EXTRACTS FROM DOCUMENTS RECEIVED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT and NOTES REGARDING MY ALLEGATIONS
K J LANDAUS vs MINISTRY OF COMMERCE
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.'
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 Ref 2: 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 Ref 6: 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 Ref 7: 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.
With regard to my Application for PL 31 258, Commerce have not advised the
Minister to give approval, considering the Application was for only a three
year term.
This application was made in April 1989. If it were
approved during 1989, it would have expired by this date, (1994).]
**
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 Ref 8: 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.'--
Extracts:
'4 As you are aware although the Mining Act
1971 was repealed by the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the transitional provisions of
the CMA kept the MA in force for the purposes of administering "existing
privileges"(see sections 107-112 CMA, photocopy attached). The term "
existing privilege" includes all exploration and prospecting licences
issued under the MA.
'6 It is interesting to note that Section 111 did not include a
reference to SECTION 77 of the MA which gave the mining licence holders a right
of priority to have a further mining licence granted in respect of the same
minerals and land, if they applied no less than 30 days before the expiry of
the first mining licence. This right of priority is, therefore, effectively
extinguished, as it has not been taken up by the transitional provisions of the
CMA.
[ Note Ref 10: This is an incorrect analysis as section 107
of the CM Act 1991, specifically states [--(1) Except as provided in this
Part, every existing privilege shall continue to have effect after the date of
commencement of this Act as if this Act and the Resource Management Act 1991
had not been enacted and as if the Act which applied to the privilege before
that date continued in force, and, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing,--]
'10--If
pounamu is transferred to Ngai Tahu, the mineral will be privately owned and, in
the absence of specific legislative provisions dealing with rights to
subsequent permits, such rights would no longer exist under the CMA. Because
specific legislation will have to be enacted for the purpose of the transfer of
the mineral, transitional provisions dealing with rights to subsequent
permits.'---[Withheld text]
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 Ref 12: 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 Ref 13: 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 Ref 17: This
is just another version of why the licensing process was halted. The Minister
still has not answered my question of what legislation enabled his office to
suspend licensing.]
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 Ref 19: 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 Ref 20: 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 Ref 21: 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 licensing 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 Ref 23: 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 Ref 25: 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 K J Landaus
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.'
[Note
Ref This proves beyond all doubt that
under the Statutory Regimes, neither the Minister of Energy or Minister of
Conservation had the legal right to withhold decisions on Mining Privileges and
Applications, for such a long period.]
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. |