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[1987] 1 NZLR 641, (1987) 6 NZAR 353
Transcript Available here
Court membership
Judges 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]

The Bill was rushed through under Urgency. No mention of the Treaty of Waitangi was made in the first reading of the Bill, but at the Second Reading in December the Government noted it was considering a Supplementary Order Paper ensuring existing Maori land claims to the Tribunal would not be prejudiced. It was seemingly a minor point for the Government, to be tidied up at the last minute (Hansard, vol.476:6118). The Supplementary Order Paper was added without any debate later that same day. It was then passed in the final third reading of the Bill, again with little debate or apparent awareness from the MPs that what they were doing would have constitutional importance. [3] 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." [4] 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. [5] While substantial additions, the Labour Minister had informed his cabinet colleagues that the principles were essentially meaningless, and the early Waitangi Tribunal cases has indeed been very conservative in their approach. The clauses related only to Crown land which may have had a Waitangi tribunal claim already over it - it was seen as an issue narrow in scope dealing only with a minor land matter. The Labour Government did not think the new clauses would result in any real issues.

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. [6]

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Waitangi</span> 1840 agreement between the British Crown and Māori leaders in New Zealand

The Treaty of Waitangi, sometimes referred to as Te Tiriti, is a document of central importance to the history of New Zealand, its constitution, and its national mythos. It has played a major role in the treatment of the Māori people in New Zealand by successive governments and the wider population, something that has been especially prominent from the late 20th century. The treaty document is an agreement, not a treaty as recognised in international law. It was first signed on 6 February 1840 by Captain William Hobson as consul for the British Crown and by Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand. The treaty's quasi-legal status satisfies the demands of biculturalism in contemporary New Zealand society. In general terms, it is interpreted today as having established a partnership between equals in a way the Crown likely did not intend it to in 1840. Specifically, the treaty is seen, first, as entitling Māori to enjoyment of land and of natural resources and, if that right were ever breached, to restitution. Second, the treaty's quasi-legal status has clouded the question of whether Māori had ceded sovereignty to the Crown in 1840, and if so, whether such sovereignty remains intact.

Taonga or taoka is a Māori-language word that refers to a treasured possession in Māori culture. It lacks a direct translation into English, making its use in the Treaty of Waitangi significant. The current definition differs from the historical one, noted by Hongi Hika as "property procured by the spear" [one could understand this as war booty or defended property] and is now interpreted to mean a wide range of both tangible and intangible possessions, especially items of historical cultural significance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robin Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon</span> New Zealand judge (1926–2006)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waitangi Tribunal</span> 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of New Zealand</span> 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"; no law is accorded higher status. 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 politics since the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and the Waitangi Tribunal that was established by that act to hear claims. Successive governments have increasingly provided formal legal and political opportunity for Māori to seek redress for what are seen as breaches by the Crown of 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 including those who believe that the redress is insufficient to compensate for Māori losses. The settlements are typically seen as part of a broader Māori Renaissance.

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

<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 to that land by another colonising state. 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 was a range of conflicts between Māori and European immigrants prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the signing provided one reason for protesting. Disagreements in the decades following the signing sometimes included war.

The law of New Zealand uses the English common law system, inherited from being a part of the British Empire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand land confiscations</span> 1860s New Zealand political event

The New Zealand land confiscations took place during the 1860s to punish the Kīngitanga movement for attempting to set up an alternative Māori form of government that forbade the selling of land to European settlers. The confiscation law targeted Kīngitanga Māori against whom the government had waged war to restore the rule of British law. More than 1,200,000 hectares or 4.4 percent of land were confiscated, mainly in Waikato, Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty, but also in South Auckland, Hauraki, Te Urewera, Hawke's Bay and the East Coast.

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">Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 is an act of Parliament passed in New Zealand relating to Ngāi Tahu, the principal Māori iwi (tribe) of Te Waipounamu the South Island. It was negotiated in part by Henare Rakiihia Tau. The documents in relation to the Ngāi Tahu land settlement claim are held at Tūranga, the main public library in Ōtautahi Christchurch.

The New Zealand Māori Council is a body that represents and consults the Māori people of New Zealand. As one of the oldest Māori representative groups, the council exerts pressure on New Zealand governments to protect Treaty of Waitangi rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of New Zealand</span> National court system

The judiciary of New Zealand is responsible for the 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. The judiciary is supported in its work by an executive department, the Ministry of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi</span> Aspect of New Zealand law and politics

The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is a set of principles derived from, and interpreting, the Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed in New Zealand in 1840. The phrase "principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" was first used in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and the principles were codified in 1987. There is no final list and they are determined on a case-by-case basis. They include the three Ps: partnership, participation and protection of rangatiratanga.

<i>R v Symonds</i> 1847 New Zealand Supreme Court case

R v Symonds(The Queen v Symonds) was an 1847 New Zealand Supreme Court case that 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.

<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 Māori Land Court had extinguished rights to land below the high water mark. The decision was overturned in 2003 by Ngati Apa v Attorney-General.

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

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara is a Māori iwi (tribe) and hapū (sub-tribe) of New Zealand, which is part of the larger Ngāti Whātua iwi. The iwi's rohe is focused around the southern Kaipara Harbour in the Auckland Region of New Zealand. Ngāti Whātua have been present in the Kaipara Harbour since the arrival of the Māhuhu-ki-te-rangi migratory waka, gradually moving towards the north. By the 17th century, Ngāti Whātua reestablished a presence in the southern Kaipara Harbour.

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. Hansard, vo.476: 6192-6201
  4. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 656.
  5. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 657.
  6. 1 2 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. 41 (3): 339. doi:10.26686/vuwlr.v41i3.5226. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.