TE KOOTI WHENUA MAAORI MAORI LAND COURT

Transcription

1 TE KOOTI WHENUA MAAORI -----~ MAORI LAND COURT Our Ref: Your Ref: 3 August 2005 Christine Baines 3 Wimbledon Crescent Glen Innes Auckland Tena koe Subject: Section: Pakiri Beach - Determine representatives for rone 30/93 Please find enclosed a copy of the minutes from the Court hearing at Wellington Minute Book 2005 CJ dated 1 August 2005 in respect of the above. Kia ora ~lz u Linda Lafaele for Registrar (encl. ) MINISTRY OF JUSTICE TiilJti 0 te Tllre 2nd Floor, Manaia House, Rathbone Street, PO Box 1764, DX AP24518, Whangarei, New Zealand Telephone, Pm"

2 Minute Book: 2005 CJ 130 Place: Present: Date: Wellington WW Isaac, Deputy Chief Judge 1 August 2005 Application No: Subject: Legislation: Applicant: Pakiri Beach Rohe - Determine representatives Section 30(1)(b) Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Gregory McDonald MINUTE OF THE COURT Introduction 1. On 8 January 2004 Gregory McDonald filed an application pursuant to section 3O(1)(b)/93 to determine the most appropriate representatives of the Pakiri Beach rohe in respect to consultation, negotiation and allocation of funding. 2. On 26 March 2004 a conference pursuant to section 67/93 took place at Nga Whare Waatea Marae, Mangere. The conference was scheduled to enable discussion to take place between the parties interested In the application. 3. The areas of agreement reached at that conference are set out in my previous minutes of 15 April 2004 at 2004 CJ 211,10 June 2004 at 2004 CJ 273 and 23 July 2004 at 2004 CJ 372. In summary it was agreed that the trustees of the Omaha Marae represent the tangata whenua of the Pakiri Beach rohe. 4. On 1 October 2004 at 2004 CJ 433 I issued a further minute stating that the section 3O(1)(b)/93 application would not be finalised until the separate application for appointment of trustees to the Omaha Marae (A ) had been completed. 5. The application for appointment of trustees pursuant to section 338(7)/93 was heard before His Honour Judge Spencer on 15 June 2004 at 30 AT and 11 October 2004 at 31 AT M. the latter hearing the Court appointed Heremaia Rosleur, Roi McCabe, Benjamin Paki, Laly Haddon, Richard Harris, Ringi Brown, Jacky Brown and Kororia Dennis as trustees. 6. The Court did not appoint a representative for the Timi Paraone whanau at this hearing. However the Court did give the whanau the opportunity to submit the names of two representatives by filing minutes of a whanau meeting within six months.

3 Minute Book: 2005 CJ As at the date of this minute, the Timi Paraone whanau have not put up a representative for appointment. 8. Since the order of the Court on 11 October 2004, the Maori Land Court has received correspondence from Gregory McDonald dated 17 December 2004, 2 February 200S and 5 May 2005 requesting that the section 30(1)(b)/93 application be finalised. Discussion 9. Under section 30(1)(b)/93 the Maori Land Court may determine, by order, who are the most appropriate representatives of a class or group of Maori in or for the purpose of (current or intended) proceedings, negotiations, allocations of property, or other matters. 10. The power of the Court to make an order is exercised in accordance with the reference made by the Chief Judge. This application was allocated to me by direction of the Chief Judge dated 2 February 2004 at 2004 CJ 102 and I quote from that minute as follows: "I have received an application, dated 8 January 2004, from Gregory McDonald on behalf of the Taumata B Whanau requesting a determination as to who are the most appropriate representatives of the Pakiri Beach rohe. Pursuant to section 30C(2) I appoint Deputy Chief Judge Isaac to address the application. He will shortly call a conference under section 67 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 with the applicant and all other interested parties." 11. It is clear from this minute that the role of the Court in this application is to determine who are the most appropriate representatives of the Pakiri Beach rohe, which includes the Taumata A and Band Pakiri G land blocks. 12. Under section 30C(3)/93, the judge addressing an application for determination may (but is not obliged to) do one or more of the following things: (a) determine the most appropriate representatives of a class or group of MaOri, and order accordingly, if subsection (5) applies; (b) refer the application to the Maori Land Court for hearing and determination; (c) exercise the powers in section 67 for the purpose expressed In that section; (d) refer some or all of the issues arising from the application to a mediator for mediation; (e) dismiss or defer consideration of the application, if subsection (6) applies. 13. Section 30C(5)f93 gives the judge the power to make a determination under subsection 3(a) above if he or she is satisfied that the applicant has taken

4 Minute Book: 2005 CJ 132 reasonable steps to notify those persons effected by the application of the application and those persons do not oppose the application. 14. Under section 30C/93 a judge, when addressing an application for a determination under section 30(1)(b)/93, is not required to make a final order determining representation. 15. I note also section 30Al93, which states that the intent of section 30 and sections 30B to 301 is to enable and encourage applicants and persons affected by an application under section 30 to resolve their differences concerning representation without adjudication (section 30A(a)/93). 16. At the section 67/93 conference on 26 March 2004 the parties present were in broad agreement that the Omaha Marae Trustees are the one body that represent the tangata whenua of the Pakin Beach rohe. 17. The charter for the Omaha Marae makes provision for the appointment of two representatives from each family and It was accepted that the trustees of the Marae are representative of all descendants of Rahui and Tenatahi. 18. It was also agreed that Ngati Manuhiri meet and formulate a plan amongst themselves to determine a method for them to use the Omaha Marae Trust and its charter, either in its present form or in a varied fonti, to best suit the requirements for consultation, negotiation and allocation of funding for Ngati Manuhiri. 19. Since the date of the conference the Court has received correspondence from the applicant expressing concern as to the appointment of trustees to the Omaha 1 Te Kiri Marae and requesting a further hearing to finalise the representation issue. No correspondence has been received from any of the other parties present at the conference. 20. As mentioned above the Court's power to make an order under section 30C/93 is discretionary and in this respect I endorse the comments of the Maori Land Court in Re Ngati Paoa Whiinau Trust (1995) 96A Hauraki Minute Book 155 that: "In our view the Court should not lightly make an order under this section. While appointment by the Court is a means to settling disputes it transgresses the right of the tribe to appoint ils representatives. It will invariably place the appointee in a position of strength. We believe that a Court imposed solution will not be as acceptable as one reached by the tribe and that the tribe should be encouraged to resolve any disputes over representation through traditional means." 21. I am also of the view that the applicant's concern does not lie with who represents the Pakiri Beach rohe for the purposes of consultation, negotiation and allocation of funding, but rather how they carry out that role. 22. This concern leads me to the application that was before the Court for the appointment of trustees to the Omaha Marae. That application, apart from the part relating to the appointment of an additional trustee from the Timl Paraone Whiinau, has been completed.

5 Minute Book: 2005 CJ Any concems that the applicant may have in respect to the administration of the reservation or the terms of the trust should be raised with the Court by way of an application under section 338/ In addition, I do not consider that it is necessary to have a further hearing to finalise the section 3O(1)(b)/93 application. There was clear agreement at the conference on 24 March 2004 that the Omaha Marae Trustees are the most appropriate representatives for the Pakiri Beach rohe. 25. Therefore, and for the purposes of clarity, I now make an order pursuant to section 3OC(5)/93 that the most appropriate representatives of the Pakiri Beach rohe in respect to consultation, negotiation and allocation of funding are the trustees of the Omaha 1 Te Kiri Marae. 26. In making this determination I note that the function of the Court under section 30/93 is now at an end. The Court's jurisdiction under this section is to make orders in accordance with the reference from the Chief Judge. That reference was to determine representation. It was not to review the actions of the trustees or to enforce the terms of the Marae Charter. 27. If problems between the applicant and the appointed trustees persist, and it is my hope that they do not, then the applicant may make further application to the Court under the appropriate section. 28. A copy of this decision is to go to all parties. Dated this day of 2005 WWlsaac DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE

6 " 2005 CJ ORDER DETERMINING REPRESENTATIVES Te Ture Whenua Mao~ Act 1993, Section 30C(5) In the Maori Land Court of New Zealand Taltakerau District IN THE MATTER determining representatives for the tangata whenua of the Pakirl Beach Rohe AT Wellington on 1 August 2005 WHEREAS upon application duly made to the Deputy Chief Judge under Section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 to make delennination as to representatives of a group of Maori NOW THEREFORE I, Wilson Where Isaac, Deputy Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court acting upon the application and pursuant to the provisions of Section 30C(5) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 detennine that the Omaha 1 T e Kiri Marae trustees are the most appropriate representatives of the tangata whenua of the Pakiri Beach rohe In respect to consultation, negotiation and allocation of funding