Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal

[2015] NZHC 1115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CIV-2014-416-24 [2015] NZHC 1115

UNDER

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

and/or Part 30 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report, The Mangatū Remedies Report (2013)

BETWEEN

ALAN PAREKURA TOROHINA HARONGA

First Applicant

TE AITANGA A MĀHAKI TRUST Second Applicant

AND

THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL (TE ROPU WHAKAMANA I TE TIRITI O WAITANGI)

First Respondent

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-5266

UNDER  the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

BETWEEN  DAVID DONALD HARRY BROWN Applicant

ANDTHE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL First Respondent

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

HARONGA v THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1115 [22 May 2015]

Hearing:	3-5 November 2014
Counsel:	K Feint, M Smith and R Drummond for the applicants Alan Haronga and the Te Aitanga a Māhaki Trust K Ertel and B Lyall for the applicant David Brown E Devine for the first respondent C Linkhorn and R Hogg for the second respondent L Black for the interveners Owen Lloyd and Ngariki Kaiputahi Whānau Trust L Clark for the intervener Te Whānau a Kai
Judgment:	22 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... [1] Background........................................................................................................................................ [2] Overview......................................................................................................................................... [2] The Treaty Act 1975..................................................................................................................... [22] The Mangatū Remedies Report – an overview ............................................................................. [36] Mangatū....................................................................................................................................... [40] Ngā Ariki Kaipūtahi .................................................................................................................... [41]

Te Whānau a Kai ......................................................................................................................... [43] TAMA........................................................................................................................................... [44] The applicants’ arguments ............................................................................................................. [48] Mangatū and the Māhaki Trust .................................................................................................. [48]

Mr Brown..................................................................................................................................... [53] Mr Lloyd and Ngā Ariki Kaipūtahi Whānau Trust .................................................................... [55] The Attorney-General’s response................................................................................................... [56] Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ [61] Statutory framework .................................................................................................................... [61] Approach to application .............................................................................................................. [72] The Tribunal’s “should include” conclusions ............................................................................ [73] The s 8HB discretion ................................................................................................................... [76] The lawfulness of the Tribunal’s decision not to recommend return ........................................ [84] The Tribunal’s TAMA decision ................................................................................................. [87]

The Tribunal’s decisions to decline to make binding recommendations ................................ [105] Ngā Ariki Kaipūtahi and Te Whānau a Kai ............................................................................[111] Result ...............................................................................................................................................[114]

Introduction

[1]      In  these proceedings Alan  Parekura Torohina  Haronga,  the Te Aitanga  a Māhaki Trust and David Donald Harry Brown challenge, as unlawful, decisions of the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal declining and adjourning applications for the resumption of Crown forest lands.

Background

Overview

[2]     Mr Alan Haronga is chairman of The Proprietors of Mangatū Blocks Incorporated  (Mangatū).    In  that  capacity  Mr Haronga  has  for  some  time  now pursued a claim before the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the return to Mangatū of some 8,626 acres of land acquired by the Crown from Mangatū in

1961 (the 1961 Lands).  The 1961 Lands now form a quarter of the Mangatū State Forest.  That claim began, for these purposes, in 1992 as Wai 274 filed by Mr Eric Ruru.   It formed part of the Tribunal’s comprehensive inquiry into the Crown’s dealings with Māori in Tūranganui-a-Kiwa.  That inquiry resulted in the Tribunal’s

2004 report, Tūranga Tangata Tūranga Whenua, and the negotiations between the

Crown and Māori which followed.

[3]      Tūranga Tangata…