In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach

Last updated

In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Decided6 March 1963
Citation(s)[1963] NZLR 461
Case history
Prior action(s)[1960] NZLR 673
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Kenneth Gresson P, Alfred North and Terence Gresson JJ
Keywords
Foreshore and seabed, Aboriginal title, Ninety Mile Beach

In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach was a decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand holding that Maori could not hold title to the foreshore because of the effect of section 147 of the Harbours Act 1878 (later section 150 of the Harbours Act 1950); and because investigation of title to land adjacent to the sea by the Māori Land Court had extinguished rights to land below the high water mark. [1] The decision was overturned in 2003 by Ngati Apa v Attorney-General.

Contents

Background

The plaintiff in the case, Waata Tepania, was the "Chairman of the Taitokerau Maori District Council, a member of the New Zealand Maori Council, and a member of both the Taitokerau and Aupouri Maori Trust Boards, Mr Tepania was a leader and elder of both the Aupouri and Rarawa tribes. A resident at Ahipara, he was born at Wai-mahana and as a lad attended the most northerly school in New Zealand — Te Hapua." [2]

The background to the case was neatly summarised by Justice T.A. Gresson:

This was an application under s. 161 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 by Waata Hone Tepania for an investigation of title, and for the issue of a freehold order in respect of the foreshore of the Ninety-Mile Beach in North Auckland. It was heard by the Māori Land Court in November 1957 and the Court found as a fact that immediately before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 the Te Aupouri and Te Rarawa Tribes owned and occupied the foreshore in question according to their customs and usages. The Chief Judge, however, stated a case, pursuant to s. 67 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953, for the opinion of the Supreme Court on two substantial questions of law, which — in abbreviated form — may be stated as follows:

1. Has the Māori Land Court jurisdiction to investigate title to, and to issue freehold orders in respect of the foreshore — namely, that part of the land which lies between mean high-water mark and mean low-water mark?

2. If so, is the Māori Land Court prohibited from exercising this jurisdiction by reason of a Proclamation issued by the Governor under s. 4 of the Native Lands Act 1867 on 29 May 1872? [3]

In the Supreme Court, Justice Turner stated that "s 150 of the Harbours Act 1950 operated as "an effective restriction upon the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court" which in terms of the statute was in effect "forbidden to undertake the investigation of the application."" [4]

Waata Tepania appealed Turner J's decision to the Court of Appeal.

Judgments

Justices Alfred North and Terence Gresson gave judgments dismissing the appeal with which President Kenneth Gresson concurred. Justice North holds as a preliminary point that the Crown is the only "legal source of private title", and that "on the assumption of British sovereignty — apart from the Treaty of Waitangi — the rights of the Maoris to their tribal lands depended wholly on the grace and favour of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, who had an absolute right to disregard the Native title to any lands in New Zealand, whether above high-water mark or below high-water mark." [5]

The judgements contained two principal reasons for denying the Māori Land Court the jurisdiction to investigate title to the foreshore. Firstly, the judges held that the Court was prevented by the Harbour Acts of 1878 and 1950. Secondly, the judges held that Māori Land Court investigations of title to land adjacent to the sea had extinguished customary rights below the high water mark.

North J

In addition to holding that section 147 of the Harbours Act 1878 prevented the Māori Land Court from investigating title to the foreshore, Justice North held that section 12 of the Crown Grants Act 1866 had the effect of leaving ownership of the foreshore with the Crown when the ocean was "described as being the boundary of the land". [6]

As the learned Solicitor-General submitted might be the case, I am of opinion that once an application for investigation of title to land having the sea as one of its boundaries was determined, the Maori customary communal rights were then wholly extinguished. If the Court made a freehold order or its equivalent fixing the boundary at low-water mark and the Crown accepted that recommendation, then without doubt the individuals in whose favour the order was made or their successors gained a title to low-water mark. If, on the other hand, the Court thought it right to fix the boundary at high-water mark, then the ownership of the land between high-water mark and low-water mark remained with the Crown, freed and discharged from the obligations which the Crown had undertaken when legislation was enacted giving effect to the promise contained in the Treaty of Waitangi. Finally, as it would appear must often have been the case, if in the grant the ocean sea or any sound bay or creek affected by the ebb and flow of the tide was described as forming the boundary of the land, then by virtue of the provisions of s. 12 of the Crown Grants Act 1866 the ownership of the land between high-water mark and low-water mark likewise remained in the Crown. [7]

T.A. Gresson J

Justice T.A. Gresson cited section 147 of the Harbours Act 1878:

No part of the shore of the sea or of any creek, bay, arm of the sea, or navigable river communicating therewith, where and so far up as the tide flows and re-flows, nor any land under the sea or under any navigable river, except as may already have been authorised by or under any Act or Ordinance, shall be leased, conveyed, granted or disposed of to any Harbour Board or any other body (whether incorporated or not) or to any person or persons without the special sanction of an Act of the General Assembly. [8]

T.A. Gresson concluded in light of the Harbours Act,

"The section in the Harbours Act is in my opinion an effective restriction upon the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court. The section speaks to prohibit all Courts, all officials, every person, from doing acts whose effect may be to purport to grant to any person any part of the foreshore. The present application is designed to obtain from the Māori Land Court an order having exactly that effect: therefore it must follow that the Māori Land Court is forbidden to undertake the investigation of the application. I must accordingly resolve the first question posed to me in favour of the Crown, and the answer to that question will accordingly be "No"." [9]

Ngati Apa v Attorney-General

The Court of Appeal overturned the ratio of In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach in its 2003 decision Ngati Apa v Attorney-General. The Court explicitly overruled the decision both on the preliminary point on the source of Aboriginal title and on the specific issues of statutory interpretation. Reaffirming the doctrine of native title established in R v Symonds, Chief Justice Elias stated:

The transfer of sovereignty did not affect customary property. They are interests preserved by the common law until extinguished in accordance with law. I agree that the legislation relied on in the High Court does not extinguish any Maori customary property in the seabed or foreshore. I agree with Keith and Anderson JJ and Tipping J that In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach was wrong in law and should not be followed. In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach followed the discredited authority of Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877) 3 NZ Jur (NS) SC 72, which was rejected by the Privy Council in Nireaha Tamaki v Baker [1901] AC 561. This is not a modern revision, based on developing insights since 1963. The reasoning the Court applied in In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach was contrary to other and higher authority and indeed was described at the time as “revolutionary”. [10]

Elias CJ explained the proper interpretation of the Harbours Acts:

Such legislation, by its terms, applied to future grants. It did not disturb any existing grants. Indeed, substantial areas of seabed and foreshore had already passed into the ownership of Harbour Boards and private individuals by 1878. I agree with the conclusion of Keith and Anderson JJ that the legislation cannot properly be construed to have confiscatory effect. Although a subsequent vesting order after investigation under the Maori Affairs Act 1953 was “deemed” a Crown grant (s162), that was a conveyancing device only and applied by operation of law. It was not a grant by executive action. Only such grants from Crown land were precluded for the future by the legislation. More importantly, the terms of s150 are inadequate to effect an expropriation of Maori customary property. [11]

Elias CJ also noted that,

Just as the investigation through the Māori Land Court of the title to customary land could not extinguish any customary property in contiguous land on shore beyond its boundaries, I consider that an investigation and grant of coastal land cannot extinguish any property held under Maori custom in lands below high water mark. [12]

Related Research Articles

The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics of New Zealand. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title. These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi. On 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, was enacted on 24 November 2004. Some sections of the Act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ninety Mile Beach, New Zealand</span> Beach in New Zealand

Te-Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach is on the western coast of the far north of the North Island of New Zealand. The beach is actually 88 kilometres long. Its southern end is close to the headland of Tauroa Point, to the west of Ahipara Bay, near Kaitaia. From there it sweeps briefly northeast before running northwest along the Aupouri Peninsula for the majority of its length. It ends at Tiriparepa / Scott Point, 5 kilometres (3 mi) south of Cape Maria van Diemen and about 10 kilometres (6 mi) south of Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua.

Udal law is a Norse-derived legal system, found in Shetland and Orkney in Scotland, and in Manx law in the Isle of Man. It is closely related to Odelsrett; both terms are from Proto-Germanic *Ōþalan, meaning "heritage; inheritance".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ngāti Apa</span> Māori iwi in New Zealand

Ngāti Apa is a Māori iwi (tribe) in Rangitikei District of New Zealand. Its rohe extend between the Mangawhero, Whangaehu, Turakina and Rangitīkei rivers. This area is bounded by Whanganui River in the north-west, and Manawatū River in the south-east. The marae in this district include Tini wai tara, Whangaehu, Kauangaroa, and Parewanui.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bastion Point</span> Area of coastal land in Auckland, New Zealand

Takaparawhau / Bastion Point is a coastal piece of land in Ōrākei, Auckland, New Zealand, overlooking the Waitematā Harbour. The area is significant in New Zealand history as the site of protests in the late 1970s by Māori against forced land alienation by Pākehā. Takaparawhau is now the site of the private Ōrākei Marae, the public Michael Joseph Savage Memorial, and privately-owned reserve land that is accessible to the public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

The Māori protest movement is a broad indigenous-rights movement in New Zealand. While there were a range of conflicts between Māori and European immigrants prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the signing provided a legal context for protesting, as the Treaty of Waitangi made New Zealand a British colony with British law and governance applying. The British authorities had drafted the Treaty with the intention of establishing a British Governor of New Zealand, recognising Māori ownership of their lands, forests and other possessions, and giving Māori the rights of British subjects. However, the Māori and English texts of the Treaty differ in meaning significantly; particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty. These discrepancies, and the subsequent colonisation by Pākehā settlers led to disagreements in the decades following the signing, including full-out warfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993</span>

Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand to "reform the laws relating to Māori land in accordance with the principles set out in the Preamble". These principles "reaffirm" the Treaty of Waitangi "relationship between the Māori people and the Crown" and "recognise that land is taonga tuku iho of special significance to Māori people". To that end, the principles "promote the retention of ... land in the hands of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu, and to protect wahi tapu". Further, they "facilitate the occupation, development, and utilisation of that land for the benefit of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Māori Land Court</span> Specialized court of New Zealand

The Māori Land Court is the specialist court of record in New Zealand that hears matters relating to Māori land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ngāti Tama</span> Māori iwi in New Zealand

Ngāti Tama is a historic Māori iwi of present-day New Zealand which whakapapas back to Tama Ariki, the chief navigator on the Tokomaru waka. The iwi of Ngati Tama is located in north Taranaki around Poutama. The Mōhakatino river marks their northern boundary with the Tainui and Ngāti Maniapoto iwi. Titoki marks the southern boundary with Ngati Mutunga. The close geographical proximity of Tainui's Ngati Toa of Kawhia and Ngati Mutunga explains the long, continuous, and close relationship among the three Iwi.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right of way</span> Legal right to pass through land belonging to another

Right of way is the legal right, established by grant from a landowner or long usage, to pass along a specific route through property belonging to another. A similar right of access also exists on land held by a government, lands that are typically called public land, state land, or Crown land. When one person owns a piece of land that is bordered on all sides by lands owned by others, an easement may exist or might be created so as to initiate a right of way through the bordering land.

Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington was a New Zealand court case of 1877 which ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi was a "simple nullity" having been signed by "primitive barbarians".

The Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 is an Act of the New Zealand Parliament created to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. It was brought in by the fifth National government and creates a sui generis property class for the marine and coastal area, in which it is vested in no one. This is in contrast to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 in which the foreshore and seabed were vested in the Crown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Muriwhenua</span>

Muriwhenua are a group of northern Māori iwi, based in Te Hiku o te Ika, the northernmost part of New Zealand's North Island. It consists of six iwi, Ngāti Kurī, Ngāi Takoto, Te Pātū, Ngāti Kahu, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa, with a combined population of about 34,000 people. The spiritually significant Hokianga Harbour, located just to the south of the Maungataniwha Range, is of special significance to the Muriwhenua people.

Hāmi Te Māunu was a rangatira of Ngāti Mutunga who was born in 1823 in north Taranaki. He was also known as Hamuera Koteriki and Hamiora Te Herepounamu.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tamaki Drive</span> Road in New Zealand

Tamaki Drive is the coastal road which follows the contours of the Waitematā Harbour, Auckland, New Zealand. The road links the suburbs Ōrākei, Mission Bay, and Kohimarama ending in Saint Heliers providing easy access to the local beaches. Tamaki Drive was completed in 1932 and incorporates The Strand, Bice Esplanade and, what was once part of the old Kohimarama Road. It is also referred to as the Waterfront Road. Tamaki Drive is a flat road around 8 km long and popular with walkers, runners and roller skaters, and includes a dedicated cycle lane. Those travelling along Tamaki Drive can find scenic highlights and peaceful views across the harbour to the volcanic island Rangitoto. The cliffs backing onto Tamaki Drive are made of Waitemata Sandstone strata clothed in places with pohutukawa. These trees seem to flower out of season, because these are actually Kermadec pohutukawa with small distinctive roundish leaves.

<i>New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General</i>

New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, also known as the "Lands" case or "SOE" case, was a seminal New Zealand legal decision marking the beginning of the common law development of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

<i>Paki v Attorney-General</i> (No 2) New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Paki v Attorney-General was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand that considered whether “usque ad medium filum aquae”, the common law presumption that the purchaser of land adjoining a stream or river also obtains ownership of the waterway to its mid-point applied to the Waikato riverbed adjoining blocks of land at Pouakani, near Mangakino. For differing reasons the Supreme Court unanimously held that the "mid-point presumption" did not apply and "decided that it had not been shown that title determination to the Pouakani land blocks had affected ownership of the riverbed".

<i>Ngati Apa v Attorney-General</i> Indigenous rights case of New Zealands Court of Appeal

Ngati Apa v Attorney-General was a landmark legal decision that sparked the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy. The case arose from an application by eight northern South Island iwi for orders declaring the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds Maori customary land. After lower court decisions and consequent appeals in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the High Court; the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine whether areas of foreshore and seabed were Maori customary land or not. The court also held that, "The transfer of sovereignty did not affect customary property. They are interests preserved by the common law until extinguished in accordance with the law". The effect of the decision was subsequently overturned by the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

<i>R v Symonds</i>

R v Symonds(The Queen v Symonds) incorporated the concept of Aboriginal title into New Zealand law and upheld the Government's pre-emptive right of purchase to Māori land deriving from the common law and expressed in the Treaty of Waitangi. Although the Native Lands Act 1862 waived Crown pre-emption, the notion of Aboriginal title has been revived in the 20th century to deal with Māori property rights.

References

  1. In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461
  2. "HAERE KI O KOUTOU TIPUNA". National Library of New Zealand. Te Ao Hou, the Maori Magazine. March 1969. Retrieved 24 September 2015.
  3. In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461 at 475–476.
  4. In re an Application for Investigation of Title to the Ninety Mile Beach (Wharo Oneroa a Tohe) [1960] NZLR 673.
  5. In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461 at 468.
  6. In re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461at 473.
  7. In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461 at 463.
  8. Harbours Act 1878, s 147.
  9. In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461 at 480.
  10. Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] NZCA 117 at [13].
  11. Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] NZCA 117 at [60].
  12. Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] NZCA 117 at [88].