Fast Track Consenting
- This week Ministers Chris Bishop and Shane Jones released a media statement on the Fast Track Consenting Bill. They advise that Cabinet now wants a few changes, so will be advising the Select Committee of that (the Committee is currently considering the bill). Some key changes being that:
- expert panels will include an iwi authority representative – but only when as required by Treaty settlements, and will include Māori development expertise – instead of mātauranga Māori;
- final decisions on projects will not sit with Ministers but with the expert panel (same as Labour’s policy approach).
- projects will be referred to an expert panel by the Minister for Infrastructure alone (who will consult other relevant Ministers); and
- timeframes for comment at the referral and panel stages will be extended (so not quite such a fast track).
- Pānui 11/2024 provides further information on this policy item. The key point being that policy considerations of matters of interest to Māori are largely constrained to settlements, which is a much lower bar that the current Resource Management Act requirement that these types of proposals ‘must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’. Iwi / Māori submissions on this matter tended to point this out, and go on to note that the bill does not recognise the kaitiaki role of iwi (Pānui 14/2024 provides further details on iwi and Māori submissions to the Select Committee.)
Takutai Moana Update:
- This week the Waitangi Tribunal is hearing the urgent claims into proposed changes to the Marine and Coast Area (Takutai Moana) Act. We discussed this matter in detail two weeks ago, namely that the Government wants to get ahead of court decisions and stiffen up the law, and also reduce its fiscal costs in this area (Pānui 24/2024 refers).
- We will provide a fuller update once the Tribunal report is released, but at this junction one evidential article put before the Tribunal is of salient note. That is a file note of a meeting in May between the seafood industry representatives and Ministers Shane Jones and Paul Goldsmith on the matter.
- This meeting is astonishing for a few reasons. First, why two members of the executive thought it was appropriate to meet with one party to legal proceedings whilst matters were being considered by the court is bizarre (the Wairarapa claims were being heard at the time). Second, why Minister Jones thought it was okay to describe a judge as a communist is equally odd – with Prime Minister Luxon then being forced to downplay the matter to avoid the question of whether Minister Jones had breached the Cabinet manual. Third, why Minister Goldsmith thought it was okay to tell a seafood industry representative that Māori customary rights in this area will be changed via an upcoming legal amendment that “should reduce the 100% of coastline subject to customary marine title to 5%”. Minister Goldsmith was later forced in the media to clarify he made up the 5% – otherwise he would have effectively been leaking Cabinet information. Plus it is parliament – not Cabinet – that passes laws (and certainly not individual Ministers).
- Translating all this into our Wairarapa speak, and reading behind the lines as to why such a meeting occurred in the first place, the combined message from Ministers might have been something like; ‘hey mate, don’t worry about the Judge or losing your legal case, we will change the law anyway so overall you will win regardless, even though this is about the seabed, not the fish above that you want’.
- One other factor is outstanding here too. That is the work of the official who bothered to make a clear and proper file note of this meeting. That is exactly what an impartial and professional public servant should be doing, regardless as to who is in Government. Last on this matter, we provide an extract from a recent opinion piece from Sir Geoffrey Palmer, constitutional lawyer, and former Prime Minister. We encourage subscribers to read the full article from Sir Geoffrey, available at the link below.
“A novel feature of the coalition agreement was “to Amend section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area Act to make clear Parliament’s original intent, ….”
This is objectionable on many grounds but the most obvious is that the case had already been appealed to the Supreme Court, but has not yet been dealt with. Yet the government thought it was appropriate to act before it knew the true state of New Zealand law on the subject. Most egregious is that the policy says the Court of Appeal got the interpretation of s 58 wrong and it needs to be brought back to the original intention of Parliament. The Hansard record of the parliamentary debates does not bear that out. The amendments proposed go far beyond s 58.
Further, to change the law when many cases were still to be decided, discriminated unfairly against such Māori groups who had not yet been reached in the adjudication process. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the measure is another plank in the government’s determination to undermine and diminish Māori interests and the fruits they have obtained or would have obtained in the litigation.
.… The Bill and the policy are now the work of the Minister of Justice, but whose justice is he delivering? The government is clearly of the view it can do anything it likes to interfere with rights obtained through the due process of litigation. This action is regrettable for the rule of law in a democratic society such as New Zealand.”
Lurching towards constitutional impropriety – Newsroom
Appointments and Awards
- Edward Ellison ONZM has been appointed chair of the Māori Heritage Council and deputy chair of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Board.
- Superintendent Dion Bennett (Ngāti Paoa and Ngāti Hako) has been appointed as the new Central District police commander.
Salient Māori News Items to 30 Here-turi-kōkā 2024
- This week Darleen Tana sought an injunction to stop her former party, The Green Party, from meeting to discuss whether they should seek to have her removed from Parliament under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018. She was in part successful, with the Green Party cancelling a meeting on the topic which had been scheduled for Sunday. The Party has instead determined not to consider use the legal provisions available to them until after the court has ruled on the matter.
