Tūrāhui v Waitangi Tribunal

[2015] NZHC 1624

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2015-485-346 [2015] NZHC 1624

UNDER

the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER OF

the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

BETWEEN

LEWIS ATA TŪRĀHUI Applicant

AND

THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL First Respondent

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

NGĀ HAPŪ O NGĀRUAHINE INC Third Respondent

TE RUNANGA O NGĀTI RUANUI Fourth Respondent

Hearing:	18-19 May 2015
Counsel:	T H Bennion and L Black for Applicant H Carrad for First Respondent abiding G L Melvin and C C McKay for Second Respondent H J P Wilson and T N Ahu for Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment:	10 July 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

TŪRĀHUI v THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL & ORS [2015] NZHC 1624 [10 July 2015]

Contents

Background........................................................................................................................................ [2] Āraukūkū claims ............................................................................................................................. [6] The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi ....................................................................................... [12] The Ngāti Ruanui settlement ........................................................................................................ [19] The Ngāruahine mandate and settlement ..................................................................................... [22] The urgency decision....................................................................................................................... [38] Submissions...................................................................................................................................... [49] Issues for determination ................................................................................................................. [59] Two preliminary points: grappling with tikanga law................................................................... [60] Well-founded?.................................................................................................................................. [65] Preliminary findings are not enough ............................................................................................ [69] Interim findings too general anyway ............................................................................................ [72] The Practice Note ............................................................................................................................ [76] The relevance of the Ngāruahine settlement legislation............................................................... [79] Delay and diversion ......................................................................................................................... [83] Engagement with Ngāruahine ........................................................................................................ [88] Prejudice to Ngāruahine ................................................................................................................. [90] Rationality........................................................................................................................................ [92] Discretion and relief ........................................................................................................................ [93] Conclusion........................................................................................................................................ [94] Disposition........................................................................................................................................ [96]

[1]      The  applicant  seeks  judicial  review  of  a  decision  of  Sir  Douglas  Kidd1 refusing the applicant’s applications for resumption orders and/or an urgent hearing into the claims of his hapū, Āraukūkū.

Background

[2]      The applicant claims for and on behalf of Āraukūkū hapū.   Although his representativity  is  now  denied  by  the  second,  third  and  fourth  respondents, Sir Douglas’ decision accepted the applicant’s representativity and all are agreed that I too should proceed on that basis for the purpose of this application for judicial review.  I will henceforth, therefore, refer to the applicant as Āraukūkū, for the sake

of simplicity.

1      Application for an urgent hearing by the WAI 552 claimant on behalf of the Āraukūkū hapū , Waitangi Tribunal, WAI 552, #2.35, 7 May 2015 [Decision of Sir Douglas Kidd on Urgency]. Acting under delegated authority from the Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal pursuant to clause 8(2), Second Schedule, Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

[3]      The first respondent is the Waitangi Tribunal and abides in the usual way (and  subject  to  the  usual  reservations  of  its  position  should  the  basis  of  the application change).  The second respondent is sued on behalf of the Crown.  The third and fourth respondents are organisations representative of two adjoining iwi of southern Taranaki, Ngāruahinerangi and Ngāti Ruanui.2

[4]      It is common ground that Āraukūkū is a border hapu between both iwi.  It can trace descent from both iwi and appears to have had mana whenua interests within the boundaries of both iwi.  Its claims as a hapū of Ngāti Ruanui were settled fully and finally by the Ngāti Ruanui Claims Settlement Act 2003.  Its claims pursuant to Ngāruahine whakapapa…