Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 21, 2016 8:33:26 GMT 12
WAITANGI TRIBUNAL HEARING ON FRESH WATER
What the Tribunal did not do is confront the fact that it had no jurisdiction in law to consider the claims. Having noted at the outset of its considerations that the claims were first made by Mr Graeme Latimer on behalf of The New Zealand Maori Council on the 7th December 2012 for the Tribunal to continue with the hearing was clearly in breach of s6AA of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. It provides:
6AA Limitation of Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to historical Treaty claims
(1) Despite section 6(1), after 1 September 2008 no Maori may—
(a) submit a claim to the Tribunal that is, or includes, a historical Treaty claim;
or
(b) amend a claim already submitted to the Tribunal that is not, or does not include, a historical Treaty claim by including a historical Treaty claim.
(2) However, subsection (1) does not prevent a historical Treaty claim submitted to the Tribunal on or before 1 September 2008 from being amended in any way after 1 September 2008.
(3) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction (including, but not limited to, the jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire into, or to make any finding or recommendation) in respect of a historical Treaty claim that is—
(a) submitted contrary to subsection (1)(a);
or
(b) included in a claim contrary to subsection (1)(b).
(4) To avoid doubt, if a claim is submitted to the Tribunal contrary to subsection (1), it must be treated for all purposes (including, for example, for the purposes of sections 8A(2), 8C(1), 8HB(1), 8HD(1), and 8HJ) as not having been submitted.
This provision is found in the current legislation reprinted as at 23 September 2015 and one would have thought that that is clear beyond doubt that the Tribunal cannot hear any historic Treaty claim brought by “a Maori” after the cut-off date of 1 September 2008. Clearly a claim that in signing the Treaty Maori people did not surrender their rights to claim ownership or guardianship etc. of fresh water is an “historical “Treaty claim within the meaning of s 2.” If that is not historical within the definition contained in the Act then no claim is and jurisdiction can be assumed by the Tribunal merely because the claim is of recent origin. If that is so then s6AA means nothing……
Read Judge Anthony Willy's full NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/waitangi-tribunal-hearing-on-fresh-water/#more-18458
What the Tribunal did not do is confront the fact that it had no jurisdiction in law to consider the claims. Having noted at the outset of its considerations that the claims were first made by Mr Graeme Latimer on behalf of The New Zealand Maori Council on the 7th December 2012 for the Tribunal to continue with the hearing was clearly in breach of s6AA of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. It provides:
6AA Limitation of Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to historical Treaty claims
(1) Despite section 6(1), after 1 September 2008 no Maori may—
(a) submit a claim to the Tribunal that is, or includes, a historical Treaty claim;
or
(b) amend a claim already submitted to the Tribunal that is not, or does not include, a historical Treaty claim by including a historical Treaty claim.
(2) However, subsection (1) does not prevent a historical Treaty claim submitted to the Tribunal on or before 1 September 2008 from being amended in any way after 1 September 2008.
(3) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction (including, but not limited to, the jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire into, or to make any finding or recommendation) in respect of a historical Treaty claim that is—
(a) submitted contrary to subsection (1)(a);
or
(b) included in a claim contrary to subsection (1)(b).
(4) To avoid doubt, if a claim is submitted to the Tribunal contrary to subsection (1), it must be treated for all purposes (including, for example, for the purposes of sections 8A(2), 8C(1), 8HB(1), 8HD(1), and 8HJ) as not having been submitted.
This provision is found in the current legislation reprinted as at 23 September 2015 and one would have thought that that is clear beyond doubt that the Tribunal cannot hear any historic Treaty claim brought by “a Maori” after the cut-off date of 1 September 2008. Clearly a claim that in signing the Treaty Maori people did not surrender their rights to claim ownership or guardianship etc. of fresh water is an “historical “Treaty claim within the meaning of s 2.” If that is not historical within the definition contained in the Act then no claim is and jurisdiction can be assumed by the Tribunal merely because the claim is of recent origin. If that is so then s6AA means nothing……
Read Judge Anthony Willy's full NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/waitangi-tribunal-hearing-on-fresh-water/#more-18458