Summary
The High Court confirmed local authorities do not carry the Crown’s Treaty duties, other than where specifically statutorily prescribed. The judicial review application by trustees of Te Rūnangaa Rangitāne o Wairau Trust, the legal representative of the Rangitāne o Wairauiwi (“Rangitāne”), as against the Marlborough District Council (“MDC”), was dismissed.
Background
The MDC enacted the East Coast Beach Vehicle Bylaw 2023, restricting vehicle access to parts of the north eastern coast of the South Island. This affected areas significant to Rangitāne’s cultural and customary practices.
Rangitāne challenged the lawfulness of the Bylaw and the Council’s decision-making process claiming it breached their customary rights and statutory obligations, including those under the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Case
The Court considered the following questions of significance:
1. What the nature of the local authority obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi were;
2. Whether MDC breached the obligations under Part 6 of the Local Government Act (“LGA”); and
3. Whether MDC’s decision was procedurally unjustified.
Council’s Obligations under the Treaty
Rangitāne argued that local authorities are a “delegate of the Crown” and therefore assume the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. They argued that MDC’s decision adversely affected the ability of Rangitāne to exercise their customary rights as guaranteed by article 2 of the Treaty.
The Court confirmed local authority obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are limited to those explicitly provided in the LGA. The Court concluded that local authorities are not directly subject to Treaty obligations at common law beyond what is stated in the relevant legislation.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Smith v Fonterra was discussed, reiterating that there cannot be a breach of the Treaty where a decision has been made lawfully under legislation that gives effect to Treaty principles. Local authorities are only required to consider the Treaty in the context of section 4 of the LGA which is a “Treaty Principles” provision.
Part 6 of the LGA
Sections 76-83AA of the LGA were addressed by the Court in the context of the decision to enact the Bylaw.
The Court acknowledged that MDC engaged with Ngati Kuri more than Rangitāne in the development of the “cultural values section” of the Technical Report (which was the foundation for assessing the impacts and implications of the proposed Bylaw), but it had some engagement with Rangitāne, and there was evidence of consideration of Rangitāne’s submissions and interests. The Court confirmed that to what extent these submissions influenced MDC’s decision, is a matter for MDC. Further, the LGA does not require a local authority to determine competing claims of cultural status between iwi.
In regard to section 79 of the LGA which sets out procedures for decision making, the Court confirmed there is no requirement that local authorities keep a record of compliance. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Thorndon Quay Collective v Wellington City Council, was referred to, citing the importance of a “flexible approach” to this provision. The Council stated it had considered relevant options as well as the significance of all relevant matters. MDC also produced a report that noted a Panel was attempting to apply a consistent Bylaws framework in order to address competing values of national importance, as identified in the technical report. This was sufficient evidence of compliance with section 79.
Section 80 was analysed, which requires local authorities to identify significantly inconsistent decisions to any policy or plans adopted by the local authority. The High Court agreed with MDC that the significance threshold was not met for a number of reasons, and noted that even if the threshold had been met, this does not invalidate the decision.
Sections 81 and 82 provide for contributions to decision-making processes by Maori and principles of consultation. The Court found the opportunities for Rangitāne to participate in the decision-making went far beyond that afforded to the rest of the community and these provisions had been adhered to. Justice McQueen made it clear that consultation does not require the MDC to agree with the position taken by Rangitāne.
Procedural Fairness
A breach of a legitimate expectation was established arising from the MDC’s commitments when extending invitations to both Rangitāne and Ngati Kuri to nominate a representative to sit on the Hearing Panel. MDC committed to not allowing Rangitāne or Ngāti Kuri to make a submission if they appointed a commissioner. Rangitāne reasonably relied on this and declined the invitation to maintain the opportunity to advance a submission on the Bylaw. MDC then allowed a letter sent by Ngati Kuri in response to Rangitāne’s submission, to be considered by the Hearing Panel, in breach of that legitimate expectation.
Rangitāne also advanced an argument of bias, which concerns impartiality in decision-making. However, the Court considered this unworkable in the context of Council decisions involving content that reasonable minds disagree on. Pre-determination was instead considered, though the fact Ngati Kuri had a commissioner on the Panel, was not enough to demonstrate the panel had a closed mind.
Result
Whilst Rangitāne established one claim of legitimate expectation, the Court declined to grant any remedy as the letter did not have any material effect on the decision and the decision would not have been different had MDC complied with the legitimate expectation.
All other grounds of review failed and the application for judicial review was dismissed, with costs to follow.
This case serves as a crucial reference point for local authorities in New Zealand, shaping their understanding of their responsibilities towards Māori, and providing guidance on the obligations conferred by the decision making provisions in Part 6 of the LGA.
For further information on this case or similar issues, please contact Director Brigitte Morten.
