Claims
to “historical fraud” over taking Maori land in the Coromandel cannot support
legal action to turf out current owners who took ownership free of any knowledge
about supposed prior wrongdoing, the High Court ruled.
Solid property rights
over land are needed for a functioning capitalist system; ask any economist. Land provides security for finance. The current miasma which is unproductive
Maori land flows in part from ill-defined multiple ownership of customary Maori
land. No creditor will lend. No
finance means no productive development.
For general land law, New Zealand borrowed a simple system first
developed in South Australia: a central register records land ownership. Provided the current owner is not party to
any fraud in getting registered, title is guaranteed regardless of any fraud in
prior transactions. Coromandel Maori tested
these rules when challenging local Council ownership of former Maori land near
Tairua.
Colt Gregory and Peter-James
Martin sued Thames Coromandel District Council for trespass over land off
Redbridge Road, Tairua. Able to
whakapapa back to the original Maori occupiers, they claim Council became owner
through fraud. The land should be
returned. The High Court was told 36,000
acres of Tairua land were purchased from Maori owners by the Crown in
1872. A 2006 Waitangi Tribunal report described
sales in the Coromandel as lacking full informed consent of local Maori,
amounting to fraud. The Tairua land was
planted out as state forest before its transfer in 1975 to what is now the
Thames Coromandel District Council.
Justice Whata questioned the status of a Waitangi Tribunal report as
evidence of fraud. In any event, Council
assumed title with no knowledge of any prior fraud even if it did exist. The Land Transfer Act gave Council
unimpeachable title to the land, he ruled.
It could not be liable for trespass on its own land.
Left for a later
hearing is claims to ownership of land reclaimed from Tairua harbour between 1970
and 1999. Registered owner of one part
is the Crown; of another part, the Council.
Gregory
v. Thames Coromandel District Council – High Court (25.09.17)
17.120