I, KENNETH JAMES
LANDAUS, of GOLDEN BAY, NEW ZEALAND
Being: Sole applicant of PLA 31 2583 (Mining Act
1971),
Principal
and co-applicant of ML 32 3021 (Mining Act 1971),
Principal and
co-applicant of MPA 41 452 (Crown Minerals Act 1991);
Herein include my
Statement of Claims against the Crown.
Originally prepared by K.J. Landaus: 1998
Last updated : 31
January 2013
INTRODUCTION
I have proof beyond all
doubt that I was first to discover, and more importantly, was able to recognize
and delineate the mass of large exposed jade boulders throughout the glacial
moraines and in-situ occurrences beyond, throughout South Westland and Northern
Southland.
No other persons
connected with them outside riverbeds and beaches until after I cut one for a
special purpose, on the spur of the Cascade Plateau, South Westland and was
forced to delineate some of the deposit for an application for a Mining Permit
under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
Crown Minerals could not
provide me the assurances that I would be compensated, or otherwise, for my
efforts in discovering and delineating the
resource.
The reason why, in 1989, under the Mining Act
1971, I only made an application for a prospecting license over part of the
region of my discoveries.
I did retain however, my
current mining license in the Martyr River, South Westland.
The Ministry
administering the mining Acts, now Crown Minerals and associated Ministers have
made accusations in parliament that I prospected and entered the land illegally.
Besides working other
remote mining privileges in the area at the time and continually flying all
over the region to access these, I had every right to tramp the land where and
when I wished, like any other person.
I always had a
legitimate Prospectors Right which allowed me to prospect on Crown Land.
The rights to apply for
a privilege and under Part 9 of the Mining Act 1971 Section 229, the Crown statutory obligation, giving me the right to have granted
various concessions on the new discovery of any minerals.
A prospecting license
relates only to access the land not the mining of the mineral.
This action was and
still is considered a gross violation of the Acts and my rights, especially as
they denied me the right to exercise Section 229 (as above) and also since the
time of application it has been proved via the courts that my discoveries have
suddenly got a massive monetary value, where as the Ministry have always
insisted there was no value to the resource.
Ironically, I allege,
the Ministries illegally denied my access to the land in order that in the very
least I could have been in a position today of applying to Te Runanga o Ngai
Tahu to access and mine my discoveries under the vesting Act.
These matters have
caused huge damages to my life since, adding to the deprivation of my only
livelihood and large financial investment over a very long period.
If the Ministry does not
adhere to the specific clauses within the original Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting)
Bill and settle my requests for reparations, they literally have deprived me of
my legitimate discoveries and associated applications and then given them to
other parties. Notwithstanding the huge monetary value of the minerals
concerned.
If it were not, Parliament, I’m sure,
would not, and could not have legitimately passed the Bill.
Accordingly, the
Governor General would not have signed it into law.
Where
applicable, I have tried keeping the statutory concept whereby those licences
or applications that were retained under the Mining Act 1971, have still to be
considered subject to certain provisions of Part II of the Crown Minerals Act.
I allege:
The matters herein relate specifically to the below mentioned
applications and privileges.
Because the Ministry allegedly failed to decide on PLA 31 2583 until
the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill 1997 and Crown Minerals
allegedly failed to provide me with my statutory right under the ‘Vesting Act’
and mining Acts, to make application for a new license relating to ML 32 3021,
then I consider these claims as unique and are not to be confused with any
other related litigation.
One can only hope
and presume, both Parliament, on passing the Bill and the Governor General,
signing it into statutory law, took into consideration the specific clauses in
both Section’s 3 and 5 of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill.
Both these lead
with (3.) “Notwithstanding any other enactment” and (5.) “Notwithstanding
anything in the Crown Minerals Act 1991”.K
IF UPHELD, these
provisions would directly protect the rights to all existing privilege holders.
Specifically in
consideration to Part 111, General Provisions, Section 43 of the Mining Act 1971.
After many years in mining and exploration, the contributing factor
to why I made this particular prospecting application over this massive area of
land was due to Section 229 of the Mining Act 1971, which allows
for concessions to a person who makes a new discovery. This would have been of
great benefit to a subsequent mining license and also the other new discoveries
in and around ML 32 3021 and MPA 41 452.
The Ministry realised all these applications were for new
discoveries and I allege they intentionally withheld all my applications,
irrespective of my long association with them over previous years.
The
principle claims relate to:
Prospecting
Licence Application 31 2583
The
Crowns failure to process this application subject to the Mining Act 1971 and
their refusal to recognise or accept my claims that they have failed their
statutory responsibilities by not doing so.
In
particular I allege the Crown has breached Section 109 of the Mining Act 1971
and thus have committed a continuing offence under Section 234 of that Act.
Crown
Minerals and the Secretary of Commerce have stressed that S.69 of the MA Act
provides the power to grant a mining license and also allows the Minister of
Energy wide discretionary powers.
Section
69 of the MA Act is specific to mining licenses; it does not however confer on
the Minister the right to disregard other provisions of the Act.
S.48
(Prospecting Licences), of the MA Act is specific to this application
and although subject to his discretion and conditions, subsection (1) clearly
indicates the Minister is also subject to the other provisions of the said Act.
The provisions in this case being S.109 (1,2,3), of the MA Act
1971, notwithstanding the enactments of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997; S.3 and S.5, both stating in part; “
notwithstanding any other enactment ”.
This and other matters are raised in the
PLA 31 2583 section of this document.
Mining Licence 32 3021 & Application for Renewal (New License) Ref: P11 - 589
To date
Crown Minerals and their legal advisors have refused to
recognise any of my allegations herein and have also advised the
Office of the Ombudsmen (to whom I made a complaint), that they consider my
interpretations of the Acts different than theirs.
The
Ministry of Police consider that any alleged breach of the Acts should be dealt
with by Crown Minerals, not them.
The Chief
Ombudsman advised that I undertake litigation as he has no power to investigate
actions taken by Ministers of the Crown.
The
Crown refused my right under Section 77 of the Mining Act 1971 to apply for a
new license within the statutory period required and have continued to deny
that I had any rights to apply for a new licence.
s103D
and E of the Mining Act 1971 (Variation of Conditions), provided some recourse
for me to object to the Ministry’s ruling that an application for a new licence
pursuant to ML 32 3021 and subject to s108, s77, s43 of that Act, would not and
could not be granted before or after the enactment of the vesting act. I did
receive any memorandum accordingly.
As
in the case of PLA 31 2583, I allege they have committed an offence under
Section 234 of the Mining Act 1971, notwithstanding the alleged breaches of
other sections of that Act, in particular Section 43, as is stated in the ML 32
3021 section of this document.
See alleged legal interpretation
according to the Acts
Mining Permit Application 45 412 Ref:
P14 - 717
The
Crown accepted and processed this application under the principles and
provisions of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
Notwithstanding
the matters raised in the MPA 45 412 section of this document, because of the
specific occurrence and location of the nephrite resource the virtual
whereabouts of the particular boulders was plotted on the statutory map
provided in the application. Like the other applications, it relates to new
significant discoveries. These statutory disclosures have now been made privy
to other parties without any fair or just recompense to me the legitimate
discoverer and applicant under the after mentioned enactments.
Section
3, 11, 23, 25, 31 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 is a typical example of the
provisions an applicant took into consideration when applying for a privilege.
In accepting my initial application, I consider the Crown has accepted the
responsibility of upholding the provisions and principles of the Act therefore
is obligated to honour these or adequately compensate the applicant for their
efforts and any damages that may have been created by the Crown especially on
the issue of changing the mineral ownership, where Section 11 is quite
specific.
(Inserted on 13 June 2005)
Recent criminal charges have been laid against persons whom have
gained the knowledge of the whereabouts of the resource through our
applications being made available to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and the general
public.
I
allege:
The Crown promoted and encouraged persons
to explore, prospect and mine Crown minerals pursuant to the Act's prior to
these events, only to give them 3 to 4 months notice (MPA 41 452) that all
statutory mining privilege applications under the Act's would not be granted,
irrespective of previous evaluation, a life time of geological study and
discoveries.
Including the statutory mining privilege
applications subsequently made in accordance with the Act's and the relating
business and financial considerations made in anticipation for receipt of such licenses
and permits. Notwithstanding nearly a nine year delay for a decision to be made
on one of the applications, thus not allowing any forward indication for
economic or business planning strategies.
The
delineation of the whereabouts of discoveries were made as part of my
applications, a specific geological feature was required to be mapped in my
application PL 31 2583, therefore both the Crown, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and
the general public now have allegedly been extremely advantaged by obtaining this
information. Now to my disadvantage and extreme financial loss
After many years in mining and
exploration, the contributing factor to why I made this particular prospecting
application over this massive area of land was due to Section 229 of
the Mining Act 1971, which allows for concessions to a person who makes a new
discovery. This would have been of great benefit to a subsequent mining license
and also the other new discoveries in and around ML 32 3021 and MPA 41 452.
The Crown realised all these
applications were for new discoveries, the reason why, I allege they
intentionally withheld all my applications, irrespective of my long association
with them over previous years.
The Crown has provided a legal covenant
to the public of New Zealand by way of the enactment of the Mining Act 1971 and
Crown Minerals Act 1991. These Acts were formed to allow all persons their
rights to access Crown owned minerals for the economic well being of our country.
In accordance with the principals, provisions and purpose of the Mining
Act 1971 and Crown Minerals Act 1991 and Regulations, the Crown provided rights
to all persons to discover, evaluate, explore, prospect and mine Crown owned
minerals.
Section 3 of the Crown Minerals
Act 1991 states: “3. Act to bind the
Crown – This Act shall bind the Crown”
My
rights protected by the principles and provisions of the Mining Act 1971 have
been severely affected by the Crowns failure to process my or joint
applications in accordance with the Statutory Regimes.
By not processing these
applications according to the statutes and by vesting the minerals to other
persons by preference of race, I allege the Crown have breached both the New
Zealand Bill of Rights 1991 and the Human Rights Act 1993, notwithstanding the
Bill of Rights 1688.
The Crown has not offered or paid any
type of recompense or reparation for damages or disadvantage all these matters
have caused me personally notwithstanding the devastating affects on my
business.
I have been one of the very few
people in New Zealand who’s business and livelihood relied totally on the
pounamu resource, the Crowns actions have now passed all my new discoveries and
development work over 28 years, to selected race of people.
The Mining Act 1971 contains no reference
to the Treaty of Waitangi or any obligations thereof which could substantiate
the proceedings of events that have affected this application and myself as
applicant therefore an irrelevant consideration has been taken into account
during the processing of these applications by the Crown.
Official notification was received in the latter part of June 1996 (16
June 1996 onwards) by the Secretary of Commerce stating that existing
applications for nephrite jade, bowenite and serpentine would not be granted.
This
notification was received prior to the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997 (1 October). The advise therefore was of a predetermined
nature considering the Bill was not even formulated, notwithstanding the fact
that Parliament had yet to approve the Bill and the Governor General sign it
into law. This did not eventuate until 1 October 1997, nearly 16 months later.
Applications
have been declined on the basis that the Crown minerals, pounamu, has been
vested with other private parties pursuant to the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting)
Act 1997.
Notification
has also been given in letters that a renewal application for existing Mining
Licence 32 3021 will not be granted pursuant to the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting)
Act 1997.
In
a letter
received from the Minister of Conservation dated 27 April 1998, he states in
part:
' the Minister of Energy suspended the granting of pounamu
licences in 1989 because of Ngai Tahu's claim to the mineral.'’
As
is clearly evidenced this statement is incorrect, yet a Minister of the
Crown is still stating this in 1998.
The
moratorium or undertaking filed in the High Court in or about August 1996,
although not superseding or affecting the statutes, specified only licenses and
permits for Mining, not Prospecting.
A
letter also confirms all processing of applications should cease. However
applications were continued to be accepted. Furthermore a recommendation was
made to the Minister of Energy by the Ministry of Commerce:
" Our legal advise is that
notwithstanding the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill prevents the granting of
any licenses/permits in respect of pounamu, it would not be appropriate to
decline the existing applications in advance of the Bill being passed."
This
statement is indicative that the Minister could use the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting)
Act 1997 as a substantiating reason or excuse to decline my applications
because it is alleged he did not have the legislative mandate to substantiate a
decline prior to the Act becoming law, regardless of the two moratoriums, the
Waitangi Tribunal's recommendations and the 1996 Deed of "On Account"
Settlement.
It
is alleged this action also proves that the Crown has intentionally set out to
vest the minerals already incumbent to mining privilege applications in
other private parties (Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu) while I hold statutory
application rights over those minerals as specified in the Act’s until such a
time the Minister of Energy declines the applications pursuant to the Mining
Act 1971.
Te
Runanga o Ngai Tahu did not exist in incorporation within the three year period
after my application for a prospecting license was made. [refer to the Te
Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996.]
In
July 1994, it is alleged Ministry of Commerce advised Minister's that:
"it will be necessary for
Minister's to agree that they are willing to vest the Crown's pounamu (as
defined in paragraph 21) in Ngai Tahu using specific legislation. Ministers
will also need to be willing to specifically legislate to prevent holders of
existing licences and existing applicants for new licences from seeking -----."
The
remainder of this paragraph was denied access, when applied for under the
Official Information Act
They
also advised ministers:
"that legal and practical issues exist with
the treatment of outstanding applications for greenstone licenses in the
event of a settlement."
These
reports were also requested to be referred to the Minister of Justice, the
Honourable Douglas Graham.
The
Ministry of Commerce have cited the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 as the
reason the Minister of Energy shall not grant applications for mining
privileges under the Mining Act 1971 or permits under the Crown Minerals Act
1991 in respect to pounamu in the Takiwa of Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997] also precedes the statement of;
'The Minister of Energy must not grant any --'.
Then
it is clearly understood the Minister of Energy also, is not subject to this
clause in consideration to his outstanding decision specific to this
application. Thus his responsibilities have the same applications under the
Mining Act 1971 as they did during the period when my prospecting license
application 31 2583 should
have been initially dealt with by the Minister instead of waiting nearly 9
years.
During
this period of time I have been extremely disadvantaged by the delays which
eventually ruined my previously viable business not withstanding the continuous
threats made throughout the jade industry by Ngai Tahu in respect to the rights
and marketing of the resource.
If
a decision was made on this application within the statutory time frame I could
have planned ahead to accommodate the need for nephrite to sustain my business
demand.
If
the Minister had any legitimate reason for declining the application for PL 31
2583, then he would have done so within the period required.
The Crown was advised of all these
concerns prior to the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill by way
of submissions presented by myself and the NZ Jade Industry Association.
No considerations were provided for under
the mining Acts other than the revoking of existing application rights and an
offer of reimbursement of statutory application costs, without consideration of
compounding interest on those costs.
The
Crown has not offered compensation for this delay nor have they offered
reparations for transferring the mineral rights to other private parties.
The
mineral reserves I applied for within the PLA 31 2583 application area are
estimated to be in excess of $15,000,000 and the location of this area was made
available under the statutory regulations specific to the application
requirements.
The
Crown has since included this area and any pounamu mineral within, subject to
the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997.
I
have been severely disadvantaged after disclosing the location of the area I
considered of value relevant to my claim, as a statutory requirement in the
application.
I
was subsequently advised in 1991, via my local Member of Parliament, by the Minister
of Conservation that one of the Waitangi Tribunals recommendations was
that the rights to control and ownership of the greenstone in the area of my
application be vested in Ngai Tahu.
It
was only through a life times study and work in geology and mining that led me
to this discovery being the entire source of the south western jade fields.
This discovery did not involve illegal exploration or prospecting as has been
incorrectly stated in writing by the then Minister of Energy, Mr Max Bradford.
I held a Prospectors Right under the Mining Act 1971 and also other direct
interests in current prospecting licenses in the region.
Considering
that I have probably spent more time tramping and hunting in these particular
remote regions than any other persons, to make new mineral and other
discoveries in the process is right of all New Zealanders. Especially as I have
made an honest effort to adhere to the statutes by applying for mining
privileges where necessary.
After expressing my concerns about the unusual delays on my
applications, I was advised in writing by the Prime Minister and other
Ministers that my rights would not be adversely affected.
The Prime Minister in his reply of 27 May 1991 never mentioned my Prospecting
Application but did mention existing privileges.
See letters here: To PM From PM
Replies
to my letters with Crown minerals confirm that no legislative procedure was put
in place to warrant the suspension of my application PLA 31 2583, irrespective
of the later undertaking by the Crown with Ngai Tahu in the High Court or the
so called discretionary powers of the Minister’s concerned.
My principle concerns put to Crown
Minerals remain unanswered.
What specific statutory legislation
enabled the Crown to withhold processing of Prospecting License Application 31
2583 outside of the specified time stated in Section 109 of the Mining Act 1971
when other mining privilege applications were granted within the same period
and after?
I
have been continually advised that a moratorium was that legislation but from
evidence to date the only moratorium in force during the period my application
should have been processed was that relating to the Arahura region.
Even
this moratorium could not supersede the statutes.
Letters
from the Ministry to the Minister of Energy and a subsequent letter from the
Minister to Judge McHugh of the Waitangi Tribunal clearly elaborates on the
legal position at the time my application should have been decided upon.
Therefore I allege the Crown has:
1)
Vested the nephrite (pounamu) minerals to
other private concerns not formed in incorporation at the time my applications
were lodged and accepted pursuant to the Mining Act 1971 and Crown Minerals Act
1991.
2)
Endeavoured to specifically legislate to
prevent mining privilege applicants from seeking compensation.
3)
Vested the pounamu minerals at zero value
to prevent breaching the Public Finance Act when in reality, these minerals
have a combined estimated value in the billions of dollars.
4)
Refused to recognise my statutory rights
and continue to insinuate I have no rights.
5)
Allegedly committed offences in accordance with the
provisions of the Mining Act 1971 and have refused to act on my official
complaint accordingly.
6)
Refused to recognise or accept my allegations
that the provisions of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 and the Crown
Minerals Act 1997 provide some substantiation for my allegations.
7)
Refused to acknowledge that in accordance
with Sections 3, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991
and Sections 43, 48, 50, 55, 57a, 77, 87 of the Mining Act 1971, that the
vesting of the specific minerals has interfered with my priority application
rights over all other persons for the opportunity to eventually gain legal access
and ownership of the minerals applied for while my statutory applications and
license remained in force respective to those Act's.
8)
Not considered the basic principles and
purpose of the respective mining Act's.
9)
Refused liability regarding my claims for
damages and losses resulting from the all these matters.
10) Not offered interest on basic cost
reimbursements including compounding interest.
11) Not considered
that the Ministry of Commerce financed part of my business to develop prototype
machinery and develop a market for low-grade nephrite and associated products.
12) Have granted other mining privileges for up to
40 years during the same period the Minister neglected to decide on PLA 31 2583 in accordance with the Mining
Act 1971.
13) Neglected to consider in the time it took to
decide on my Prospecting Licence Application I could have completed a
prospecting programme and a substantial mining programme thus providing relief
for my business which was formed with help from the Ministry of Commerce
business development funding.
14) Continued accepting further applications for
pounamu minerals and the associated fees when other applications were not
processed beyond the ministerial decision stage.
15) Have
not expressly provided, transitional rights within the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997 in regard to the right of priority over all other persons to
have a new license granted as accorded under Section 43 (2) and Section 77 of
the Mining Act 1971 accordingly.
Irrespective of the Crown
Minerals Amendment Act 2003 and the outcome of the Glenharrow case to the Privy
Council in July 2004, it allegedly remains obvious that Section 43 of the
Mining Act 1971 has not been specifically adhered to within the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act because most existing licenses remained current at the
time the Vesting Bill was enacted then the holders of those licenses should have
had a priority right over all other persons to have a new license granted. As
Section 43 (2) stipulates that any Crown grant or conveyance must contain an
express reservation of all rights to the holder the existing license, then this
must include the right expressed as above in Section 77 of the Mining Act 1997.
Because the Ministry refused to
allow me the right to apply for a new licence then they allegedly have breached
the provisions of the said Acts, regardless of the outcome of the application and
the new enactments mentioned above.
Because the Crown did not
expressly provide for these rights under Section 77, within the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997, at the time my license was current, then they could have also allegedly
breached the Act. However, because the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997,
Section 5, leads by stating ‘Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Minerals Act
1991’, and Section 3 states ‘Notwithstanding any other enactment’ also Section
4 generally protects the rights of the existing privilege holder, then it must
only be interpreted that the Crown could legitimately recognise that these
rights must be upheld accordingly and therefore are a transitional part of the
Vesting Act whether or not it was intended to be as such or, even though their
intent was to change the ownership of the minerals concerned under Section 3
or, the Minister of Energy was not to grant any permit or privilege, under
Section 5.
However, the Ministry have repeatedly stated that an application for
a new license or permit cannot be granted for pounamu minerals because as of
October 1997 they no longer belonged to the Crown.
The Privy Council it seems has upheld that view in the Glenharrow
case. The Privy Council however did not consider the clauses set out in the
`Vesting Act’, meaning as above, “Notwithstanding anything in the Crown
Minerals Act 1991”.
It therefore must now be considered that the Crown have allegedly
failed in their statutory responsibilities by not adhering to the above
mentioned provisions of the said Acts and additionally they refuse to accept
that the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act cannot supersede the Crown Minerals
Act 1991 and its transitional provisions due to the actual provisions set out
in the Vesting Act.
These matters took place prior to the enactment of Crown Minerals
Amendment Act 2003 and therefore holders of existing licenses at the time
allegedly now have a right to be compensated or reimbursed for statutory costs
that may cover any statutory rights for a Judicial Review on all these Ministry
decisions or administrative rulings involving the Crowns alleged failure to
adhere to the statutes at the time, whether or not the Minister would have
granted a new license or permit.
Because the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 does not
specifically mention the Mining Act 1971, the argument simply is, that under
the Transitional Provisions Relating to Minerals of the Crown Minerals Act
1991, Section 107 (relates to Mining Licence 32 3021) and Section 112 (relates
to Prospecting Application 31 2583), hence all the rights relating to this
privilege and application should have been expressly provided for within the
provisions of the later Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997.
All applications have been
declined solely on the basis of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) not for any
reasons under the provisions of specific Act's they were originally applied
for.
Both my personal submission and that of
the Jade Miners & Manufacturers Association questioned
the legality of the Crowns proposals
within the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill.
Parliament approved the Bill without due
considerations to my submissions or my many letters to parliamentarians,
ministers and ministry officials
I also wrote to the Governor General
questioning his acceptance of the Vesting Act given the legal
irregularities involved. I did not
receive a reply from him.
His secretary did however write to inform
me that the Governor General had already signed the Act into law.
One can only hope and presume both Parliament, on
passing the Bill and the Governor General, signing it into statutory law, took
into consideration the specific clauses in both Section’s 3 and 5 of the Ngai
Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill. Both these lead with (3.) “Notwithstanding any
other enactment” and (5.) “Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Minerals Act
1991”. IF UPHELD these provisions would directly protect the rights to all
existing privilege holders.
However, to date Crown Minerals and their legal
advisors have refused to recognize any of my allegations herein and have also
advised the Office of the Ombudsmen (to whom I made a complaint), that they
consider my interpretations of the Acts different than theirs.
Mr
Stigleys letter, dated 3July 2002,
in part states “ P2—‘ Issues
concerning the relationship between the right of renewal for mining licenses
for pounamu and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act are far from settled’
The
Ministry of Police consider that any alleged breach of the Acts should be dealt
with by Crown Minerals, not them.
The Chief Ombudsman advised that I undertake
litigation as he has no power to investigate actions taken by Ministers of the
Crown.
My joint application for a mining permit under the Crown
Minerals Act 1991 is a typical example to prove my case on the enormity of the
damages the Crowns action have caused.
The vast nephrite deposits (jade boulders up to 200
tonnes and large exposed reefs) on these applications I discovered many years
ago was strategically kept secret because of the controversy surrounding the
Ngai Tahu claims and the way my current prospecting license application was
being treated by the Government and Ngai Tahu.
I did not apply for this license at a earlier stage
because once I did so, the information of the resources whereabouts was
strategically and economically of an advantage to any other party, just by the
mapped locations required in the statutory application.
Because the Ministry were legally obliged to accept all
applications at the time, I decided that this application was also a testing
case for the entire legal scenario of my mining privilege issues of concern.
The outcome has been as expected, I have now divulged
the whereabouts of many millions of dollars worth of jade resource to other
parties and allegedly consider all my legitimate discoveries have now
fraudulently been placed in ownership of other private parties without due
consideration whatsoever to me the discoverer and legitimate applicant. Thus
depriving me of a lifetimes work, time and trust in our statutory laws.
All these matters have previously been
raised with the respective Ministries and Government Ministers but to date no
matters have been resolved.
Application
for this Prospecting Licence No.31 2583 was made in April 1989 for a maximum
term of 3 years.
No objections were
lodged following my initial public notifications in accordance with the Act.
Neither Ngai
Tahu, Mawhera Incorporation or the Crown objected to the application after
public notification in Otago, Southland and Westland newspapers in July 1990.
Like all
applications, my rights to lodge an objection were denied because no decisions
were made at all by the Minister until after the enactment of the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997.
A Judicial
Review being my only course of action to object other than a submission on the
Vesting Bill, which I exercised but was not heeded by anyone.
My application
for a Mining License No. 32 3021 was applied for in approximately the same
period and was granted by the Minister of Energy on 22 December 1989.
Also Mining Licence Application 32 2682, Sweetman
& Havill (now,
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd) was
granted for pounamu one year after the grant of my Mining License No. 32 3021.
Both these mining licences were granted for a term of 10 years with a statutory
right of priority to apply for a new licence under Section 77 of the Mining Act
1971 and under the Transitional Provisions of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
My Prospecting
Licence Application 31 2583 would have only applied to a 3 year term.
The Guide to the Mining Act 1971,
P17,4.6.1, states:
"License applications without
objections - The Minister will grant the licence."
"Section
109 of the Mining Act 1971 requires that an application be finally disposed of
by being granted or refused within 12 months after the date on which the
application was made unless an extension is granted because of special
circumstances or an objection is lodged." None of these matters were
exercised or notified.
No notification was ever received advising that the Minister was
withholding a decision pursuant to the statutes.
The Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997
did not become law until 1 October 1997, 9 years after my application was
placed with the Ministry.
The decision to decline the application also
cited the Waitangi Tribunals recommendations of 1991 and the Crown decision as
consequence of these developments by not issuing any further licenses for
pounamu in the claim area of Ngai Tahu, pending settlement of the Ngai Tahu
treaty claims.
Documented evidence substantiates that
this claim area only related to the pounamu within the Arahura Valley.
Irrespective
of this recommendation the Ministry still accepted further applications and
fee's for pounamu mining privileges as per my Mining Permit Application
41-452 lodged in 1996.
Allegedly
being an indication that lawfully they were obligated to do so.
My letter of 1992 to the Ministry and the
response (see Ref 25 - OIA
F&N confirms this.
Also Ref 3 (OIA-F&N) confirms
other privileges were granted during the period, see Boustridge and Co and
Mawhera including my ML 32 3021.
In a letter from the Secretary of Commerce,
dated 23 April 1998, the Crown has cited the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997 as the reason the Minister of Energy shall not grant applications for
mining privileges under the Mining Act 1971 or permits under the Crown Minerals
Act 1991 in respect to pounamu in the Takiwa of Ngai Tahu.
I was not
advised by the Ministry until April 1994 that the Ministry had agreed not to
process applications until the pounamu issues were resolved. No advice was ever
received advising that the Minister was withholding a decision pursuant to the
Statutes.
The Minister,
granted at least 2 other mining licenses during the period 1989 – 1994 and did
not advise of an extension of time because of special circumstances.
One of these licenses (ML 32 2682) , a mining
license, was granted for 10 years.
In November
1990 he advised Judge McHugh, Waitangi Tribunal that an application for a
mining license for pounamu would have to be granted according to the statutes
and his responsibilities as Minister of Energy granted at least two other
licenses after April 1990, one year after my application was accepted by the
Ministry.
For further comments on the documents and actions
below.
Ref 3 : (a) LETTER MINISTRY OF
COMMERCE TO MINISTER OF ENERGY
(b) LETTER
MINISTER OF ENERGY TO WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
Dates : (a) 8 NOVEMBER 1990
(b)12 NOVEMBER 1990
Source : No.28/O.I.Act
Extracts:
MINING LICENCE APPLICATION 32
2682 - TW SWEETMAN & GA HAVELL;
- - 'No objections to the grant of the application
were lodged with the planning tribunal and the applicants have lodged the
required bond and survey plan'. —‘DOSLI has confirmed that the area is
located in the Taramakau catchment rather than the Arahura catchment. It is
therefore not within the area covered by your undertaking to the Waitangi
Tribunal.’
(a) LEGAL POSITION
“Section 109 of the mining act
requires that an application be finally disposed of by being granted or refused
within twelve months after the date on which the application was made unless an
extension is granted because of special circumstances or an objection is
lodged. The Court Of Appeal have stated that the effect of this section is to
make time important under the act and to require you, as the Minister Of
Energy, to act within a reasonable time in dealing with an application. In the
present case it is considered that you would be failing in your statutory
responsibilities if you deferred the granting or refusal of this application
until the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Ngai Tahu claim was completed and
published.
The report of the
Waitangi Tribunal is recommendatory only and cannot alter the law under which
you are required to act, nor the ownership of minerals.
Given that no objections have been lodged to this application, that the
application area is outside the Arahura catchment (being the area you have undertaken to give special
consideration, that the minerals sought are crown owned, and the nature of
reports by the Waitangi Tribunal, it is considered that there is no
justification for deferring your final decision on this application.
Accordingly, it is recommended that you proceed immediately with granting the
Mining Licence.”
(C} NOTE THE
MINISTRY'S LEGAL ADVICE THAT YOU SHOULD PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO GRANT THE MINING
LICENCE;
-- (D)
APPROVE THE GRANT OF A MINING LICENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 69 OF THE
MINING ACT 1971 TO -- FOR A TERM OF TEN YEARS --'.
(b) MINISTER'S LETTER TO WAITANGI
TRIBUNAL
'-- In this present case, I consider that I would be
failing in my statutory responsibilities if I deferred the granting or refusal
of this application until the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Ngai Tahu claim
was completed and published. I am required to act in accordance with the law as
it presently exists and on the basis of the existing ownership status of
minerals. -- on the information before me, I am of the view that the Mining
License sought should be granted and I have accordingly given the necessary
approval.' -- JOHN LUXTON
Crown Minerals advised the Secretary of Commerce
that section 104A conferred the right for the Minister of Energy to delegate
authority to decline applications.
Notwithstanding
all other matters this application was declined pursuant to Section 104A of the
Mining Act 1971, but was not subject to all the transitional provisions
included in the Crown Minerals Act 1991, Section 112, because I choose to have
this application continue under it's current status at the appropriate stage of
the licensing procedure in conjunction with advice received by the Ministry at
the time.
This
application therefore assumes the status as is described in Section 112,
sub-section 1.
Section 240A
of the Mining Act 1971 prohibits any delegation of powers relating to Crown
Land under Part III of the said Act. My application relates to this Part.
Although S.21 to S.151A of the Act was repealed by
S.121(1) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, S.240A was not repealed and
furthermore S.112 of the CM Act over rules any provisions as such.
Accordingly the Ministry have declined this
application under S.104A, thus proving the power of S.112 of the CM Act.
S.104A does include the clause:
‘’- -notwithstanding anything in this Act- -“.
Crown
Minerals and the Secretary of Commerce have stressed that S.69 of the MA Act
provides the power to grant a mining license and also allows the Minister of
Energy wide discretionary powers.
Section
69 of the MA Act is specific to mining licenses; it does not however
confer on the Minister the right to disregard other provisions of the Act.
S.48
of the Act is specific to this application and subsection (1) clearly indicates
the Minister is subject to the provisions of the said Act.
The provisions in this case being S.109
(1,2,3), notwithstanding the enactment’s of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997; S.3 and S.5, both stating in part;
“
notwithstanding any other enactment “
The
application for PLA 31 2583 was originally made in April 1989 in good faith
subject to the provisions of the Mining Act 1971; in particular S.8 (now
pertaining to land since granted to Ngai Tahu), S.44, S.45, S.46, S.48, S.49,
S.50, S.104, S.108, S.109 and including the provisions extracted from
Regulations as stated in the Guide to the Mining Act 1971 i.e.; 4.4;
4.2.1; 4.2.2; 4.5; 4.6.
Subject
to regulations, a priority was granted on the initial receipt of the
application after approval from the Chief Surveyor offices, Mines Division and
the three local authorities.
No
objections were received on the statutory public notifications.
Nine
years later the Crown vested the minerals to other private parties during which
time my application rights remained current.
The Crown has intentionally expropriated
my statutory application rights by vesting the minerals specific to this
application over to other private parties prior to a decision on the
application being made by the Minister of Energy subject to the Mining Act 1971
and relevant statutes.
I consider the Crown not only breached
good faith and the law relating to the statutes but could well have perpetrated
an act of fraud subsequent to the provisions and regulations promoted
within the Acts.
In
other words the Crown created the hope and opportunity for me to economically
invest my livelihood in the discovery and access of these minerals. In return
they later revoked my interests by vesting my discoveries to other concerns
without due regard to the principle purpose they originally promoted these
expectations.
The
Ministry purposely vested the minerals while applicants retained existing
applications over them thus creating severe losses, damages and disadvantages
to myself a legitimate discoverer and privilege applicant.
From documented evidence, the Department of Conservation
intentionally held my application from the date of their receipt of it from the
Ministry (1989) to at least 1994, stating in documents that they were still
processing it.
The Ministry did advise them that a time frame had to be considered
under section 109 of the Mining Act 1971 but the Department continually withheld
a decision on it.
Considering other applications were approved and being accepted at
the same time proves beyond all doubt that my application was allegedly
unlawfully withdrawn from the ministerial processing system.
Considering that the Ministry advised the Minister of Energy to
overrule DOSLI withholding other applications and that they were not in the
Arahura region and to grant the licenses according to law, (See insert Ref 3) Then for what legal
reason did the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy withhold my
prospecting application? Especially as this application pertained to ACCESS OF
THE LAND FOR PROSPECTING PURPOSES.
Prior to the introduction of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997, I made application to Crown Minerals to supply an application form to
have this still current mining license renewed according to the Mining Act 1971
and Crown minerals Act 1991. Not only did they ignore the request for the form
but the Ministry refused to allow me to make application stating it would not
and could not be granted pursuant to the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill.
They had no legal right to do this and allegedly have breached many
constitutional and statutory laws in this regard..
There
has been much argument over this issue with both the Ministry and the Minister
of Energy in the past.
In a letter dated 6 May 1997 to Hon. Damien
O’Connor MP, Hon. Max Bradford, Minister of Energy stated in paragraph two that
the right in priority to have granted to him a new license under Section 77(2),
had not been preserved under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
Furthermore he stated that if existing license holders (under the
Mining Act 1971) wanted to apply for a new licence on the expiry of that
licence then they would need to apply for a permit under the Crown Minerals Act
1991.
In a further letter to Hon.
Damien O’Connor MP dated 5 May 1999, (after the enactment of the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997) he repeated the similar statements but went on to
say that the interests of existing privilege holders are provided for in
Section 30(8) and Section 119 of the CM Act 1991 which would normally enable an
existing licence holder to apply for a new permit under the CM Act 1991 before
any other person.
With all due respect to the Minister, the majority of these
statement are incorrect.
However these statements are typical and are mainly stated to
confuse most existing licensees, applicants and their representatives.
Letters as such basically confirm that the entire matter has for a
very long period, been extremely misleading.
In fact even a moderately intelligent person would deduct that fraud
could be a better word for it.
In a Crown Minerals letter of 17 March 1998, setting out
their full and final position on matters, they state:
" section 77 of the MA 1971 only ever conferred on an existing
license holder a right in priority over other persons when applying to have
granted a new mining license."
In
a letter from Ministry of Commerce, Nick Crang,Legal Section, dated 13 August
1998; it was stated in part: “you also state that you have not received
application forms for the renewal of mining licence 32 3021 following your
letter of 14 August 1997. Your letter was replied to by Mr Paul Stigley in his
letter of 07 October 1997. In that letter, Mr
Stigley explained that you do not have a right to a new mining licence under
section 77 of the Mining Act 1971. Mr Stigley also explained that if
you wish to renew your existing license you will need to apply to Te Runanga o
Ngai Tahu.” And in part: “ Your threat of litigation
does not dissuade the Ministry from its view that its actions in respect of
your applications and licenses are, and have been, legally correct.”
Irrespective
of the Ministry's interpretation two issues remain unresolved.
Section 77(2) of the Mining Act 1971 states:
"
The licensee shall have the right in priority over every other person to
have granted to him a new mining license in respect of the land to which the
existing license relates, if he applies for a new license not later than 30 day's
before the expiry of the existing license."
The enactment does not mention the right of priority to apply or the
word application; it specifically states:
"
the right in priority over every other person to have granted to him ".
As
mentioned in the Introduction of this document, the Crown have
not expressly provided transitional rights within the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997 in regard to the right of priority over all other persons to
have a new license granted as accorded under Section 43 and Section 77 of the
Mining Act 1971. Go to Introduction
The retention of my rights pertaining to ML 32
3021 and its renewal or application for a new license, accorded under Section
43 of the Mining Act 1971, states fully:
43. Existing mining privileges protected
(1) No Crown grant or conveyance, nor the grant of any
mining privilege, shall have the effect of revoking or injuriously affecting
any existing mining privilege acquired and held under this Act or any former
Mining Act, whether or not any reservation or exception of the existing mining
privilege is contained in the Crown grant or conveyance or the grant of the
mining privilege.
(2) Every such Crown grant or conveyance and every such grant of a mining
privilege shall be deemed to contain an express reservation of the rights to
which the holder of the existing mining privilege is entitled.
This enactment has been considered in the
vesting Act by including provision for the "existing privilege",
partially considered Section 43, because it specifically states an express
reservation of the rights.
However consideration has only been given
specifically to an existing privilege and not the express reservation of rights
to which the holder of existing mining privilege is entitled.
These rights are provided for in Section 77 of
the Mining Act 1971.
On
page 6 of my Notes and Files, Ref.10, Source No.8 /O.I. Act - Letter Crown Law
Office to Ministry of Commerce, it states in part:
" 6.
It is interesting to note that Section 111 did not include a reference to
Section 77 of the MA 1971".
Section
111 states:
" -- a
holder of an existing privilege makes an application in respect of Crown owned
minerals to which any of the enactment’s specified in subsection (2) would have
applied if this Act had not been enacted, then, notwithstanding section 107,
--".
As
a renewal (new licence) application for ML 32 3021 does not apply to any of the
enactment’s specified in 111(2) and (1) states in part:
" notwithstanding
Section 107 ";
Then
a renewal (new licence) application under Section 111(2) of the CM Act and a
new license had to be applied for under Sections 111(1b), 23, 32, then pursuant
to Section 43 of the MA 1971, the existing rights of the applicant cannot be
interfered with by grant or conveyance (i.e. Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997).
Therefore
because my rights to apply for a renewal of ML 32 3021 were initially denied by
the Crown, but after argument in letters with myself, later conceded by the
Minister on the basis that the application would be approved but the license or
permit would not be granted on the grounds that the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting)
Act prohibited any grant of a permit.
The
Crown has allegedly breached Section 43(2) of the MA 1971 by not providing
express reservation of the rights to which the holder of the existing mining
privilege is entitled.
Furthermore
the Ministry did not provided an application form for renewal as requested in
my letter of 14 August 1997, prior to the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997.
By
not adhering to these matters the Crown have allegedly committed an offence
under Section 234 of the MA 1971.
Ministry
statements and the vesting Act advise that:
" The
rights of an existing licensee will not be affected by the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997."
Section
3 of that Act, states in part:
"--Notwithstanding
any other enactment--"; and Section 4, states: " (1) Nothing in Section 3 affects an existing privilege or the
right or obligations of any holder of an existing privilege and Part 11 of the
Crown Minerals Act 1991 continues to apply in relation to that privilege as if
this Act had not been passed"; Section 5, states in part: " Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Minerals Act
1991"; and: "(a) Permit
pursuant to an application made under Section 23 of that Act before the
commencement of this Act, or (b) Mining privilege pursuant to an application to
which Section 112 of that Act applies in respect of any pounamu to which
Section 3 applies ".
(b)
Applies only to existing applications
Property Rights
Irrespective of all
previous matters mentioned in this document and in other material on this
site. Subject to the
provisions of the Mining Act 1971 and the Transitional Provisions Relating to
Minerals, of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, Mining Licence 32 3021 was refused
an application for a new license under Section 77 and Section 43 of the
Mining Act 1971. The request for application forms was made prior to the
enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, prior to the 30 period
of the expiry date of this license and prior to the Crown Minerals Amendment
Act 2003. By refusing to allow us
to apply for a new license or permit, which we the holders had a right to
apply for up to a period of 42 years, the Ministry have revoked our property
rights accorded under Section 139 of the Mining Act 1971 notwithstanding the
provisions in Sections 43, 77, 80, 87, 145 and 146 of that Act. Further more, by
vesting the pounamu minerals to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu while this license was
still current it commercially devalued the license property at extreme
disadvantage to us, the licensees. The Crown made no
effort to purchase that license from us or put responsibility on the new
owners for a continuation of our statutory accorded rights nor have the Crown
offered any compensation. After much argument,
the Ministry finally advised that we had the right to apply for a new licence
or permit for up to 42 years but because the mineral was vested with Te
Runanga o Ngai Tahu in October 1997, then we (or anyone else for that matter)
would have to apply to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu rather than the Crown. The Crown advised
that they have no agreement
with Ngai Tahu to honour the statutory rights accorded to the licensees. In
effect both our statutory rights and our property rights were revoked while
this license was still current. |
This application was lodged on 28 March 1996, prior to
the Minerals Programme, 1 October 1996 and Proposed Regulations for Minerals and
Coal, July 1997 and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, 1 October 1997.
The application and fees were accepted by Crown
Minerals and cleared to proceed for the Chief Surveyors report which was also accepted.
Therefore the application was in accordance with all provisions of the Crown
Minerals Act 1991 including Section 4 of the Act.
Official advise was received in the latter part of June
1996 (16 June 1996 onwards) by the Secretary of Commerce stating that existing
applications for nephrite jade, bowenite and serpentine would not be granted.
This advice was received prior to the enactment of the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997
The advice therefore was of a predetermined nature
considering the Bill was not even formulated, notwithstanding the fact that
Parliament yet had to approve the Bill and the Governor General sign it into
law. This did not eventuate until 1 October 1997, nearly 16 months later.
I allege the Crown promoted and
encouraged persons to explore, prospect and mine Crown minerals pursuant to the
Act's prior to these events, only to give us 3 to 4 months notice that all
statutory mining privilege applications under the Act's would not be granted,
irrespective of previous evaluation, geological study and discovery. Including
the statutory mining privilege applications subsequently made in accordance
with the Act and the relating business and financial considerations made in
anticipation for receipt of such licenses and permits.
The exact specific delineation of the whereabouts of
discoveries were made as part of our application, therefore both the Crown and
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu have allegedly been extremely advantaged by obtaining
this information, now to our disadvantage.
The vast nephrite deposits (jade boulders up to 120
tonnes) I discovered under a prospectors right many years ago was kept secret
because of the controversy surrounding the Ngai Tahu claims and the way my
prospecting license application was being treated by the Ministry and Ngai
Tahu.
I did not apply for this license at an earlier stage,
because once I did so the information of the resources whereabouts was
strategically and economically of an advantage to any other party, just by the
mapped locations required in the statutory application.
Because the Ministry were legally obliged to accept all
applications at the time, I decided that
this application was also a testing case for the entire
legal scenario of my mining privilege issues of concern.
The outcome has been as expected, I had been legally
obliged to divulge the whereabouts of many millions of dollars worth of jade
resource to other parties and allegedly consider all my legitimate discoveries
have now fraudulently been placed in ownership of other private parties without
due consideration whatsoever to me the discoverer and legitimate applicant.
Thus depriving me of a lifetimes work, time and trust in our statutory laws.
In consideration to the Acts:
Pursuant to the NGAI TAHU (POUNAMU VESTING) ACT 1997;
Section 3, specifically states; “ Notwithstanding any other enactment,--“;
By including this clause it substantiates that other enactments must be
considered when regarding the vesting of the pounamu minerals to which this
section applies.
Section 5, specifically states; “Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Minerals Act.1991,”.
Therefore in consideration to the CROWN MINERALS ACT 1991, Section 3:
Act shall bind the Crown –“This Act shall bind the Crown”;
Section 5 (b): Functions of the
Minister of Energy –“The Minister shall have the following functions under this
Act:
(b)
The grant of minerals permits:”;
Section 22(1b): Exercise of Minister's functions and
powers – “(11) Subject to subsection (2),
the Minister shall carry out and exercise his or her functions and powers under
this Part in respect of permits and applications for permits ];
[(b) Where there is no relevant minerals programme,
having regard to the importance of -
(i) The
efficient allocation of rights in respect of Crown owned minerals;
(ii) The Crown
obtaining a fair financial return from its minerals.”;
Section 23: Application for permits -
“(1) Any person may apply to the
Secretary for a permit in respect of a mineral in land, whether or not there is
a minerals programme for the mineral;--“
Section 25: Grant of Permit -
“ (1) Subject to
the provisions of this Act, the Minister may grant to any person a permit in
respect of any specified minerals and land, on such conditions as the Minister
thinks fit.—“
Section 117: Minister's obligations in respect of
minerals programmes-
7.
“The Minister of
Energy Shall -
(a) Within 2
months after the date of commencement of this Act, publicly notify a notice identifying
minerals for which minerals programmes will be prepared ( being minerals which
are, or the Minister considers are likely to be, the subject of an application
for a minerals permit: and
(b) Ensure that
public notice is given under section 16 of the draft minerals programmes for
all minerals identified in notice under paragraph (a) not later than 3 years
after the date of commencement of this Act.”
The then Minister of Energy did not comply with Section 117 of the Crown
Minerals Act 1991, which identify minerals for Minerals Programmes.
Although very ambiguous, the Deputy Secretary of Operations and Risk
Management's letter of notification received 6 July 1998 could be interpreted
as meaning the application was declined for the reason specific to the
enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997. If so, then I allege
that the statements; “Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Minerals Act 1991”; and “Notwithstanding any other enactment,--“; as in the above Clause 1,
substantiates that due regard must be considered to all provision's within the
Crown Mineral's Act 1991. The statement does not add or stipulate any wording
such as 'anything to the contrary'.
This application was lodged on 28 March 1996, prior to the Minerals
Programme, 1 October 1996 and Proposed Regulations for Minerals and Coal, July
1997 and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, 1 October 1997. The
application and fee's were undertaken in acceptance by Crown Minerals and
cleared to proceed for the Chief Surveyors report which in turn was accepted.
Therefore the application was fully accepted in accordance with all provisions
of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 including Section 4 of the Act:
“Treaty of
Waitangi - All persons exercising functions and powers under this
Act shall have regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o
Waitangi).”
Signed: Kenneth James Landaus __________________________
