1
1. WHEREAS the Magna Carta 1215, Bill of Rights 1688, Act 57 cap 53 King George III, Statute 4 cap. 96 and statute 9 cap. 83 King George IV is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence 1835 and The Treaty (Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840) as a feudal and fiducial protectorate of native rights. For many years up to and including 1840, the King, Lords and Commons of England distinctly and absolutely disavowed all pretensions to the sovereignty of the New Zealand Islands, or to any dominion or authority over them. [Fenton 1870].
1.1WHEREAS The New Zealand Constitution Act 1846 (Imperial) s9 /10 and the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (Imperial) s71 recognised native law, governance and property right was ignored by colonial government. In 1863, Royal ascent was refused by Her Majesty the Queen unto the New Zealand Settlement Act, yet carried on by colonial government.
1.2WHEREAS The Queen in 1907 granted dominion status to her colony (subject to her rule). The Queen did not have the authority to grant sovereign status to the Dominion of New Zealand. To do so would breach the feudal and fiducial prerogative duty that is held in perpetuity unto the native-aboriginal of New Zealand whilst the subjects of England and the Commonwealth reside under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not cede sovereignty
1.3AND IN SO DOING The New Zealand ratification of the Statutes of Westminster [1931] Adoption Act 1947 was invalid [league of Nations Charter 1920] as Britain had no jurisdiction to draft a New Zealand constitution or pass it in Westminster. (English law can only be exercised on English soil).
1.4THEREFORE On October 28 1983 Muldoon (during a constitutional crisis) took letters patent 1917 and 1918 from King George V. The Governor General was constituted by these dormant letters Patent, the Executive Council put over the Governor General was Parliament who advised the Governor General to issue new Letters Patent revoking Letters Patent 1917/18, and drafting new Letters Patent. In 1986 Lange amended these Letters Patent 1983 that the Executive Council (Parliament) comes from the 1986 Constitution Act (begat by Palmer). However 1917/18 letters Patent were for a colony of Britain still subject to British law not a sovereign country. The 1986 New Zealand Constitution had no authority to annul the New Zealand Constitution 1852 (Imperial), Section 5 of the Imperial laws Application Act 1988 was an attempt to validate New Zealand’s governments constitution 1986 and the SWAA 1947, but had no delegated sovereign power to do so.
2. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND In 1986 the NZ government failed to prove ownership by their laws of fisheries[1] [NZ Crown vs Tom Te Wehi] the government amended (without consent of tangata whenua) the Fisheries Act 1983 and extracted s88(2) taking away native Treaty rights. In June 2003 the government failed to prove ownership by their laws of the foreshore and territorial sea[2] [NZ Court of Appeal]. Government will legislate (without consent of tangata whenua) extracting the ability for tangata whenua to obtain property right [protected by common law] guaranteed under Article II of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
3.AQUACULTURE REFORM In 2002, the Wai 953 report found that government had breached at least four principles of the Treaty. The Waitangi Tribunal recommended
A process for ensuring Maori participation in the development of AMA areas and tendering process; and
A mechanism for the preserving the Crown’s capacity to meet its Treaty obligations [feudal and fiducial] in the short term until such time as longer planning issues are dealt with.
3.1April 15, 2003 Aquaculture Reform Consultation Hui Gisborne, Ruawaipu submitted in writing
The establishment of Property rights to the foreshore and seabed before the continuance of any further Marine Policy and Reform Development.
That the Crown provides a Marine framework that gives certainty and acknowledgement to Hapu rights protected under Article II of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
That a halt to proceedings is called for, until the Hapu have been adequately resourced (by the Crown) and prepared for negotiations.
This particular consultation round was closed down by those that attended. Although these sentiments of te tangata whenua were the same throughout the country, colonial government (driven by economic criminals) carries on regardless without sovereign consent.
- AQUACULTURE REFORM BILL 2004 RUAWAIPU REJECTS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS;
4.1 The Crown has not purchased one inch of Ruawaipu soil (territory) under its pre-emptive right [letters Patent (New Ulster) clause 14, December 1846].The Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004 s61is confiscation by legislation and impinges on the mana of Ruawaipu.
4.2 Statutes of government (Waitangi Tribunal) (Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission) and (the Ministry of Fisheries) did not have the constituted power or sovereign authority to consult, negotiate and settle aquaculture under s61 of the Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004.
4.3Aquaculture is the sustainable FARMING (cultivation/culture) of aquatic species. Species can be cultivated on (1) land (land based) in a total manmade environment such as paua farming, (2) in its natural environment with manmade structures such as , oyster and fish farming and (3) in its natural environment without man made structures such as re seeding (traditional native practices). [953]
The Ministry of Fisheries regime does not have power of development [Mike Moore 1989]. Aquaculture is a different issue.
The QMS controls the sustainable output of the harvest of a wild species. The QMS does not control the output of cultivated species.
There is no mechanism for traditional practices under the Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004. This breaches customary rights.
4.4The Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004 settles without evaluation on prohibition and its effects by statute
1840 – 1866, the attempt to expropriate coastal waters by statute and coastal trade of the natives.
1866 – 1992, prohibition of the marine resource (whenua) and its trade.
1992-2004. assumed Crown ownership by statute and denial of development rights
4.5The Wai 953 report 2002 and the Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004 avoids the following;
Who the property owner is;
What title is this property held under;
Where did this title derive from (point of sovereign origin)
4.6Demographically 75% of our people still reside in their natural dominion (Ruawaipu). Our foreshore and seabed retention represents 85% according to common law. The allocation formula under the Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004 [s62 ] is confiscation without a right of appeal [s61(4)].
4.7Ruawaipu is a traditional tribe. The Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004 [s82] is in current breach as TOKM “the trustee” [s86] does not recognise Ruawaipu, contrary to the Privy Council ruling (iwi means traditional tribe) for the purposes of the Settlement Act 1992 (now includes aquaculture).
4.8The Aquaculture reform Bill 2004 will give “unsettled” assets to Te Runanga o Ngati Porou, a de facto corporate body. This body under its main constitution (the Maori Trusts Board Act 1955 [s35]) breaches Article II of Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 and Article 17 of the UDHR 1948.
4.9Ruawaipu did not sign or give consent to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Settlement Act 1992, also includes Part 5 of the Aquaculture Reform Bill 2004 [s59(a), 61(1)]. Litigation is forthcoming.
Contact: Ruawaipu Tribal Authority Jason Koia 175 Tyndall Rd Ph 06 – 8686732 or
[1] Oyster Act 1866/1892 / 1966 – Fish Protection Act 1877 - Marine farming Act 1971 - Fisheries Act 1983
[2] Harbours Acts 1878/1950 – Territorial Seas Acts 1965/1977 – Foreshore & Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991 – Resource Management Act 1991