Executive of MPI, by limiting their application to foreign-owned vessels, adding provision for a review and appeals process for those parties affected by a suspension, and removing the power to cancel registration.
The Select Committee considered, but ultimately rejected, industry submissions (supported by the ILG) that advocated an alternative to the re-flagging policy that would see all vessels in New Zealand waters legally “deemed” to be operating under New Zealand jurisdiction. This alternative was seen as a means of achieving the Government’s objectives, while reducing the risk that vessels from some countries would be unable to re-flag to New Zealand as a result of domestic legal complications.
The Committee did, however, recognise the need to introduce some flexibility in certain circumstances and recommended the addition of provisions for exemptions to the re-flagging requirement where the Chief Executive of MPI considered an exemption would be in New Zealand’s interest, the vessel would come under sufficient local control and:
In respect of the settlement quota exemption, the Select Committee report included the extraordinary statement that:
The committee received amendments immediately prior to deliberation. Unusually the committee did not receive written departmental advice pertaining to these amendments. Acting on reliance on the oral advice we received from officials we have recorded below our questions and their responses.
We were concerned that unless clearly defined, that clause could result in operators with only a relatively small proportion of Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) derived from settlement quota, or those that might seek to acquire a settlement quota could seek to qualify for an exemption beyond the intent of the Act.
We note that the exemption is limited to ACE held on 30 April 2012, which effectively means the holdings cannot be manipulated post implementation of the Act.
We note that settlement quota is only quota defined as such in the Act and the Maori Fisheries Act.
It appears that the Committee’s recommendation of an amendment to provide for a limited ‘settlement quota’ exemption came as a result of a very late recommendation by officials from MPI. It seemed surprising, therefore, that the Minister apparently distanced himself from the recommended amendment within hours of the Select Committee report being tabled in Parliament, with media reporting that “he had some concerns and would be seeking further advice.” 5 The issue soon saw the Government caught between its support parties, with the Māori Party refusing to support the Bill if the settlement exemption was removed. This saw the Bill languish low on the Order Paper for many months.
When the Bill received its Second Reading on 15 April 2014, the Minister (in a speech read on his behalf by the Associate Minister, Hon. Jo Goodhew), 6 announced that it was the Government’s intention to remove three of the four exemptions recommended by the Select Committee, leaving scope for foreign-flagged vessels to be used only for fisheries-related research approved by the Chief Executive of MPI.
It is likely that the Bill will be passed prior to the 2014 election in the form proposed by the Government, making changes in the make-up and control of the deepwater fishing fleet almost inevitable in the lead-up to the May 2016 implementation date.
A recent decision of the Court of Appeal underlined the fact that chartering vessels to fish in New Zealand is far from a risk-free proposition for foreign owners. In The Ministry for Primary Industries and another v Sajo Oyang Corporation and others  NZCA 46, the Court considered who had standing on the question of whether there existed “special reasons relating to the offence,” such that the Court should order that forfeiture of a vessel or other property not occur. Virtually all serious offences under the FA96 include, as a mandatory penalty, forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence. Such forfeiture is an automatic consequence of conviction unless “the Court for special reasons relating to the offence orders otherwise.” 7 In the situation from which the Sajo Oyang case arose, officers operating the vessel in question had been charged and convicted of serious offences involving the illegal discarding of fish. Before convictions were entered (on one of the officer’s convictions at least), the vessel’s Korean owner, Sajo Oyang Corporation, and New Zealand charterer, Southern Storm Fishing (2007) Ltd, sought to intervene and put evidence before the Court in an effort to persuade it that special reasons existed, such that forfeiture should not occur. As the Court of Appeal noted ( NZCA 46 at ):
Prior to the present case, it appears that the issue for determination has not been the subject of detailed consideration by the higher courts. The probable reason is that, until recently, the Ministry has not objected to third parties making representations to the Court under the special circumstances exemption.
Judge Saunders, in the District Court at Christchurch, declined the owner and charterer leave to appear, a decision that was subsequently set aside in the High Court by Dobson J on judicial review. The Court of Appeal summarised Dobson J’s reasoning for finding that the District Court had erred at :
Dobson J concluded that the first and second respondents ought not to have been precluded from addressing the Court on the special reasons exception. He saw a distinction between the “core elements” of the criminal proceedings which he viewed as involving determination of whether the charges were established, and the consideration of the appropriate penalties including forfeiture. It would, the Judge said, be inconsistent with the right to natural justice recognised by s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and more generally with minimum standards of fairness, to deny standing to non-parties to criminal proceedings who have an interest in preserving property that is vulnerable to forfeiture. He noted the concession made on behalf of the Ministry that the requirement to establish manifest injustice on an application for relief from forfeiture under s 256 is materially more difficult for an owner of property than establishing special reasons for non-forfeiture under s 255C. He concluded that the right to natural justice could not properly be vindicated by the opportunity to be heard on a later application for relief against forfeiture.
The Crown succeeded in having Dobson J’s decision overturned by the Court of Appeal, with the higher court ruling that a non-defendant owner had no standing on the issue, being particularly swayed by the need to protect the fair trial rights of the defendant ( NZCA 46 at ):
Another important contextual factor relevant to the contention of fairness is that the third party’s rights ought not to trump or conflict with those of the defendant in criminal proceedings. We have concerns that the defendant’s rights to a fair trial under s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act could be compromised by the intervention of a third party at the stage the court is considering the special circumstances exception.
The Supreme Court subsequently refused leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision. 8
The deepwater fisheries sector has also had to grapple with the implementation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the EEZ Act) over the past few months, after regulations were promulgated defining activities that would be permitted under the EEZ Act and those for which a marine consent could be sought on a non-notified basis. 9 Applications to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for consent to carry out seabed mining activities have caused consternation for fishing interests.
An application by Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd was made to undertake an iron sand mining project in an area covering 65.76km2 in the South Taranaki Bight, 22 to 36km offshore from Patea. The proposal was for excavation of up to 50 million tonnes of seabed material per annum for a term of 20 years, with the excavated material taken aboard a processing vessel, where iron sand would be extracted and other material (around 45 million tonnes per year) returned to the seabed. Fishing interests, including iwi, expressed intense concern about the application and the proposal’s potential effect on aquatic habitats. 10
Hearings concluded on 19 May 2014. The decision-making committee of the EPA issued its decision on 18 June 2014. Marine consent was declined. 11 Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd has appealed from that decision.
The application by Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd to mine phosphate nodules from the Chatham Rise is perhaps even more ambitious. The permit would initially cover an 820km2 area, but could potentially extend over as much as 10,192km2 depending on monitoring results and environmental investigations. At least 30km2 of seabed would be targeted annually, with the company having an annual minimum production target of 1.5 million tonnes of phosphate nodules. The application was lodged on 14 May 2014 and its completeness (in terms of s 39 of the EEZ Act) is currently being assessed by the EPA. 12
Even at this early stage in the process, fishing interests have expressed concern with the application, drawing particular attention to the anomaly that allows the potential for mining activities to be conducted in Benthic Protection Areas (BPAs) created under fisheries legislation. 13 The BPAs were created in 2007 at the instigation of the fishing industry and were designed to protect representative and untouched ocean biodiversity on the seafloor. Fishing within BPAs is closely monitored and methods that could damage the seabed are prohibited within them. While the logic of the fishing industry position has force, it is difficult to see how this anomalous position could be resolved without legislation.
The tragic loss in March 2012 of the Easy Rider and eight of the nine people aboard sent shockwaves through the close-knit Tītī (Muttonbird) Island community of Murihiku (Southland). The Easy Rider was a small fishing vessel owned by AZ1 Enterprises Ltd, and was on a voyage transporting passengers and equipment to the Tītī Islands when it was lost. The sole shareholder and director of that company was Gloria Davis, the partner of the vessel’s skipper, Rewai Karetai.
On 18 March 2014, Ms Davis and the company were each convicted of:
The company was recently sentenced to fines totalling $204,500, and Ms Davis to a $3,000 fine and 350 hours of community service.
Ms Davis, who defended herself, argued that the voyage in question was not a commercial one and that the standards applied to it by Maritime New Zealand failed to take into account the Easy Rider’s “multi-functional” purpose. While the decision refers to submissions that the voyage in question was for ‘recreational’ purposes or a ‘pleasure voyage’, submissions made to the Court by the Rakiura Hananui Whanauka Incorporation o Mamoe, expressing concern that the outcome of the decision might affect the right of Rakiura Māori to participate in the annual tītī harvest, indicate that the relationship between voyages such as this and the exercise of customary rights was in many minds.
More broadly, the decision has served as a sobering reminder to many other ‘mum and dad’ fishing operations of the very real exposure of family members who are principals in name only, but who can very easily be left facing the legal consequences for the errors of others.
Iwi attention is increasingly turning to the upcoming review of entities established under the MFA04, with Mandated Iwi Organisations (MIOs) and other entities being called upon to appoint a Committee of Representatives by 21 May 2014. The role of the Committee of Representatives will be to set the Terms of Reference for the review, appoint the reviewer, receive the report of the review, and distribute the report to MIOs and the entities under review.
Provision for a review was included in the Act largely as a result of lingering iwi discomfort with the way in which the debate over allocation of fisheries resources had been resolved. The scope, requirements, and procedure for the review is set out in Part 2, Subpart 6 of the MFA04, which requires the review to be completed by the end of the 11th year after the MFA04’s commencement.
The entities to be reviewed are:
The scope of the review, as prescribed in s 122 of the MFA04, is to consider and report on:
There are, however, a number of restrictions placed on the recommendations the reviewer can make (MFA04 s 124):
Once appointed, the reviewer has six months to conduct the review, after which its findings and recommendations are distributed to the entities reviewed and MIOs. Each entity under review may prepare a plan specifying the actions it intends to take to address the findings and recommendations of the reviewer, with that plan also being distributed to Te Ohu and MIOs.
MIOs may resolve to adopt all or some of the reviewer’s recommendations, or all or part of any plan, or amend and adopt any of those recommendations or plans, with such resolution being binding only if supported by 75% of MIOs representing at least 50% of the total notional population of all iwi combined (as set out in the MFA04).
Meanwhile, it is business as usual for Te Ohu, with only two of the 57 iwi or iwi groupings recognised under the MFA04 yet to establish MIOs that are entitled to receive and manage their share of Fisheries Settlement assets. In addition, further progress has been made in concluding coastline agreements between iwi as a pre-condition to the allocation of inshore quota. 15
Implementation of the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 (in respect of the North Island) and the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999 continues, with just over 400 tāngata tiaki/kaitiaki (including two committees) appointed under the Kaimoana Regulations. Under the South Island regulations, a total of 140 tāngata tiaki/kaitiaki are appointed to manage general customary food-gathering areas and a further 13 appointed to manage mahinga mātaitai/mātaitai reserves.
Customary fishing regulations received attention from the Court of Appeal recently in the case of Tapsell v R  NZCA 122. The case involved an appeal from a sentence for convictions arising from illegal fishing, conducted on the basis of fraudulently obtained and misused authorisations issued under the regulations. After being convicted of 15 charges relating to commercial dealing in between 395kg and 526kg (meat weight) of pāua between May 2010 and March 2011, the appellant had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, with a minimum sentence of two years (at -).
The Court of Appeal decision has become one of the leading authorities on sentencing principles as they apply to offences under the FA96, particularly with respect to the relationship between sentencing and the forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence (in this case motor vehicles, a small boat and other property, to an estimated total value of $5,000). While the Court ultimately determined that the appeal should be allowed and substituted a sentence of three years, two months (quashing the minimum sentence), it recognised the context of the customary fisheries regime as a significant factor in sentencing ( NZCA 122 at ):
The second factor is the effect of the offending on the overall scheme of fisheries control imposed by the Act. The special relationship between tangata whenua and places of importance for customary food gathering are expressly recognised in the Act. Section 186 enables regulations to be made regulating customary fishing. The Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 [sic 16.], created pursuant to s 186, give effect to this special relationship. The regulations give a considerable measure of autonomy to those responsible for the issuing of customary authorisations. That level of autonomy carries with it a responsibility to exercise the power to authorise customary taking in a way which meets the legitimate needs and expectations of persons entitled to invoke customary rights, while maintaining the integrity of the fisheries regime, and recognising the legitimate rights and expectations of other participants in other aspects of that regime. Any abuse of the customary authorisation process is accordingly to be viewed as a potential threat to the proper administration of the fisheries regime. For this reason, the appellant’s fraud in obtaining special privileges to which he was not entitled, perpetrated against the Tangata Tiaki by whom the authorisations were issued, adds significantly to the culpability of the commercial taking of paua offending.
The network of mātaitai reserves expanded slightly (from 29 to 30, with a handful of others approved by the Minister and yet to be Gazetted) in the course of 2012-13.
Meanwhile, iwi continue to pursue innovative and collaborative means of exercising their rights and responsibilities as kaitiaki. The Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill, introduced to Parliament on 17 March 2014,is the most recent example of this approach. The Bill would establish a suite of marine management measures over the Kaikōura coastline, including a marine reserve, whale, and fur seal sanctuaries, taiāpure, mātaitai, and regulations for recreational fishing regulations. It would also establish a local advisory committee, comprising iwi and community representatives, and representatives of environmental, tourism, and fishing interests.
The Bill had its genesis in the Kaikōura Marine Strategy 2012, 17 which resulted from seven years of effort by Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura (the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians). Te Korowai encompassed iwi and representatives from the community and marine industries and developed the strategy as a vision for the area after reaching a consensus on how the coastal and marine environment of the area should be managed. Te Korowai described this as a “gifts and gains” process, where each stakeholder group gifted concessions “to sustain the integrity of the whole resource for the future.”
The influence of Ngāi Tahu hapū Ngāti Kurī’s perspectives on kaitiakitanga are apparent in the vision agreed by Te Korowai, as described in the Explanatory Note to the Bill:
Te Korowai’s vision is that, by perpetuating the mauri and wairua of Te Tai-o-Marokura, the Kaikoura community, as kaitiaki of Tangaroa’s taonga, is sustaining a flourishing, rich, and healthy environment where opportunities abound to sustain the needs of present and future generations. Te Korowai’s core objectives for seeking integrated management of this area are that—
- traditional fishing areas of special significance to Ngati Kuri are restored and maintained and traditional knowledge and customs are utilised to protect the fisheries of Te Tai-o-Marokura;
- the marine treasures of Te Tai-o-Marokura are protected so that future generations can experience the area as it is today;
- there are abundant fish, aquatic life, and seaweed in Te Tai-o-Marokura for present and future generations;
- the quality of the coastal and marine environment of Te Tai-o-Marokura is sustained.
The Bill is currently being considered by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee, which is due to report back to Parliament by 20 September 2014. The Minister of Conservation has expressed confidence that the Bill will be passed before the end of the year, so that the measures can come into effect in 2015. 18
In March 2014, the continuing implementation of iwi-driven fisheries management regimes was exemplified when the first set of bylaws was approved under the Waikato-Tainui (Waikato River Fisheries) Regulations 2011, (promulgated pursuant to s 186 of the FA96 and s 93 of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010). The bylaws would apply certain traditional management practices to commercial eel fishing, by imposing:
Continuing litigation has dominated the aquaculture legal scene over the past year, in respect to applications by The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd (NZKS) to expand its operations in the Marlborough Sounds. NZKS had applied for consent to farm nine new sites, only one of which was in an area where salmon farming was permitted under the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan.
The Board of Inquiry, appointed by the Minister for the Environment to consider and determine the applications (the Board), released its final decision on 22 February 2013, which allowed the plan change and consented to applications for four of the sites, declining the remaining five applications. The Board’s decision was appealed by the Environmental Defence Society Inc (EDS) and Sustain Our Sounds Inc (SOS), and the subsequent High Court decision was further appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decisions on the appeals were issued on 17 April 2014. 19
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by SOS 20, upholding the EDS appeal which related to only one of the four sites approved by the Board. The decision is seen as having far-reaching implications for aquaculture and other coastal developments.
The EDS appeal focused on concurrent plan change and consent applications for a site at Papatua in Port Gore. The Board had found that the proposed farm would have significant adverse effects on the outstanding natural character and landscape of the area and would not comply with policies 13(1)(a) and 15(1)(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). Those policies require persons exercising functions and powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to:
Notwithstanding this finding, the Board approved the plan change for the Papatua site on the basis that it was required to give effect to the NZCPS “as a whole” 22, including objectives and policies supportive of aquaculture and appropriate economic development in general.
The Supreme Court rejected the ‘overall judgment’ approach adopted by the Board, noting: 23
A danger of the “overall judgment” approach is that decision-makers may conclude too readily that there is a conflict between particular policies and prefer one over another, rather than making a thoroughgoing attempt to find a way to reconcile them.
The Court took a different view on the fundamental question of the how the provisions of the NZCPS should be applied, finding: 24
Give effect to” simply means “implement”. On the face of it, it is a strong directive, creating a firm obligation on the part of those subject to it.
And ( NZSC 38 at ):
…we consider that “avoid” has its ordinary meaning of “not allow” or “prevent the occurrence of”. In the sequence “avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment” in s 5(2)(c) [of the RMA], for example, it is difficult to see that “avoid” could sensibly bear any other meaning. Similarly in relation to policies 13(1)(a) and (b) and 15(a) and (b) [of the NZCPS], which also juxtapose the words “avoid”, “remedy” and “mitigate”.
And, to the extent that the relevant NZCPS refers to the need to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and natural landscapes by avoiding “inappropriate” use and development ( NZSC 38 at ):
We consider that where the term “inappropriate” is used in the context of protecting areas from inappropriate subdivision, use or development, the natural meaning is that “inappropriateness” should be assessed by reference to what it is that is sought to be protected.
The decision will almost certainly have an impact on proposals to establish new aquaculture operations adjacent to outstanding natural features, or areas of outstanding natural landscape or outstanding natural character. Of particular concern to the industry is the fact that this decision will almost certainly impact on ‘renewal’ 25 of consents for operational farms in such areas, unless plan rules designate those farms as controlled activities such that consent cannot be declined. 26 Regional councils are required to progressively amend their Regional Coastal Plans to give effect to the NZCPS (under s 67(3) of the RMA). Until then, they are only required to have regard for the NZCPS, along with a number of other matters (s 104 of the RMA). Therefore, the full impact of the NZKS decision will not be felt until councils seek to amend their plans.
In a decision released within a week of the NZKS decision, the Environment Court confirmed the grant of resource consents for a proposed 70ha mussel farm on the western coast of Stephenson Island in Northland’s Whangaroa Bay. 27 While both the applicable District Plan and the proposed regional policy statement (RPS) classified Stephenson Island as an outstanding natural landscape, neither the operative RPS nor regional coastal plan did so. 28 The Environment Court therefore formed its own view of the landscape in question, on the basis of expert evidence presented to it and reached the conclusion: 29
The evidence before us must be said to demonstrate that the islands concerned are not an outstanding natural landscape or feature. They do not exhibit outstanding natural character or qualities. The imperatives of … Policies 13 and 15 of the NZCPS are therefore not triggered, particularly when proper consideration is given to the context of what might or might not be “inappropriate” in the context of the analysis of the present landscape in terms of them.
While deftly avoiding the need to grapple with the impacts of the NZKS decision, the Environment Court did place considerable weight on the potential economic benefits of the proposed marine farm, in light of the significant economic disadvantage suffered in the region 30 and the fact that Stephenson Island is administered by the Ririwha Ahu Whenua Trust, on behalf of over 500 beneficial owners. The Trust was to be a 50% partner in the mussel farm applied for, and gave evidence of the economic and cultural benefits that the farm would provide, including generating income to support the Trust’s ecological restoration projects. 31
The Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 (the MCACSA) gave statutory recognition to iwi claims in respect of:
Law changes in 2011 scrapped the AMA concept and went back to managing applications for aquaculture space on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Amendments to the MCACSA as part of the2011 reform package preserved the original iwi entitlement to 20% of new space in principle, but introduced new mechanisms for delivery of that entitlement, with the emphasis on tailored regional agreements between Iwi Aquaculture Organisations (IAOs) and the Crown. Regional agreements operate on the basis of regional council boundaries and must include all IAOs with coastal interests in the relevant region. They must also provide for redress based on the level and type of anticipated new aquaculture development in the region, not just ‘new space’ that has already been granted a resource consent.
While the great majority of entitlements in respect of pre-commencement space have now been addressed, focus turned to new space entitlements in the course of 2013, as a result of statutory timeframes for concluding regional agreements. The MCACSA requires the Crown to use its best endeavours to conclude regional agreements within two-tier timeframes:
Section 11(4) of the MCACSA allows the Minister responsible for Aquaculture (currently the Minister for Primary Industries) to extend these periods one or more times, provided that she or he is satisfied, after consultation with affected IAOs and Te Ohu, that reasonable steps have been taken to progress a regional agreement and that the proposed extension is likely to enable an agreement to be entered into. In September 2013, after consulting IAOs in the four priority regions, the Minister extended the period for negotiation of agreements, with respect to those regions, to 30 June 2014.
In addition, relevant resource consent applications were made in the Auckland, Waikato west, and Canterbury regions prior to 30 September 2012, meaning that the current negotiation period for those regions concludes on 30 September 2014. More recent applications in the Chatham Islands and the Southland region mean that the negotiation period for those regions will end during 2015. For all other regions, the negotiation period will not commence until two years after first new resource consent applications have been made for aquaculture activities.
If no agreement is reached for a region within the relevant timeframe, s 11(5) of the MCACSA provides that ‘default’ redress must be transferred to iwi (via Te Ohu), unless the Minister extends the relevant timeframe. Default redress would comprise:
Somewhat belatedly, (s 14(1) of the MCACSA required that preparation of this plan should begin before 31 December 2012) the Minister issued a draft plan for consultation in February 2014, outlining a proposed approach to achieving regional agreements in the priority regions by 30 June 2014. 32 Section 14 provides that such a plan should establish “processes and methods for determining the value of the settlement assets to be delivered” and, further, that those processes and methods should enable an assessment to be made of:
Section 14 includes the proviso that those processes and methods should avoid increasing the demand for coastal permits, which would increase the value of space, reduce the risk of collusion, and be cost effective for the Crown.
It is fair to say that the draft plan, released for consultation in February 2014, fell somewhat short of meeting the objectives set out in the MCACSA. The document reviews what it describes as five “core elements of the new space settlement process”:
Before the end of the consultation period, the draft plan was largely overtaken by approaches made to iwi to consider a proposal that the Minister further extend the timeframes for concluding regional agreements. Extensions to those timeframes, until 30 June 2015 for the four priority regions and 30 November 2015 for others, were notified in the Gazette on 26 June 2014. 33
It seems inevitable that the negotiation of regional aquaculture agreements and the statutory review of Te Ohu will dominate the Māori seafood sector over the coming year. The general election will, of course, punctuate the year and the possibility it presents for a change of government (or a change in the composition of the government) could produce any number of new challenges and opportunities.
Use of land held for public works in Treaty of Waitangi settlements – Kane v Attorney-General  NZHC 251 by Lisa Hansen
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Awa Tupua – Upholding the Mana of the Whanganui River by Linda Te Aho
Tikanga Māori - Te Mātāpunenga – A Compendium of References to the Concepts and Institutions of Māori Customary Law - reviewed by Matiu Dickson
He Papakupu Reo Ture: A Dictionary of Māori Legal Terms - reviewed by Pānia Papa
Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa update – two conferences in 2014 outlined by Renika Siciliano
Download the Māori Law Review May 2014 (508 KB PDF).]]>
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Awa Tupua is a document containing the terms of a new legal framework for Te Awa Tupua, the Whanganui River system. The intention of the framework is to uphold the mana of Te Awa Tupua and to recognise the intrinsic ties that bind Te Awa Tupua and its people to each other. The framework document comes under the umbrella of Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui, a Deed of Settlement between Whanganui Iwi and the Crown which will settle the Iwi’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims in relation to Te Awa Tupua. Whanganui Iwi will now go through a process whereby eligible members may vote on whether to ratify the Deed. Despite some reported dissension concerning the Ngāti Uenuku hapū, 1 it is likely that the Deed will be supported.
An Agreement entitled Tūtohu Whakatupua between the Crown and Whanganui Iwi in 2012 stirred interest and excitement when it foreshadowed redress that would extend beyond what had been negotiated in earlier freshwater settlements. 2 Settlements such as those that relate to the Waikato, Waipā and Kaituna Rivers, and the Rotorua Lakes settlement, have recognised to varying degrees Māori conceptions of the environment. For example, the Waikato River settlement recognises that to Waikato-Tainui the River is a tupuna, an ancestor, which has mana and a lifeforce of its own. 3 The earlier settlements have also vested lakebeds, riverbeds (or parts of the beds), and surrounding lands in claimant groups. They have created co-management regimes that either compel or encourage relationship agreements between claimant groups and central and/or local government. These regimes provide more freedom for iwi and hapū to carry out customary activities, and will lead to more collaborative planning processes, arguably laying the foundations for the current resource management reforms.
The settlements have provided funding for restoration projects and have highlighted the need for matauranga Māori indicators when monitoring the health and well-being of waterways. The Whanganui River Settlement does all of these things. It also involves an interesting legal development – it accords Te Awa Tupua full legal personality. Ownership of parts of the riverbed are to be vested in the River itself rather than the Iwi. In 2012, the Waitangi Tribunal, under urgency, considered what rights and interests (if any) in water and geothermal resources were guaranteed and protected by the Treaty of Waitangi and found that Māori had rights and interests in their water bodies for which the closest English equivalent in 1840 was ownership. Those rights were then confirmed, guaranteed, and protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, save to the extent that the Treaty bargain provided for some sharing of the waters with incoming settlers. The nature and extent of the proprietary right was the exclusive right of hapū and iwi to control access to and use of the water while it was in their rohe. 4
Though it is the first river settlement to have been reached after such significant findings, the Whanganui River settlement, like those that have gone before, explicitly avoids issues relating to ownership of water. In doing so, it draws upon wording used by the Tribunal in elaborate statements about the effect of the settlement on what the Iwi view as their proprietary rights, interests, and responsibilities in water.
This review begins by offering some comments about the prominence of mātauranga Māori throughout the documents, then summarises each part of the Deed of Settlement before turning to the River framework document. It ends with some brief observations about this innovative settlement.
A striking feature of both the Deed of Settlement and the River framework document is the prominence of te reo and mātauranga Māori. Standard template terminology and structure such as sections devoted to a Historical Account, Cultural Redress, Commercial Redress, and so on, is nowhere to be seen. Instead each part has a Māori name and is introduced by reference to a traditional saying. All entities and frameworks to be established under the settlement enjoy Māori names. An excellent example of this is the name ascribed to the Te Awa Tupua Strategy that will be created under the settlement, Te Heke Ngahuru ki te Awa Tupua. Te Heke Ngahuru is the first autumn migration of eels, signifying well-stocked storehouses for the winter. The name is said to symbolise the potential of Te Awa Tupua to provide for all if cared for and protected as a living spiritual and physical resource.
On a more fundamental level, the following statement appears inside the cover pages of both the Deed of Settlement and the River framework document and forms part of Tupua Te Kawa, the intrinsic values of the settlement:
E rere kau mai te Awa nui
Mai i te Kahui Maunga ki Tangaroa
Ko au te Awa, ko te Awa ko au
The English interpretation follows: ‘The Great River flows from the Mountains to the Sea. I am the River, and the River is me.’ This brief statement encompasses many layers of meaning. It recognises that Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole from the mountains to the sea. The now famous maxim ‘Ko au te Awa ko te Awa ko au’ (I am the River and the River is me) proclaims the intrinsic ties that bind Te Awa Tupua and the people of the River to each other. By doing this, this statement encapsulates the concept of interconnectedness between humans and the environment which lies at the heart of the way that Whanganui Iwi view the world, and which forms the underlying premise of the settlement.
The Deed is arranged in 13 Parts, each with its own title.
This is a separate document (the framework document) that contains the agreed terms of the new legal framework for Te Awa Tupua entitled Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua (the framework).
The framework comprises the following elements:
Part 1 of the framework document sets out the overarching purpose of the framework; namely, the legal recognition of Te Awa Tupua, the legal recognition and effect of the Awa Tupua values, the development of the Awa Tupua strategy, and the protection and promotion of the health and wellbeing of Te Awa Tupua. It also states how the framewok will be given effect to in legislation and in the exercise of certain statutory functions.
Under Part 2 of the framework, Te Awa Tupua will be a legal person who has the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a legal person. Those rights, powers and duties will be exercised by Te Pou Tupua, the human face of the River, who is also responsible for the liabilities of Te Awa Tupua.
Four intrinsic values, Tupua te Kawa, are identified:
The Crown confirms its commitment to these values. Decision-makers exercising functions under 25 relevant statutes including the RMA (in relation to preparing or changing a regional policy statement, regional plan or district plan) are required to ‘recognise and provide for’ the status of Te Awa Tupua as well as the intrinsic values. Decision-makers exercising functions under the Historic Places Act 1993 and the RMA (to the extent not covered above) must ‘have particular regard to’ the Te Awa Tupua status and the intrinsic values. Where the exercise of any statutory function is the subject of a written report, decision or document, that report, decision, or document must include a statement recording how those clauses have been complied with. Local authorities must consider their RMA planning documents in light of the Te Awa Tupua status, the values, and the strategy, and may initiate a review of their documents in order to comply.
Symbolic of the Treaty partnership, two persons will be appointed to the single position of Te Pou Tupua – one to be appointed by interested iwi and one to be appointed by the Crown. Processes for appointment and removal are set out in Part 3. Te Pou Tupua has full capacity to exercise its functions. Te Pou Tupua will act and speak on behalf of the River, uphold the Te Awa Tupua status and the intrinsic values, and promote and protect the health and wellbeing of Te Awa Tupua. Te Pou Tupua will exercise landowner functions and administer the $30 million dollar contestable fund that will be available for initiatives related to Te Awa Tupua under part 7 of the framework. Te Pou Tupua has other functions that include developing mechanisms to engage with and report to iwi, and engaging with relevant agencies and decision making bodies.
This part provides for the establishment of Te Karewao, an advisory group to Te Pou Tupua, made up of 3 persons, 2 appointed by iwi and one by the relevant local authorities. An inclusive addition is the power to appoint an additional person from iwi and hapū with interests in areas affected by the exercise of certain functions. Other persons may be invited to assist Te Pou Tupua. Te Pou Tupua is to contract the services of the PSGE for administrative services.
The Crown will pay $200,000 per year for 20 years to contribute to the costs associated with Te Pou Tupua and Te Karewao. The purposes for the $1 million transitional fund are set out and include the commissioning of a scoping study to identify the current state of health and wellbeing of Te Awa Tupua and issues affecting that state. Part 3 goes on to outline the relationship agreements to be established with Crown agencies and local authorities.
Te Heke Ngahuru ki te Awa Tupua is the ‘Whole of River’ Te Awa Tupua strategy which will identify issues relating to the environmental, social, cultural, and economic health and wellbeing of Te Awa Tupua. It will provide a strategy and recommend actions to address those issues.
A strategy group, Te Kōpuka nā Te Awa Tupua, will prepare the strategy then engage in a publicly notified consultation process before they approve the strategy.
Part 5 sets out the purpose and functions of Te Kōpuka, confirms that the group has full capacity to exercise its functions, and outlines the membership of the group as being representative of persons and organisations with interests in the Whanganui River, including iwi, local and central government, commercial and recreational users and environmental groups. Part 5 goes on to declare Te Kōpuka to be the collaborative planning group for the purposes of the current RMA reform process for preparing freshwater policy statements.
Part 5 also sets out processes for appointing members to the group and its meeting procedures. Horizons Regional Council will provide administrative support and the Crown agrees to contribute $430,000 to the Council towards the costs of establishing Te Kōpuka and the strategy.
Crown-owned parts of the riverbed are to be vested in Te Awa Tupua. Future vesting of land is also provided for, including parts of the bed remaining in Crown ownership following Public Works Act disposal processes.
Part 7 provides for the establishment and the administration of the $30 million contestable fund.
In this part the name ‘Te Awa Tupua’ is protected.
There is provision for a register of hearing commissioners which must include appointees with skills, knowledge and experience across a range of disciplines, including tikanga Māori, knowledge of the Whanganui River, and an understanding of Te Awa Tupua and Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua.
Collaborative processes will be established to manage activities on the surface of the River, and to co-ordinate fisheries and customary food gathering. The Crown agrees to engage with Iwi in relation to taonga and the Protected Objects Act 1975. Te Awa Tupua is deemed to be a body corporate for the purpose of making an application to be a heritage protection authority under the RMA.
A notable feature of the definitions and general provisions section is the inclusion of elaborate statements about ownership of water, not seen in other Deeds of Settlement to the same extent. The Crown confirms its position that no one, including the Crown, owns water. While Whanganui Iwi confirms that it does not view its relationship with water in terms of ownership in a strict sense, it also asserts that its rights and responsibilities in relation to the Whanganui River (an indivisible and living whole being) are of a proprietary nature. The parties agree that this settlement is not intended to derogate from the freshwater policy review process nor is it intended to resolve issues of rights and interests in water. To avoid doubt, clause 9.5 confirms that the vesting of the riverbed does not create proprietary interests in water. Te Pou Tupua’s consent is not required for the use of water (the parties acknowledge that this may change in the future following the freshwater review process), but may be required as a landowner in relation to the use of the riverbed.
Other matters include an acknowledgment by the parties that there will be future settlements with Whanganui Iwi groups in relation to lands, and with other iwi with interests in the Whanganui River and that those settlements will include consideration of the matters relating to the Whanganui National Park and the Tongariro National Park in which parts of the Whanganui River are located.
This settlement recognises the profound relationships that Whanganui Iwi have with their Awa Tupua in a way that is distinctively Māori, with te reo and mātauranga Māori at the forefront of each part of the Deed of Settlement and the River framework document. Though the settlement does not fully adopt the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendations set out in its 1999 Report, it does include an interesting legal development.
The according of legal personality and voice to the Whanganui River provides an opportunity for more effective recognition of the rights and interests of the River. The legal status of the River combined with that of the Post-Settlement Governance Entity, Ngā Tāngata Tiaki, as having an interest in Te Awa Tupua greater than the public generally when applying the RMA, provides the strongest opportunity for more effective participation by Iwi in planning processes of all freshwater settlements to date.
This settlement, like that in relation to the Waikato River, compels local government relationship agreements. The emphasis in this settlement on a stronger legal voice in RMA processes is not surprising given the feedback from Whanganui Iwi in the 1995 consultation process for the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. At their hui, a prominent Whanganui Iwi member had this to say:
The Resource Management Act has always provided the opportunity for Māori to participate at planning level, but it never happens because there is no willingness, we have no political weight. So we are shut out, and we become one voice amongst many other constituencies.
It is clear that Whanganui Iwi negotiators have benefitted from closely analysing earlier freshwater settlements. The settlement contains most of the redress features of other freshwater settlements, particularly those that relate to the Waikato River, and in some cases the settlement streamlines and strengthens redress mechanisms and post-settlement implementation processes.
Though significantly less than the resourcing allocated to the Waikato River settlement, the level of resourcing for Whanganui, much of which will be paid on-account; together with the Whole of River strategy will no doubt produce tangible improvements in the health and wellbeing of Te Awa Tupua. It is hoped that the provision for a social services project will have similar results for whānau, hapū and iwi. The redress included in relation to protecting the rapids may well assist Iwi and the River in any future proposals to dam the River for water storage, given climate change challenges.
The Agreement that foreshadowed this settlement, Tūtohu Whakatupua, was the topic of the winning essay written by Laura Hardcastle for the Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie Student Essay Competition (see (2014) February Māori LR). Ms Hardcastle describes the agreement as ‘ground-breaking’, but also as a ‘compromise to prevent iwi from gaining ownership.’ I tend to agree.
Renika Siciliano, lead co-ordinator for Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa’s hui a tau, outlines two upcoming events.
The World Indigenous Legal Conference is being held at the Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point, Brisbane from 25 to 27 June 2014. The 2014 Conference follows on from the inaugural World Indigenous Lawyers’ Conference hosted by Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa in September 2012 in Hamilton.
This kaupapa started out as a means for all indigenous lawyers to discuss indigenous issues as a group, rather than in isolation. For co-convenor, Aidan Warren (Director at McCaw Lewis Lawyers), the idea behind the Conference was “about giving our Māori lawyers an opportunity to understand similar legal issues that Māori people face in an international context, to listen and to learn about other ideas and experiences.”
The theme of this year’s Conference is “Past, Present and Future”. A number of speakers from Aotearoa are confirmed on the programme including Linda Te Aho, Natalie Coates, Season-Mary Downs, Horiana Irwin-Easthope, Harata Paterson, Ngāi Tahu Māori Law Centre (Desiree Williams, Malcolm Lucas and Haines Ellison), Kiritapu Allan, Leluatea Iosefa and Michael Sharp.
Te Hunga Rōia Māori, and the Organising Committee for the inaugural Conference, encourages all Māori lawyers and legal minds to attend the Conference in Brisbane to continue to build on the relationships formed two years ago. “I believe that our clients, hapū and iwi will continue to want the best advice. With many iwi heading towards settlement and the corporate and cultural rebuild, it will be invaluable for our Māori law students, lawyers, judges and legal academics to learn from others around the world by a holding regular conference for “lawyers” on indigenous issues”, says Mr Warren.
Te Hunga Rōia Māori is hosting its hui-ā-tau from 5 to 7 September 2014 in Tauranga. The focus for this year’s hui-ā-tau is on building and developing our Māori lawyers across all areas of the law to ensure that we can grow as Māori and as a profession to assist our people going forward, says hui-ā-tau organiser, Renika Siciliano. The theme of the Conference is “Māori lawyers in the 21st Century: survive and thrive individually and collectively”.
With the new requirements for Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) in place from 1 April 2014, the hui-ā-tau will be a valuable source of education for Māori lawyers practising across a range of areas including family, criminal, commercial and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The 2014 programme is being designed with practitioners in mind and hopes to build on the success and popularity of the last hui-ā-tau which was combined with the inaugural World Indigenous Lawyers’ Conference two years ago. Students will continue to play an important role in the hui-ā-tau with specifically designed sessions for tauira as well.
Keynote sessions for the hui-ā-tau are expected to be confirmed by the end of May 2014 with registrations opening soon after.
For more information on these two important conferences, visit www.maorilawsociety.co.nz.]]>
Remedies – the Mangatū Remedies Report (Wai 814, 2013) by Dr Carwyn Jones
Remedies – analysis of the Mangatū Remedies Report (Wai 814, 2013) by Baden Vertongen
Rights to water - the Tribunal’s final report on Te Kāhui Maunga: The National Park District Inquiry Report (Wai 1130, 2013) by Dr Jacinta Ruru
Review of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 – final report and recommendations from the independent review panel
Tikanga Māori – Te Mātāpunenga – A Compendium of References to the Concepts and Institutions of Māori Customary Law – reviewed by Matiu Dickson
Indigenous on the Margins by Eileen Luna-Firebaugh
Download the Māori Law Review April 2014 (552 KB PDF).
Download the Review Panel’s final report (1.3 MB PDF) and the Government’s subsequent announcement about law reform.
The independent panel of experts has recommended new Māori land legislation to replace Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.
The Panel has confirmed its preliminary view, raised in its 2013 discussion document, that the Māori Land Court’s current role in the management and utilisation of Māori land can be scaled back in favour of greater final decision-making by those with governance roles for Māori land. Mediation has been recommended as a first step in addressing disputes.
The 2013 discussion document had suggested that decision-making over Māori land might be limited to owners who controlled a minimum threshold interest. The idea did not gain support from those who submitted on the issue and the Panel does not recommend it be pursued in addressing the issue of fragmentation of interests in land.
Decision-making about governance and use of Māori land should be by engaged owners who participate, yet safeguards should remain for disposals of Māori land in the Panel’s opinion. Further, duties and responsibilities of those with governance roles should be aligned with the general law. Under-utilised land without an administrative structure might have external managers appointed as a transitional measure.
The Panel’s view is that improved governance will lead to greater utilisation of Māori land and “will increase confidence within the banking and financial sector to provide development support and finance to Māori land governance entities.” (At p 30.)
The expert review panel was chaired by Matanuku Mahuika. The other members were Toko Kapea, Patsy Reddy, and Dion Tuuta.
The review panel released a discussion document in March 2013 where it proposed five integrated measures the Panel considered will improve the likelihood of Māori land being used more effectively.
The Panel conducted 20 consultation hui, and received 189 written submissions from individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi, trusts and incorporations, local authorities, law firms and others.
The report summarises submissions and explains shifts in emphasis from the Panel’s March 2013 discussion paper as a result of the submissions process in relation to each of its key propositions.
In particular, the Panel stressed that its approach was to consider principled bases for Māori land legislation rather than detailed amendments to existing legislation. The Panel’s view is that giving effect to its recommendations will require new legislation:
The structure of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, with a primary focus on the Māori Land Court and its jurisdiction, does not lend itself well to a new framework in which we consider the focus should very clearly be on Māori land protection and utilisation and empowerment of Māori land owners and their decision-making.
The Panel’s final recommendations on each proposition are set out below.
Proposition 1: Utilisation of Māori land should be able to be determined by a majority of engaged owners
We recommend that reforms to the laws relating to Māori land include provisions to give effect to Proposition 1
The laws relating to Māori land should:
• be changed and clarified to enable engaged owners of Māori land to make governance and utilisation decisions that take effect and bind relevant parties without the need for confirmation, approval or other action by the Māori Land Court or any other supervisory body; and
• continue to include safeguards requiring a high threshold of owner agreement before decisions to dispose of Māori land will have legal and binding effect.
Proposition 2: All Māori land should be capable of utilisation and effective administration
We recommend that reforms to the laws relating to Māori land include provisions to facilitate Proposition 2
The laws relating to Māori land should:
• provide clear mechanisms for external managers to be appointed to administer under-utilised Māori land blocks when there is no engagement by the owners.
Proposition 3: Māori land should have effective, fit for purpose, governance
We recommend that reforms to the laws relating to Māori land include provisions to give effect to Proposition 3
The laws relating to Māori land should:
• clearly prescribe the duties and obligations of Māori land governance entities, including their trustees, directors or committee members, and aligns those duties and obligations with the general law applying to similar entities; and
• clarify the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court to consider alleged breaches of duty and make appropriate orders.
Proposition 4: There should be an enabling institutional framework to support owners of Māori land to make decisions and resolve any disputes
We recommend that reforms to the laws relating to Māori land include provisions to give effect to Proposition 4
The laws relating to Māori land should:
• require disputes relating to Māori land to be referred, in the first instance, to mediation; and
• contain clear and straightforward provisions and rules to ensure the Māori Land Court remains an accessible judicial forum for resolving disputes that cannot be resolved by mediation and enabling trustees, directors and committee members of governance entities to be held to account for breaches of duty.
Proposition 5: Excessive fragmentation of Māori land should be discouraged
We recommend that reforms to the laws relating to Māori land include provisions to facilitate Proposition 5 but the rights of decision-making should remain open to all owners
The laws relating to Māori land should:
• provide transparent registration provisions for Māori land titles and assurance of title to reflect the nature of Māori land tenure as a collectively held taonga tuku iho;
• contain provisions that facilitate succession to Māori land with a minimum of compliance requirements and simple, straightforward administrative, rather than judicial, processes; and
• contain provisions to address barriers caused by excessive fragmentation of Māori land ownership interests.
The Government has announced that it is drafting a new Te Ture Whenua Māori bill to reform the governance and management of Māori land based on the Panel’s findings. This was announced on 3 April 2014 by Associate Minister of Māori Affairs Christopher Finlayson at the same time as the Panel’s final report was released.
The Minister announced that key features of the bill will include:
In contextualising these proposals for law reform, the Minister’s announcement reproduced some important statistics about Māori land and its utilisation:
There are over 27,137 blocks of Māori land under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, comprising 1.42 million hectares, or around 5% of the total land in New Zealand.
It has been estimated that up to 80% of Māori land is under-performing for its owners. In many cases this is because of structural issues which stem from the existing legislation.
Improving the performance and productivity of Māori land would provide tremendous economic and cultural benefits to its owners and their whānau, hapū and iwi.
A study prepared for the Ministry of Primary Industries suggested the benefits of improving governance and management of Maori land could be huge, increasing output by up to $8 billion and creating up to 3600 jobs over a decade.
Finally, the Minister also stated:
Māori land is a resource that contributes significantly to the cultural identity and well-being of Māori land owners,” Mr Finlayson said. “I look forward to progressing legislation that will allow this potential to be realised.
The Minister for Land Information and I are developing proposals for implementing the changes so that services to support Māori land owners and assure the integrity of the Māori land title system will be in place and aligned with the new legislation.
Tom Bennion wrote about the Panel’s 2013 discussion document ((2013) May Māori LR). The Māori Law Review will publish further articles about the Panel’s final recommendations and resulting law reform in future issues.]]>
Te Mātāpunenga – A Compendium of References to the Concepts and Institutions of Māori Customary Law
Compiled, Edited and Introduced by Richard Benton, Alex Frame and Paul Meredith – Te Mātāhauariki Research Institute, University of Waikato.
Victoria University Press 2013 (ISBN: 9780864738899)
Reviewed by Matiu Dickson, Senior Lecturer, Te Piringa, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato – Ngāiterangi Iwi
As the time got nearer to the publication of this book, I was excited because it would be a rare addition to the written knowledge of Maori customary law or Maori tikanga law, adding to the much used writings of Hirini Moko Mead, Dame Joan Metge and others. As a lecturer in a Law Faculty teaching Maori tikanga law in the mainstream of legal studies, I expected that such a publication would assist in explaining the meaning of Maori tikanga practice and further, it might show how Maori tikanga practice could fit into the present legal system. In the past I had relied on my own knowledge of Maori tikanga practice when teaching law students and naturally my knowledge was based on my own iwi or tribal experience.
Most Maori tikanga customs or values, like aroha, manākitanga and whanaungatanga for example, are universal in Maori society but there are also important tribal differences which students should know, giving them a fuller understanding of what Maori believed and why they carried out certain practices. The colonial experience affected tribes differently in the practice and retention of their tikanga practice. In my own tribal area of Tauranga Moana, where the tribes are Ngāiterangi, Ngāti Ranginui and Ngāti Pukenga, contact with the Pakeha community was limited after the land wars in the 1860s and the two peoples lived separately by choice. The strength of tribal tikanga practice and language or reo was retained in isolated pockets of the community like Matakana Island where I was raised by my grandparents, until about the 1940s. Conversion to Christianity, initially to the Anglican Church and then to Catholicism, of the tribal people added another layer of influence. Tahupotiki Ratana brought his religion to the district in the 1930s and converted various parts of the tribal community. Thus our experience was different to our relatives of Ngāti Awa, Te Whakatōhea, Te Whānau a Apanui and Ngāituhoe in the rest of the Mataatua area or rohe.
To properly reflect tribal differences in tikanga practice, I had to rely on an array of written texts and articles by authors past and present, Maori and Pakeha. Authorship is always a potential issue as to the interpretation of Maori tikanga practice. Hopefully, gone are the days when Maori tikanga law was interpreted with the ‘real’ law in mind by some writers and comparisons and conclusions were made without reference to Maori themselves and to their views. However, even now there are certain authors who still write in this way and show Maori tikanga practice in a negative light rather than as an opportunity to improve a lot of social issues that affect Maori and to reinforce cultural identity.
Recent publications by Government departments, like He Hinātore ki te Ao Māori – A Glimpse into the Maori World (2001) by the Ministry of Justice and the Study Paper 9 Maori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law (2001) by the Law Commission, also added to the useful resources but those dealt with Maori tikanga law in a very general way. The former using made-up examples of Maori tikanga practice, to illustrate important points but these were not the same as the ‘real deal’. I too used examples of a personal nature in teaching and these always proved to be useful for students in furthering their understanding. Students themselves have reiterated this view in their appraisals of my teaching. As a consequence, I firmly believe that Maori themselves who have these experiences and can refer to them in an interesting and relevant way are probably the most effective teachers of Maori tikanga law. Those teachers require a working knowledge, or preferably a speaking knowledge of the Maori language.
When I received a copy of the finished book I was not disappointed. It is a written record of the culmination of a series of discussions (Pū Wānanga) held by members of the Te Mātāhauariki Research Institute and Maori leaders, many of whom have passed on. The Institute was based at the recently established (in 1990) Law School at the University of Waikato, the Dean at the time was Professor Margaret Bedggood. I participated in several of these discussions as it was intended that staff members, particularly Maori staff members, of the Law School would also be part of the new research ‘whanau’. It was appropriate that this Law School should host this Research Institute since the School had several foundations goals prompting its beginnings.
These goals (the law in context and professionalism) were the result of the findings in the Te Matahauariki Report compiled in 1988. In that report the Maori stakeholders to the University supported the establishment of a new Law School if the law were taught in its bicultural context. This would make the new School unique as compared to the other existing law schools in the country. As a graduate of a ‘black-letter law’ law school it was this goal that attracted me to teach at this new law school. It was new, innovative and relevant to me as a Maori. The research from this institute would contribute immensely to promoting this goal. It was a privilege to be part of the discussions with such notable leaders as Dr Tui Adams, Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, Dame Evelyn Stokes and others listed in the book’s introduction. As I had been taught by my elders, as a young person my role was to listen and to listen well! In 2012 the Law School’s name was officially changed to Te Piringa, Faculty of Law adopting the name, meaning coming together of the people, given by the late Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu at the time of the opening of the Faculty buildings.
This book has been set out so that it can be used easily as a reference resource. The authors have avoided commenting on whether the customs they have recorded are ‘true custom’ and they have endeavoured to merely record what the writers of the time asserted to be customs themselves. It is for readers to carry out further research to satisfy themselves as to the truthfulness of the authors’ assertions. Thus, in this way the book is the starting point of the research journey. It does not claim to be the complete research resource on Maori tikanga law, however for me it sparks the interest to research further.
When I received the book I went right through it in one sitting, checking on the entries and subjects which interested me most. The authors have been judicious in their choice of entries and the variety adds to the interest. But more importantly, for me, it shows the knowledge and orderliness of traditional Maori society. That is, it reinforces the wisdom of the elders, more so that this knowledge was orally handed down through the generations.
I have used the book as a reference book in the teaching this year of a 4th year law paper titled ‘Maori Customary Law/ Ngā Tikanga Māori’. This paper was introduced several years ago to cater for the growing number of Maori-speaking law students enrolling in the Law Faculty. It was intended that the paper should be taught by me in te reo. I had taught as a guest lecturer in te reo in the Master’s degree in Maori Laws and Philosophy offered at the Te Wānanga o Raukawa and I had enjoyed the challenge. Initially nearly all of the students taking the paper were Maori, however for the last several years student enrolments in the paper have been mostly Pakeha students. Thus the interest in Maori tikanga law has shifted to all of the students across the Faculty. Students already have compulsory parts of their 1st year papers covering Maori tikanga law and now a number of students want to specialise in this area of the law. This is both a great challenge and an admirable achievement for the Law Faculty.
One of the topics of discussion in the class has been the negative fallout from the Takamore case and the obvious need of the general public to understand Maori burial practices. The references in the book to tangihanga are extensive and coupled with the illustration chosen is a very useful resource indeed. At page 184 is the illustration drawn by Horatio Robley of a tangi at Matapihi. I can add that the tangi is that of Tamati Mauao my great (x3) grandfather whose daughter Hārete bore a child to Robley whose name was Tamati Ropere. His descendants still live in Matapihi. And so it goes on. As I mentioned earlier, this book is the beginning of interesting research and I recommend it to other readers.
He taonga te mātauranga i tukuna iho ki a tātou hei raukura mo te māhunga! (Knowledge is a gift given to us by our ancestors as a feather for our heads, a sign of chiefliness.)]]>
Criminal law, the use of force in defence of property – standing up for a fragile lake – Taueki v R  NZSC 146
Status of land – Jensen v Registrar General of Land  NZHC 3525
Māori interests in natural resource management - 2013 in review
New Zealand’s first bilingual statute – does New Zealand have an appropriate legal framework?
He Papakupu Reo Ture: A Dictionary of Māori Legal Terms – reviewed by Pānia Papa
The political ecology and political economy of the Indigenous land titling ‘revolution’ in Australia – Jon Altman
Download the Māori Law Review March 2014 (663 KB PDF).]]>
2013 featured a number of cases grappling with the perennial issue of how to reconcile infrastructure and other developments, on the one hand, with providing for the relationship of tangata whenua with significant sites on the other.
This article summarises key decisions from 2013 under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) and the Historic Places Act 1993 (“HPA”), looks at further developments in relation to natural resources in the context of Treaty settlements of historical claims, and notes a number of ongoing topics to monitor as 2014 unfolds.
Heybridge Developments v Bay of Plenty Regional Council  NZEnvC 269
Download Heybridge Developments v Bay of Plenty Regional Council  NZEnvC 269 here.
Section 6(e) of the RMA requires decision-makers to recognise and provide for “the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga”, as a matter of national importance.
At issue in Heybridge was the nature and degree of evidence required to trigger s 6(e); in particular, the case considered whether an honestly held belief that an ancestor may be buried within a site, supported by credible evidence, was enough to establish a relationship for the purposes of that provision.
In 2007 the Bay of Plenty Regional Council declined consent to subdivide Heybridge’s 44-hectare site because, among other reasons, earthworks would adversely affect the relationship of Pirirakau with Tahataharoa, a wider area of ancestral land which includes the site believed by Pirirakau to be the burial place of Tutereinga, their eponymous ancestor.
Heybridge appealed to the Environment Court, without success. On further appeal, however, the High Court (Heybridge Developments Ltd v Bay of Plenty Regional Council (2011) 16 ELRNZ 593; HC TAU CIV-2010-470-585 19 August 2011) accepted Heybridge’s submission that:
If Pirirakau alleged that s 6(e) required the Court to recognise and provide for Pirirakau’s relationship with the site on the basis of waahi tapu, it was for Pirirakau to establish the existence of waahi tapu. It was not for Pirirakau simply to assert a belief and for the appellant to be required to disprove it.
Peters J expressed the view that “a party who asserts a fact bears the evidential onus of establishing that fact by adducing sufficiently probative evidence. The existence of a fact is not established by an honest belief. I am satisfied that the Court erred as a matter of law in this respect”. The case was remitted back to the Environment Court for reconsideration.
In the ensuing Environment Court proceeding, all counsel agreed that the High Court had not determined “whether section 6(e) extended to recognition and provision of a relationship between Pirirakau and their culture and traditions with Tahataharoa based predominantly on a belief. Rather, it was for the Environment Court to reconsider if and how the relationship of Pirirakau with the site should be provided for under section 6(e)”.
After reviewing the authorities, the Environment Court held that there is “no authority for the blanket proposition that a relationship under s 6(e) could not be based on an honest belief. Rather (…) the cases demonstrate that “oral assertions of a belief supported by consistent and credible evidence tending to corroborate the authenticity of the belief” can sustain a relationship for the purposes of section 6(e) of the RMA.”
The Environment Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence, based on Pirirakau’s honest belief and supported by evidence of oral traditions, to establish a relationship with the site in s 6(e) terms.
That finding did not lead the Court to uphold its previous decision and decline consent, however. Rather, based on evidence that the burial site could be anywhere within the wider Tahataharoa area, a majority of the members of the Court held that the development could proceed (under appropriate conditions) as there was a sufficiently low probability of the burial site being disturbed.
Verstraete v Far North District Council  NZEnvC 108
Download Verstraete v Far North District Council  NZEnvC 108 here.
The Council had declined consent for the Verstraetes to construct a dwelling that breached visual amenity and earthworks provisions of the district plan, on the slopes of a prominent hill known as Rangitane or Waitete.
While one local hapū (Ngāti Rehia) had no issue with the proposal to build above a certain height plane, another (Ngāti Mau) considered that to do so would detrimentally affect its relationship with Rangitane, which is considered to be a wāhi tapu and taonga of the hapū.
The Environment Court, on appeal, heard expert cultural evidence (including that of a witness not from the area) about the competing traditional interests in the hill, the nature of Māori relationships with it – including whether the hill was a taonga or a wāhi tapu – and the effects of the development on those relationships.
While finding it unnecessary to determine which hapū held mana whenua over the site, the Court analysed the expert cultural evidence and found there was insufficient evidence to support the claim by Ngāti Mau that the summit of Rangitane is a taonga or a wāhi tapu. The Court therefore granted the application, on the basis that it would not adversely affect a site of cultural significance to Māori.
Ngā Hapū o Poutama v Taranaki Regional Council & Anor  NZEnvC 254
Download Ngā Hapū o Poutama v Taranaki Regional Council & Anor  NZEnvC 254 here.
This case involved an appeal to the Environment Court by Ngā Hapū o Poutama against a decision of the Taranaki Regional Council to grant the New Zealand Transport Agency resource consent to remediate or reconstruct a length of embankment above the Tongaporutu Estuary on State Highway 3.
Ngā Hapū o Poutama contended that those works would adversely affect a wāhi tapu comprising parts of the Tongaporutu River, a tauranga waka adjacent to the proposed works, and a nearby ancestral pā and related urupā.
There was no dispute about the existence of the wāhi tapu, but on the evidence the Court considered that the adverse effects on the site were not of such a nature or level that the works should be disallowed. Nor did the Court agree with the appellant that there was a credible alternative to the works. The Court therefore upheld the Council’s grant of consent.
One aspect of the case that the Court found “highly concerning” was what it described as a “demand [by Ngā Hapū o Poutama] for payment of $100,000 for NZTA having received the benefit of advice from Poutama during consultation”. “If parties entering into consultation in good faith are to be confronted with demands of that sort”, the Court observed, “they might reasonably be reluctant to commence the process in the first place.”
Waikanae Christian Holiday Park Inc v New Zealand Historic Places Trust Māori Heritage Council & Anor  NZHC 2319, 6 September 2013
This case was reported in the October 2013 edition of the Māori Law Review ((2013) October Māori LR 8-10).
In short, a landowner (Waikanae Christian Holiday Park Inc) took umbrage at a decision by the Māori Heritage Council of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust / Pouhere Taonga to extend, on application by tangata whenua, the boundaries of an area registered as a wāhi tapu.
The High Court dismissed the judicial review application, however, on the grounds that there was nothing to suggest that the decision-maker had acted outside its statutory powers or failed to follow proper processes when reaching its decision.
Ngāti Uru Hapū v New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga  NZEnvC 22
Download Ngāti Uru Hapū v New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga  NZEnvC 22 here.
Ngāti Uru appealed the grant by the Trust of a general authority, under section 14 of the HPA, allowing the applicant (Mr Cook) to destroy or modify archaeological sites in constructing an access track.
The Environment Court acknowledged the underlying concerns of Ngāti Uru about potential effects on sites of significance, but noted that there were “serious disputes” between the experts as to the actual nature and location of many of them.
The Court imposed as a condition on the authority a protocol, largely agreed between the parties, providing for monitoring of the works by tangata whenua and setting out operational procedures and communications requirements.
The Court was satisfied that the authority, in light of the protocol condition, met the tests under ss 12 and 14(2) of the HPA, and that granting it on appropriate conditions would duly provide for the relationship of Māori with their sites (as well as the values of the known sites).
Ngāti Rāhiri Hapū o Te Atiawa (Taranaki) Society Inc v New Zealand Historic Places Trust  NZHC 2746
Similarly, this case (reported in the November 2013 issue of the Māori Law Review ((2013) November Māori LR 1-5)) concerned an appeal against a decision of the Historic Places Trust to grant a s 14 general authority, in this instance to Todd Taranaki Limited, relating to construction of a gas pipeline in the Tikorangi district.
The project works themselves were not opposed by tangata whenua; rather, the appellant hapū (Ngāti Rāhiri) took issue with two conditions on the authority, that:
An initial appeal by Ngāti Rāhiri to the Environment Court was unsuccessful, but resulted in words being added to the relevant conditions to clarify that the Trust had no view as to the mana whenua status of either hapū.
Ngāti Rāhiri appealed further to the High Court, again unsuccessfully. The Court held that the HPA does not require the Trust to assess the relationships of Māori with their ancestral lands so as to determine and accord precedence between claimed interests.
Te Puna Mātauranga o Whanganui v Wanganui District Council  NZEnvC 110
Download Te Puna Mātauranga o Whanganui v Wanganui District Council  NZEnvC 110 here.
This case concerned an application by Universal College of Learning and Te Puna Mātauranga o Whanganui for consent to demolish a building that had formerly housed the Māori Land Court, and to establish and operate an iwi tertiary institute on the site.
An earlier decision of the Environment Court (Universal College of Learning v Wanganui DC  NZEnvC 291) had declined consent to demolish the heritage building, which was built in 1922 and was listed in 2008 as a Category 1 Historic Place by the Historic Places Trust. At the time of that decision there was uncertainty about the applicants’ plans to replace it with another building.
Perhaps because of that history, the renewed application was not determined at first instance by the Council, but rather was referred directly to the Environment Court under s 87G of the RMA.
The evidence put forward by the applicants to support demolition of the building included that it had negative connotations for Māori, as it had housed the Native Land Court from the 1860s until the 1920s and thus symbolised the conversion of customary tenure into individual freehold titles, thereby facilitating the alienation of very significant areas of land from Māori ownership.
The evidence put before the Court by opponents to the development also included considerable discussion about the ability of the exterior of the building to be retained and incorporated into a modified proposal.
In considering the positive and adverse effects of the proposal, the Court acknowledged the obvious cultural and other benefits that the iwi tertiary institute would bring, but declined the application because it would not accord with the requirement in section 6(f) of the RMA to provide for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate development.
It is clear from the decision that the Court’s focus was drawn to the prospects of an alternative development – involving retaining aspects of the heritage building and adapting it for the intended use – and that the Court favoured that alternative over the works proposed by the applicants. The Court accepted that the applicants would have to pay a premium to retain and adapt the building, and observed that “that is the all but inevitable consequence of recognising and providing for … the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate … use and development.”
As for the applicants’ argument that negative connotations with the building diminished its heritage values, the Court held that “we would require much stronger and direct evidence about such sentiment as a basis for rational decision making, and no authority has been cited to justify such an approach.”
It remains to be seen whether the applicants will seek consent for the revised proposal favoured by the Court.
2013 was another busy year for the Crown and claimant groups, with deeds of settlement signed by Tūhoe, Ngāti Haua, Maungaharuru-Tangitu Hapū, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, Ngāti Rārua, and Ngāti Pūkenga. (See the review of Treaty settlement legislation before the House of Representatives in 2013: (2013) December Māori LR 8-27.)
The signing ceremony between the Crown and Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu at Onetahua Marae in Golden Bay marked the final deed of settlement for historical claims in the South Island.
Several associated settlement bills were also introduced to Parliament. The House of Representatives sat through extended hours in October to pass the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill, Ngāti Haua Claims Settlement Bill and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill through their first readings.
Frameworks for co-management of natural resources continue to form an important part of the redress negotiated by iwi and the Crown. The Tūhoe settlement will create a legal identity for Te Urewera itself and establishes a governance board, comprising Crown and Tūhoe representatives, to manage and protect the interests of Te Urewera. In the context of the Tapuika settlement, the Kaituna River Authority – Te Maru o Kaituna – is a co-governance entity to be established with the purpose of restoring, protecting, and enhancing the health of that river. Discussions between the Crown and iwi Māori continue on other significant natural resource settlements, including the Whanganui River negotiations.
A broad range of ongoing litigation and regulatory developments with the potential to affect Māori progressed during 2013 and will continue to generate discussion throughout 2014 (and beyond, in many cases). Here is just a small selection.
See the March 2013 issue of the Māori Law Review for the 2012 review of Māori interests in natural resource management ((2013) March Māori LR 9-13.)]]>
He Papakupu Reo Ture: A Dictionary of Māori Legal Terms
Māmari Stephens and Mary Boyce
LexisNexis New Zealand 2013 (ISBN: 9781927183748)
Reviewed by Pānia Papa – Ngāti Korokī-Kahukura, Ngāti Mahuta.
He papakupu ngā tino hoa o te hunga whakamāori kōrero, ā, kua tau mai tēnei papakupu hei hoa mō ngā papakupu pūtaiao, pāngarau hoki kei taku paenga pukapuka. He rawe ki a au te takoto o ngā kōrero o roto i te Papakupu Reo Ture, he māmā te whai, he mārama hoki ngā tohu i te taha o te kupu e whakaatu mai ana i ahu mai i tēhea puna kōrero ia kupu. Ko tētehi anō painga o tēnei papakupu, ka homai he tauira i te taha o ngā kupu e kitea ai te horopaki i hua mai ai te kupu. Ka nui te whaihua o tēnei papakupu ki te hunga whakamāori kōrero, ki te hunga rānei e mahi ana i roto i ngā tūranga ā-iwi, ā-Kāwanatanga hoki e whai pānga ana ki ngā āhuatanga o ngā kokoraho whenua ki Te Roopu Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ki ngā Kaunihera, ki ngā Kōti anō hoki.
Every translator has a stack of dictionaries filling their bookshelves, and this one is a welcome addition to mine, joining the other subject specific Science and Mathematics dictionaries already there. The layout of terms, examples and reference notes in ‘A Dictionary of Māori Legal Terms’ is excellent. It is easy to follow and the references accompanying each term clearly indicate the source of that term. Another beneficial element of this dictionary is that it provides contextual examples of how the term has been used in legal contexts, from the corpus of legal documents. This dictionary will not only be hugely beneficial for translators, but also for people working in tribal authorities or governmental positions working with Waitangi Tribunal claims, Councils and Courts.
Pānia Papa – Ngāti Korokī-Kahukura, Ngāti Mahuta.
MSocSci (Waikato), RSA CTEFLA (Cambridge), Tītohu Whakamāori (Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo), Te Panekiretanga o Te Reo (Te Wānanga o Aotearoa)
Kaiwhakamāori ā-tuhi, Kaiwhakataki Pouaka Whakaata, Mātanga Reo i te Ao Pāpaho, Kaiako i Te Panekiretanga o Te Reo me ngā Kura Reo o te motu, Kaiwhakangungu Kaiako, Kaiwaihanga Marau, Rauemi Whakaako anō hoki.
Translator, Television presenter, Māori Language Consultant in Broadcasting, Tutor in Te Panekiretanga o Te Reo and national Kura Reo, Professional Development Provider for Teachers, Curriculum and Resource designer.]]>