New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General

Last updated

New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Decided29 June 1987
Citation(s)[1987] 1 NZLR 641, (1987) 6 NZAR 353
Transcript(s) Available here
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Cooke P, Richardson, Somers, Casey and Bisson JJ
Keywords
Treaty of Waitangi, judicial review, State-Owned Enterprises Act

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.

Contents

Background

The Fourth Labour Government was embarking on a programme of commercialisation of government departments and on 1 April 1987 the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 came into force. The Act would allow assets and land owned by the Crown to be transferred to State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) which were government departments restructured and operated as companies. [1]

After the introduction of the State-Owned Enterprises Bill into the House of Representatives on 30 September 1986, an interim report of the Waitangi Tribunal had been given to the Minister of Māori Affairs. The Tribunal report feared that land transferred to SOEs such as the Forestry Corporation or Land Corporation would then be out of the power of the Crown to return to iwi in accordance with Tribunal recommendations because the SOE would have sold the land to a private buyer or be unwilling to sell the land back to the Crown. These land transfers would equate to a large proportion of New Zealand's land surface area. [2]

Included in the State-Owned Enterprises Act were two key sections, section 9 and section 27. Section 9 read, "9. Treaty of Waitangi — Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi." [3] Section 27 concerned land transferred under the Act which was subject to a Waitangi Tribunal claim prior to the Governor-General's assent of the Act, 18 December 1986. [4]

The main concern for the New Zealand Māori Council was that only where claims had been lodged before 18 December 1987 could the alienation of Māori lands be halted.

The Māori Council filed for a judicial review in March 1987 alleging in their statement of claim, "Unless restrained by this Honourable Court it is likely that the Crown will take action consequential on the exercise of statutory powers pursuant to the Act by way of the transfer of the assets the subject of existing and likely future claims before the Waitangi Tribunal in breach of the provisions of section 9 of the Act".

Judgments

The Māori Council succeeded in their appeal. The Court issued,

A declaration that the transfer of assets to State enterprises without establishing any system to consider in relation to particular assets or particular categories of assets whether such transfer would be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi would be unlawful. [5]

In addition the Court directed the Crown and the Maori Council to collaborate on a,

scheme of safeguards giving reasonable assurance that lands or waters will not be transferred to State enterprises in such a way as to prejudice Maori claims that have been submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal on or after 18 December 1986 or may foreseeably be submitted to the Tribunal. [6]

In their judgments the Court recognised a number of principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including,

The Court also noted that the use of the phrase "Treaty principles" rather than terms of the Treaty, "calls for an assessment of the relationship the parties hoped to create by and reflect in that document, and an inquiry into the benefits and obligations involved in applying its language in today's changed conditions and expectation in the light of that relationship."

Significance

In December 1987 the Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer introduced the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Bill into the House of Representatives to give effect to the scheme agreed between Crown and Māori Council as a result of the judgment. In December 1987, Cooke P delivered a Minute of the Court,

The Court is glad that they have succeeded. As the proposed legislation and other arrangements have been agreed, the Court has not been required to make any further ruling or to scrutinise the terms closely. We merely note that the broad principle appears to be that, if land is transferred to a State enterprise but the Waitangi Tribunal later recommend that it be returned to Maori ownership, that will be compulsory. [...] The Court hopes that this momentous agreement will be a good augury for the future of the partnership. Ka pai. [10]

In New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 6, the Supreme Court, "gave weight to the SOE case jurisprudence that vests the section 9 Treaty principles section as a paramount provision that contains a broad constitutional principle. The SOE case is “of great authority and importance to the law concerning the relationship between the Crown and Maori” (at [52])." [11]

Shortly after the decision, Eddie Durie, Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court said, "Until the Court of Appeal decision two years ago which halted the transfer of assets to state-owned enterprises, Maori people had not won a case since 1847. You had a sort of judicial scoreboard - Settlers: 60, Maori: 1." [12]

Glazebrook J has described the case thus,

The Court of Appeal's decision in the Maori Council case has been viewed by New Zealand historians as one of the crucial measures that helped facilitate Maori development and identity through propelling extensive social and political change in New Zealand. It has been argued that the decision, which has been seen as giving the Treaty of Waitangi an explicit place in New Zealand jurisprudence for the first time, was one of the catalysts for the creation of a general acceptance that the state has a responsibility actively to fund the promotion of Maori language and culture and language. [13]

Related Research Articles

Treaty of Waitangi 1840 treaty between representatives of the British Crown and various Māori chiefs

The Treaty of Waitangi is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Māori chiefs (rangatira) from the North Island of New Zealand. It has become a document of central importance to the history, to the political constitution of the state, and to the national mythos of New Zealand, and has played a major role in framing the political relations between New Zealand's government and the Māori population, especially from the late-20th century.

Robin Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon

Robin Brunskill Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon was a New Zealand judge and later a British Law Lord and member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He is widely considered one of New Zealand's most influential jurists, and is the only New Zealand judge to have sat in the House of Lords. He was a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong from 1997 to 2006.

Waitangi Tribunal permanent commission of inquiry in New Zealand

The Waitangi Tribunal is a New Zealand permanent commission of inquiry established under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. It is charged with investigating and making recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown, in the period largely since 1840, that breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal is not a court of law; therefore, the Tribunal's recommendations and findings are not binding on the Crown. They are sometimes not acted on, for instance in the foreshore and seabed dispute.

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.

Constitution of New Zealand Uncodified national constitution

The constitution of New Zealand is the sum of laws and principles that determine the political governance of New Zealand. Unlike many other nations, New Zealand has no single constitutional document. It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an "unwritten constitution", although the New Zealand constitution is in fact an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources. The Constitution Act 1986 has a central role, alongside a collection of other statutes, orders in Council, letters patent, decisions of the courts, principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and unwritten traditions and conventions. There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law". In most cases the New Zealand Parliament can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing acts of Parliament, and thus has the power to change or abolish elements of the constitution. There are some exceptions to this though – the Electoral Act 1993 requires certain provisions can only be amended following a referendum.

Claims and settlements under the Treaty of Waitangi have been a significant feature of New Zealand race relations and politics since the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Successive governments have increasingly provided formal legal and political opportunity for Māori to seek redress for breaches by the Crown of the guarantees set out in the Treaty of Waitangi. While it has resulted in putting to rest a number of significant longstanding grievances, the process has been subject to criticisms from a number of angles, from those who believe that the redress is insufficient to compensate for Māori losses, to those who see no value in revisiting painful and contentious historical issues. The settlements are typically seen as part of a broader Māori Renaissance.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand setting out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a Bill of rights. It is part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution.

Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal and gave the Treaty of Waitangi recognition in New Zealand law for the first time. The Tribunal was empowered to investigate possible breaches of the Treaty by the New Zealand government or any state-controlled body, occurring after 1975. It was also empowered to recommend, but not enforce, remedies.

Paul McHugh is a New Zealand academic lawyer. He teaches at the University of Cambridge where he is a Professor in Law and Legal History and Fellow of Sidney Sussex College.

Aboriginal title 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 Europeans 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 British goal of colonisation, led to disagreements in the decades following the signing, including full-out warfare.

The law of New Zealand has its foundation in the English common law system, inherited from being a part of the Commonwealth. There are several sources of law, the primary ones being statutes enacted by the New Zealand Parliament and case law made by decisions of the courts of New Zealand. At a more fundamental level, the law of New Zealand is based on three related principles: parliamentary sovereignty; the rule of law; and the separation of powers.

Māori Land Court 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.

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 was vested in the Crown.

The New Zealand Māori Council is a body for the representation of and consultation with the Māori people of New Zealand. The council is one of the oldest of all Māori representative groups. In recent times the council has increased its focus on social challenges and issues that impact Māori and, as a result, its work programs have changed to developing ideas and innovative ways of reducing barriers that might be in the way of its people progressing forward.

Judiciary of New Zealand

The judiciary of New Zealand is a system of courts that interprets and applies the laws of New Zealand. It has four primary functions: to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution; to deliver authoritative rulings on the meaning and application of legislation; to develop case law; and to uphold the rule of law, personal liberty and human rights.

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, in New Zealand law and politics, are a set of principles derived from, and interpreting, the Treaty of Waitangi. They are partly an attempt to reconcile the different te reo Māori and English language versions of the Treaty, and allow the application of the Treaty to a contemporary context.

<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.

<i>In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach</i>

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 ; and because investigation of title to land adjacent to the sea by the Maori Land Court had extinguished rights to land below the high water mark. The decision was overturned in 2003 by Ngati Apa v Attorney-General.

References

  1. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 651.
  2. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 653.
  3. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 656.
  4. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 657.
  5. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 666.
  6. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 666.
  7. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 663.
  8. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 702.
  9. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 703.
  10. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 719.
  11. Ruru, Jacinta (March 2013). "Partial privatisation no material impairment to remedying Treaty breaches – New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 6". Māori Law Review. Retrieved 2 April 2015.
  12. "NZ Herald". 14 March 1989. p. 20.
  13. Glazebrook, Susan (2010). "What makes a Leading Case? The Narrow Lens of the Law or a Wider Perspective?" (PDF). VUWLR. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.