The extent to which Maori land reparation claims extend to resources owned by state-owned enterprises and other Crown entities is gaining momentum following a 2017 Supreme Court ruling that successive governments are in breach of trust for failing to reserve for Nelson Maori 10,000 acres of land as promised in 1845.
The pivotal philosophy behind state-sector restructuring in the 1980s was to separate government commercial activities from direct political influence; a practice which has been embraced and continued since. To date, there have been no political directions forcing crown entity management to surrender assets in satisfaction of Maori land claims.
As nominal representative for iwi in the Nelson region, kaumatua Rore Stafford successfully sued government for breach of fiduciary duty. An 1845 award by Commissioner Spain had promised one tenth of the 151,000 acres taken by early colonial settlers would be reserved for local Maori. Some 5100 acres was set aside. The remaining 10,000 acres of promised rural land never was. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the High Court to sort out an appropriate remedy for this breach. Mr Stafford’s successful claim is not for a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi; it is for governments’ failures to honour an 1845 agreement.
To protect his iwi’s position, Mr Stafford took steps to identify government land in the Nelson area which could be ‘tagged’ as available for compensation. Hearing that the Accident Compensation Corporation was selling a Nelson site, he had a caveat lodged against the title to protect any potential claim. Accident Compensation’s plans to sell fell through. The High Court ruled Mr Stafford had no caveatable interest; he could not prove any specific legal link to Accident Compensation’s land. Undeterred, Mr Stafford moved on to the Court of Appeal asking the court to rule on the wider question of whether government has power to direct crown entities like Accident Compensation to make land available for Maori reparation claims. Refusing to make a ruling, the Court of Appeal said this is a question of considerable novelty, complexity and public importance. Better that the issues be first thrashed out in a High Court hearing before potentially coming before the Court of Appeal, it ruled.
Stafford v. Attorney-General – Court of Appeal (12.11.18)
18.224