EXTRACTS FROM DOCUMENTS RECEIVED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT and NOTES REGARDING MY ALLEGATIONS
Ref 1 : Letter
Minister of Energy to Waitangi Tribunal
Date : 11
October 1989
Source : No.33/O.I.Act
Extracts :
' My officials
in the Ministry of Energy have put much effort into finding ways to give
practical effect to previous recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal. This has
been difficult. While there is a strong desire to give effect to these
recommendations and to honour the principles of the Treaty, it is necessary that such recommendations
be given practical effect through the operation of existing laws. It is
desirable therefore that the recommendations reflect the context in which they
are to operate.'
' You are correct in your statement that there
are statutory procedures for the hearing of mining applications which must be
followed under the present law. There are also statutory criteria which must
all be taken into account. I have asked my officials to consider whether, in
the circumstances, it may be possible to decline applications for Arahura
greenstone licences which are currently in process.'
Ref 2 : Letter from
Commerce to Minister of Energy
Date : 25
June 1990
Source : No.30/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'4. The
Ngai Tahu claim alleges that in respect of the Deed of Purchase for the Arahura Valley - the Crown failed to
protect the right of Ngai Tahu to retain possession and control of all
pounamu'.
'5. The
Crown in it's final submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal in September 1989 accepted that it would
be proper for the Tribunal to
recommend that Poutini Ngai Tahu should
have the exclusive right to control the taking of pounamu (in the Arahura
Valley).'
'7. Of the two applications for a mining licence
for greenstone which have been set down for hearing before the Planning
Tribunal, one relates to land in the Arahura Valley and one to land south-west
of Haast. Both applications have been objected to on the ground that to grant
the licences would be contrary to the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of
Waitangi and - that pounamu is subject to the Ngai Tahu claim.'
'8. However, The Crown Law Office have advised that only greenstone in the Arahura
Valley is subject to the Ngai Tahu claim.'
'10.
Recommendation - adjournment - until
the completion - Waitangi Tribunal's report and recommendations on the Ngai
Tahu claim.'
[Note A: No.30/O.I.Act -
Commerce to Minister of Energy
Ngai Tahu
have objected to an application at
Arahura Valley and south of Haast.
They did not object to my prospecting application or my mining licence
application, the latter was approved in December 1989.]
***
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 :
(a)
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
-- 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
LICENCE SOUGHT SHOULD BE GRANTED AND I HAVE ACCORDINGLY GIVEN THE NECESSARY
APPROVAL.' -- JOHN LUXTON
Ref 4 : Letter
Minister of Conservation to MP West Coast
Date : 14
March 1991
Source : Letter
Extracts :
'--the
Waitangi Tribunal has now reported on the Ngai Tahu claim. One of the reports
recommendations is THAT THE RIGHTS TO
CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP OF POUNAMU/GREENSTONE IN THE AREA OF MR LANDAUS'
APPLICATION BE VESTED IN NGAI TAHU. We as government will be addressing the
issues raised in the report. The DOC is in the meantime obtaining LEGAL ADVISE in order to clarify it's
options on this issue.'
Ref 5 : Letter
Crown Minerals to D.O.C (attach to M. of Energy)
Date : 19
May 1994
Source : No.19/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'I refer
to the initial requests and numerous
reminders for decisions on consents from your Minister for the applications
listed below. At this time the
average time between first request and todays date is three years,--'
Ref 6 : Letter
Ministry of Commerce to Minister of Energy
Date : 14
July 1994
Source : No.20/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'12 At the very least the mechanism for undertaking
this transfer of responsibility to Ngai Tahu will need to make it very clear
that Ngai Tahu will have no more rights than the Minister of Energy would have
under the Crown Minerals Act/Mining Act to change licence conditions, royalties
etc. This is very limited and may be less than Ngai Tahu expect. To do otherwise would expropriate the
rights of licence holders.
'14 There are six existing applications for
licences or permits for pounamu which have
not been actioned because of the moratorium on issuing new permits agreed by
the Crown until the Treaty issue was settled.--' [withheld text]
***
'CONCLUSION.
24 If a settlement is to be reached with Ngai
Tahu on greenstone it will be necessary for
Ministers to agree that they are willing to vest the Crown's pounamu (as
defined in paragraph 21) in Ngai Tahu using
specific legislation.--'[withheld
text but part text on file from same document states--] `MINISTERS WILL ALSO NEED TO BE WILLING
TO SPECIFICALLY LEGISLATE TO PREVENT HOLDERS OF EXISTING LICENCES AND EXISTING
APPLICANTS FOR NEW LICENCES FROM SEEKING --'[withheld by KJL until
necessary]
'25 vii
Note that LEGAL and PRACTICAL issues exist with the
treatment of outstanding applications for greenstone licences in the event of a
settlement.
'25 viii
Note that there are three options for
overcoming the difficulties with the treatment of existing applications in a
settlement. The Minister of Energy could:
a grant the applications; or
b decline the applications
c [withheld text]
* 'REFER THIS REPORT TO
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE for his information-- cc Minister of Justice.'
[Note B: No.20/O.I.Act
Minister of Justice's proposal for partial
settlement [Ngai Tahu claim]. It seems he certainly has not
considered any statutory rights accorded
the existing applications or applicants, only existing licences until they
cease.
In all this time since the Ngai Tahu claims have
begun not once have any officials mentioned or considered the repercussions
these matters would have on the livelihoods and businesses of mining privilege
applicants and licensee's, not withstanding their development of the resource
and industry, basing their strategies on the basic age old principles of the
mining law's in good faith and goodwill.]
*
Ref 7 : Letter Ministry of Commerce to Minister
of Energy
Date : 29
July 1994
Source : No.19/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'6 If the Minister
of Conservation should decide to give his approval to these applications AS REQUIRED UNDER THE MINING ACT then
the final decision to grant the application would fall to you as Minister of
Energy. Should you grant these applications we understand legal action from
Ngai Tahu is likely'.
[Note C: No.19/0.I.Act
Shows the
Minister of Conservation must consider
applications pursuant to the Mining Act. Also that DOC and Commerce were
more concerned over legal action from Ngai Tahu than they were from licensee's
or applicant's.]
**
Ref 8 : Letter
Ministry of Commerce to Minister of Energy
: [Attached] Crown Law Office to Commerce
Dates : (a)
19 August 1994
: (b) 10 August 1994
Source : No.16/O.I.Act
Extracts :
(a)'--How best to deal with existing
applications in light of Treaty of Waitangi claims and what the Crown's
obligations and liabilities are under the Mining Act has been a matter of
ongoing consideration. At the meeting with the Minister-in-Charge of Treaty
Negotiations, the Minister of Conservation, yourself and officials on 1 August,
Crown Law were instructed to provide an opinion as to the options open to you
as Minister of Energy in respect of applications to mine greenstone, and
whether or not enacting legislation to remove the right to apply for a mining
licence for pounamu would give rise to any compensation rights.
On the basis of this opinion the Ministry of
Commerce undertook to provide an indication of the level of compensation that
might be sought.'--[Withheld text]
(b)'--I understand
however that the Department of Conservation has sought advice as to what steps
it should take, given the existence of the Waitangi Tribunal recommendation,
and that it is not currently processing the applications.--'
[WITHHELD TEXT including TWO MORE PAGES]
[Note D: No.16/O.I.Act
Minister of Justice/in Charge of Treaty
Negotiations, was present with Minister of Energy, Minister of Conservation and
officials, therefore has allegedly been well aware and informed of the situation
regarding existing applications, licences and the statutory rights involved
with the issues. He therefore should be as responsible to the issues as are
other Minister's.]
*
Ref 9 : Letter Ministry of Commerce to Crown
Minerals
{Undertaking
High Court} Moratorium
Date : 31
August 1994 - {letter}
Date : No
date - {Undertaking or moratorium -2 pages}
Source : No.15/O.I.Act
Extracts :
Letter --
'The attached undertaking by the Minister of Energy and the Minister of
Conservation NOT TO GRANT LICENCES OR
PERMITS FOR MINING GREENSTONE (POUNAMU) has been filed in the High
Court.'--
'It is
expected to be some time before hearings on the substantive claim take place. IN THE INTERIM ALL PROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR GREENSTONE SHOULD CEASE.'--
Ref 11 : Letter Ministry of Commerce to Mike--?
Date : 13
June 1996
Source : No.5/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'-- Simon Upton signed off a paper to
Cabinet this morning for discussion Monday regarding the need to include
some provision in an SOP to the Appropriation Bill currently before the
House so the "gifting" of pounamu can be done without breaching
the Public Finance Act. Have reached agreement with Treasury that
the net value of pounamu to the Crown is " something greater than
Zero" but which cannot be determined with any real accuracy or
meaning. The figure will be $0.--' [Withheld text]
**
Ref 12 : Letter Ministry of Commerce to Minister
of Energy
Date : 22
September 1996
Source :
No.2/O.I.Act
Extracts :
[page 5]
'16 OUR LEGAL ADVICE IS THAT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE NGAI TAHU (POUNAMU VESTING) BILL PREVENTS THE GRANTING OF
ANY LICENCES/PERMITS IN RESPECT OF POUNAMU IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO
DECLINE THE EXISTING APPLICATIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE BILL BEING PASSED.[see
Notes on files]
[Note F: No.2/O.I.Act
The
reason of advise not to decline existing applications in advance of the Bill
being passed, is obviously because the backup of having to decline these
applications is the excuse that the mineral no longer belongs to the Crown,
rather that stating that the applications do not meet the criteria.]
Ref 13 : Letter Crown Minerals to KJL
Date : 7
October 1997
Source : On
file
Extracts :
'--I note
that you consider that section 77 of the MA 1971 and section 107 of the CMA
1991 give you the right of priority to apply
for a further mining licence for nephrite.
Section
77 only gives holders of existing mining licences the right to apply for a new licence ahead of other
people, it does not guarantee that such applications will be granted a new
mining licence. The effect of section 77 is unchanged by the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act except that those with existing licences -- will apply to Te
Runanga O Ngai Tahu for a new licence rather than the Crown.--'
'--As a
result of the Waitangi Tribunal report
on the Ngai Tahu claim the Crown placed
a moratorium on granting licences or permits for extraction of pounamu.
Since the moratorium was introduced no further licences or permits have been
granted by the Crown'--
'--The Act [Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting Act 1997)
prohibits the Crown from granting any further licences or permits for pounamu.
Therefore existing applications for licences and permits cannot be granted by
the Crown, you must apply instead to the new owner of the pounamu, Te Runanga O
Ngai Tahu.--'
[Note G: The Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 expressly states 'Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Minerals Act 1991,'--[See letter below dated 2 December 1997]
Ref 14 : Letter KJL
to Crown Minerals
Date : 2
December 1997
Source : On
file
Extracts :
Notwithstanding
the matters raised in that letter, I wish you to consider that pursuant to the Crown Minerals Act 1991, sections 106 to
111 inclusive and the Mining Act
1971, section 77, then subject to
the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act (Bill amended), sections 3 and 4, you have informed me that `those with
existing licences with respect to
pounamu in the takiwa of Ngai Tahu will apply to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu for a
new licence rather than the Crown'.
With all
due respect, it is very clear in the
pounamu vesting Act, that the
provisions of the above mentioned Acts and their relevant sections , continue to apply in relation to this
privilege as if the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act had not been passed. Accordingly, it seems obvious you should
treat any application for a
renewal
of this licence as though the Crown Minerals Act 1991 also has not been
enacted.'
'Prospecting Licence
Application 31-2583
Because
the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act, section 3: 'Ownership by Ngai Tahu of certain minerals'; states 'Notwithstanding any other enactment';
then in consideration to section 5 of that Act; 'Applications for mining privileges and permits for pounamu'; which
states 'Notwithstanding anything in the
Crown Minerals Act 1991', section 5(b) 'mining privilege pursuant to an application to which section 112 of
that Act (Crown Minerals Act 1991) applies
in respect of any pounamu to which section 3 applies; is exempt from the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 because section 112 of the Crown Minerals
Act 1991 specifically states subject to the provisions in (a) and (b) 'The application shall continue to be dealt
with in accordance with that Act (Mining Act 1971) and any regulations made
under that Act as if this Act (Crown Minerals Act 1991) had not been enacted.'
As
mentioned above, the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act substantiates this
exemption because it states 'notwithstanding
any other enactment'.
Ref 15 : Letter
KJL to Crown Minerals
Date : 4 December 1998
Source : On file
Extracts :
'I
respect your view that I should now apply to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu for
authorisation to mine pounamu.
However
this was not the matter to which I referred, I specifically asked if Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu are obligated to
recognise my transitional priority for the right to apply for a renewal of my
existing mining licence.
My request
for information pertaining to the moratorium was the Act I was referring to,
not the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997. In other words, was this moratorium enacted by Parliament
or regulated under the Crown Minerals Act by the Governor General ? With
all due respect, my purpose is to
establish legal clarification of the status of my mining privilege and
applications up to the date of the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997.
**
Ref 16 : Letter KJL to Minister of Energy
Date : 17
March 1998
Source : On
file
Extracts :
'Re: Your
letter to S.Yorke, Solicitor dated 29 January 1998.
I note you have advised that no legislation was
ever enacted to amend the Mining Act 1971 and the Crown Minerals Act 1991 so
that processing of applications for the issue of mining privileges for pounamu
could be lawfully suspended. In order that we can now put things in
perspective, would you kindly clarify
the status and
provisions of the moratorium that was instituted
by your predecessor, the Hon. Douglas Kidd.
I
understand the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 did not in fact become law
until 1 October 1997.
With
respect, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LEGISLATION
WHICH ENABLED YOUR OFFICE TO SUSPEND PROCESSING AND ISSUING OF MINING PRIVILEGE
LICENCES OR PERMITS PRIOR TO 1 OCTOBER 1997.'
Ref 17 : Letter
Minister of Energy to KJL
Date : 31
March 1998
Source : On
file
Extracts :
'NO LEGISLATION WAS USED TO SUSPEND THE
PROCESSING AND ISSUING OF MINING LICENCES OR PERMITS PRIOR TO 1 OCTOBER 1997.
PROCESSING WAS HALTED AFTER IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE CROWN'S NEGOTIATIONS
WITH TE RUNANGA o NGAI TAHU WERE LIKELY TO LEAD TO A SETTLEMENT--'
**
[Note H: This is just another version of why the licencing process was
halted. The Minister still has not
answered my question of what legislation enabled his office to suspend
licencing.]
Ref 18 : Letter Ministry of Commerce to Minister
of Energy
Date : 29 July 1994
Source : No.19/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'2 During
the Waitangi Tribunal hearing on the Ngai Tahu Claim the Crown agreed to a moratorium on issuing new prospecting or mining
licences for greenstone -- in the Arahura until the claim was settled'.
Ref 19 : Letter Ministry of Commerce to Crown
Minerals
Moratorium
Date : August
1994 - (letter)
Date : No
date - (moratorium or undertaking)
Source : No.15/O.I.Act
Extracts :
LETTER - 'The attached undertaking by
the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Conservation NOT TO GRANT LICENCES OR PERMITS FOR MINING OF GREENSTONE (POUNAMU)
has been filed in the High Court.'--
'It is
expected to be some time before hearings on the substantive claim take place. IN THE INTERIM ALL PROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR GREENSTONE SHOULD CEASE.
[Note I: No.15/O.I.Act -
Moratorium or Undertaking.
1. Letter
only mentions licences and permits for MINING.
2. Letter
also confirms all PROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS should cease. Mining is not an application for prospecting.
If all
processing of applications were to cease then what legislative mandate allowed
this and if in fact it was legal, why have applications been accepted and
processed since.
The
Undertaking document obtained, has no date or signatures, but has a registration
number CP No 236/94.
The
document also states 'in respect of APPLICATIONS
TO MINE'--]
Ref 20 : Letter
Minister of Energy to Minister of T. of W.N.
Date : 13 November 1995
Source : No.11/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'6. I
believe the decision not to return the ownership of all pounamu to Ngai Tahu
was flawed both in terms of practical application (the Crown has no way of knowing exactly where any greenstone is found],
the administrative costs involved and the perceived breach of good faith by the
Crown given what had been previously agreed.
'7. Given
the difficulties arising from the moratorium (no licences or permits have been issued for 8 years), -
[Note J: Although prior to the vesting enactment, Ngai Tahu had no legal
claim over the pounamu outside the Arahura Valley, there is ample documented
evidence that their claims were put before those legitimate claims of
licensee's and applicants.]
***
Ref 21 : Ministry
of Commerce to Minister of Energy
Date : 22
September 1996
Source : No.2/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'6 In
addition there is currently a moratorium
on the processing of licences/permits for pounamu because of Ngai Tahu's Treaty
of Waitangi claim and also undertakings given in the High Court in response to court action taken by Ngai Tahu. [see Source No.15] The moratorium has been in effect since 1987. [see Notes to files]
'18
Because of the moratorium
applications have not been processed for many years. there has been
considerable criticism from some existing applicants who are keen to see the
matter resolved. It is recommended that those with existing applications be
offered two options:---'[see Notes]
[Note K: No.2/O.I.Act - Moratorium etc
If there
has been a moratorium in effect since 1987, then this must be the moratorium directly relating to the Arahura River. Even if this is the
case, then licences were issued in that area following this date because Crown
Minerals knew the moratorium did not
supersede statutory mining legislation.
It seems there is evidence throughout
documentation that both the MORATORIUM with Poutini Ngai Tahu re. the Arahura
in 1987 and the Crowns Undertaking filed in the High Court in August 1994, is
being confused. The 1987 moratorium (as above) related only to a
specific area and the Court Undertaking is a moratorium, but cannot be
recognised as altering statutory law in respect to the mining Act's or
Statutory Regimes.]
Ref 22 : Letter KJL to Minister of Energy
Date : 20 August 1997
Source : On
file
Extracts :
Please
explain how the Crown can legitimately vest Crown owned minerals to private
parties (Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu) when
those minerals are already incumbent to existing applicants under the mining
Act's and Statutory Regimes.
Consideration
has not been given that neither the
Crown nor Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu objected to the mining privilege application
at the appropriate stage of the licencing procedure. [PLA 31-2583]
Ref 23 : Letter Crown Minerals to KJL
Date : 7
October 1997
Source : On
file
Extracts :
'-- As a result
of the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Ngai Tahu claim the Crown placed a
moratorium on granting licences or permits for the extraction of pounamu. Since
the moratorium was introduced no further licences or permits have been granted
by the Crown.--'
[Note L: This specific moratorium, although not statutory, only related to
that land subject to the original Ngai Tahu claim in the Arahura Valley. No
further licences have been granted but applications have been accepted and
processed.
The
Ministers' collectively agreed to postpone the processing of mining privilege
applications in August 1994, five years after my application for a prospecting
licence to access the land, not the mineral. Yet Crown Minerals accepted my
mining permit application in 1996, accepting the fee's and processing it.]
Ref 24 : Letter
Ministry of Commerce to Minister of Energy
Date : 3
October 1989
Source : No.34/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'Proposals
9. There
are three situations for which procedural solutions must be found. These are:
existing greenstone privileges, applications in process, and future
applications.'
14.'Several
of these applications are at an early stage and could be rejected, There is one
however, (Bok) that is to go to the Planning Tribunal in November.'
15.'There is a question as to whether we should
let this application go to the Tribunal.' [withheld text]
16.'The
treatment of future applications may be able to be guided by the outcome of the
Bok objection and recommendation above.'[much
withheld text in this document]
Ref 25 : Letter
Crown Minerals to KJL
Mode : No.23/O.I.Act
Date : 24
April 1992
Extracts :
'At this stage
we are waiting for DOC to give consent to the grant of this licence.'
'Doc has
decided to withhold consent until the greenstone issues - have been heard and
negotiated - and appropriate policy decisions made - This matter is not within
our control - we are also waiting for the matter to be decided.'
[Note M: Although the Crown has stated many times in letters that THE GRANT OF AN APPLICATION IS NOT OR NEVER
HAS BEEN GUARANTEED, this does not substantiate the Crown transferring
ownership of the pounamu minerals to other private parties when mining
privilege applicant's hold priority rights to claim ownership of those minerals
until such a time the Crown declines the grant of licences or permits pursuant
to the mining Act's and other statutory law's that were put in place AT THE TIME THE APPLICANT FILED THE CLAIM
OR APPLICATION.]
Ref 26 : Letter Crown Minerals to KJL
Mode : No.22/O.I.Act
Date : 18 April 1994
Extracts :
'- Due to
a Waitangi Tribunal claim, CM has agreed
not to process applications - until the pounamu issues involved in this
claim have been resolved.'
'-it has
been some time since any action has been
taken on this application.'
'-options
open to you are:
a/ Withdraw the entire
application.
b/ - application held pending resolution.
Ref 27 : Letter
Crown Minerals to D.O.C[with attachment]
Date : 19 May 1994
Source : No.19/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'I refer
to the initial requests and numerous
reminders for decisions on consents from your Minister for the applications
listed below. At this time the average
time between first request and today's date is three years, this does not
take into account the applications with respect to greenstone as we realise
these are held up by Waitangi Tribunal decisions.'
'I must
point out that officials are required to
have all Mining Act 1971 and Coal Mines Act 1979 applications finalised to
objection stage by 30 June 1994. Your urgent attention is needed to submit
to your Minister all outstanding applications requiring his consent as soon as
possible.'
Ref 28 : Letter
Ministry of Commerce to Minister of Energy
Date : 29
July 1994
Source : No.19/O.I.Act
Extracts :
'3 As you are aware negotiations with Ngai Tahu
are proceeding and agreement on the greenstone aspect of the claim is now
relatively close. At the last meeting with Ngai Tahu the Department of Conservation indicated that they were now processing
the outstanding applications.--'
'4 On 19 May 1994 the Ministry of Commerce
Authorisations Unit wrote to The Department of Conservation requesting action
on a number of outstanding licence applications (attachment 1).
References: COMPENSATION
OBLIGATIONS OF MINISTER OF CONSERVATION
VESTING WITHOUT BREACHING THE PUBLIC FINANCE ACT
[PREVIOUSLY CONFIDENTIAL NOTES]
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. |