Place:

Present:

Date:

Gisborne

Judge C L Wickliffe

F McClutchie, Clerk of the Court

18 April 2002

151 Gis MB 250-261

Panui No: U/A Application No: A20010004476

Subject:

Section:

Application

Section 4C1 Block II Tuatini Township, and Lot 1 DP 7439 and Lot 2 DP 7439

338(7)/93

This is an application under section 338(7)/93 for the appointment of the Marangairoa Trust as trustees for the Maori reservations covering the following general land blocks:

1. Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Section 4C1 Block II Tuatini Township, CT 2C/1341.

2. Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Lot 1 DP 7439 (388 m2), CT 5A1583. 3. Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Lot 2 DP 7439 (1099 m2), CT 5A158~.

The application was made on the grounds inter alia that:

• It was the deceased's wish that the Marangairoa Trust be appointed as the Trustee for the reservations;

• The lands are not being used for the purposes for which they were set aside; • There are issues including building security, maintenance and insurance which

require urgent attention; • The appointment of trustees is essential to enable the purposes of the reservations

to be carried out and for maintenance and security purposes.

Consents to the appointment of the Trust have been filed on behalf of Joe McClutchie, Ellen Mary Blane and Jeffery Roy Hill who are the trustees of Marangairoa Trust.

Marangairoa Trust became the registered owner of these blocks on 20 March 2001. The Trust is a charitable trust incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 and one of its objects is to promote and encourage the use of the cultural resources of the community.

Prior to the lands being transferred to the Marangairoa Trust, the Public Trustee, as administrator for the late Mr Rua Bristowe, was the sole owner of these blocks. The Trust was one of the beneficiaries under Mr Bristowe's will. The administration of the estate was completed early in 2001. The Court also notes that he was, in former times, the Chairperson of the Marangairoa Trust.

151 Gis MB 251

rejected an application to have the matter heard in Chambers and pursuant to my direction dated 6 June 2001, the application was publicly notified in Gisborne Herald on 25 June 2001. Notices of intention to appear on the application were then filed by:

• Mac Raniera • Selwyn Whanaupani Moana • John Ashley Walker • Rebecca Moana • Maraea Connie Henare

Background

This application has a long history concerning the desire of the late Mr Rua Bristowe (DOD 21.2.1996) to have these properties set aside as Maori reservations for the benefit of a number of major hapu of Ngati Porou.

1. Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Section 4B Block II Tuatini Township

Mr Bristowe first made application to the Court in 1990 to have Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Section 4B Block II Tuatini Township and Section 4C1 Block II Tuatini Township, CT 2C/1341 set aside as Maori Reservations under section 439/53.

In relation to Section 4B Block II Tuatini Township the Court granted the application for a recommendation at 29 Rua 242, 3 May 1990, and the land was set apart and gazetted by Notice on 13 September 1990. (See NZ Gaz No. 159, p 3359) The land was set aside for the purpose of a marae for the common use and benefit of Te Whanau a Kahu, Te Whanau a Ruataupare and Ngati-Rangi. The marae was to be called the Ruatepupuke Marae. At 31 Rua 206 the Court ordered that this block be vested in the Marangairoa Trust as trustee under section 439(7)/53 to hold and administer the land for the beneficiaries of the reservation. This block is not the subject of an application pending before this Court but rather forms part of the background to the current application.

The matter came before the Court again on 2 September 1996 at 45 Rua 196-197. By this time Mr Bristowe was deceased. A hui-a-iwi had been called for Te Whanau a Ruataupare, Te Whanau a Kahu and Ngati Rangi. As there were no objections to the application, the Court made the order under section 338(7)/93 appointing:

Mac Henare Maraea Henare Ashley Walker Sugar Bristowe Paul Moana Bill Cooper

And as kaumatua trustees the following: -

Haapi Potae Phillip Aspinall Haare Hokianga.

151 Gis :rv1B 252

The Court did not order the removal or replacement of the Marangairoa Trust. As a result both the Marangairoa Trust and the above people are legally to be considered trustees for this reservation. A butcher shop building is situated on this site.

2. Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Section 4C1 Block II Tuatini Township, CT 2C/1341

On the same day in 1990, the Court also dealt with Section 4C1 Block II Tuatini Township, CT 2C/1341. As the land was subject to mortgage, the Court adjourned the application until Mr Bristowe could produce evidence that it had been discharged. (See 29 Rua 242, 3 May 1990). It appears from the Court minute that Mr Bristowe wanted the Marangairoa Trust to be appointed as trustee for this block as well.

On 12 March 1993, Mr Bristowe returned to the Court to have the matter completed. By way of background, Mr Bristowe explained that the land is part of the foreshore. On this area stood the number 2 Ruatepupuke Marae. It was lifted and sold in 1860 and is now in Chicago. He also told the Court that the first Ruatepupuke Marae is buried somewhere in the Mangahauini Stream. Due to the importance of the land, he wanted to keep the name alive and in his own words he continued '" "But to telescope the history that was the cycle of Ruatepupuke Marae Reserve is the thing that should take that name."

In his submissions, he told the Court that he wanted Section 4C1 Block II Tuatini Township, CT 2C/1341 to be set aside as a reservation and that he did not want to amalgamate titles with related blocks. The land was to be set aside for the benefit of Te Whanau a Ruataupare, Te Whanau a Kahu, Ngati Rangi and Te Whanau a Tuwhakairiora. He noted that he was merely the owner of the property and" ... not the keeper of those things that telescope back into time." The purpose of the reservation was to be a marae and community amenity. He confirmed that he wanted the Marangairoa Trust to be trustees. The Court granted the application for the setting aside of this block to be known as the Ruatepupuke Marae Reserve for those hapu listed by the applicant and the judge directed as follows:

"When the Gazette notice issues the file is to be returned to the Judge's ;J Chambers for appointment of Trustees. Trustees are to be the trustees now appointed to the Maraingaroa Trust subject to the written consent of each of the trustees to act as trustee in respect of the proposed reservation being filed with the Court." (See 36 Rua 138)

The land was set aside by way of notice published in the NZ Gazette (No. 119, p 2293 dated 5 August 1993). No trustees have been appointed. The old BNSW building is situated on this site.

3. Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Lot 1 DP 7439 (388 m2), CT 5A1583

This block first came before the Court by way of a section 439/53 application by Mr Bristowe on 12 March 1993, the same day that the last block was dealt with. (See 36 Rua 138-140). Mr Bristowe wanted the land to be set aside for the purpose of establishing Ruatepupuke Marae Reserve and community amenity for the benefit of Te Whanau a Ruataupare, Te Whanau a Kahu, Ngati Rangi and Te Whanau a

151 Gis MB 253

Tuwhakairiora.. He told the Court that the purpose of it was to provide link with the 4B and 4C1 blocks. This last block now carries the appellation Lot 2 DP 7439 (1099 m2), CT 5A1584). The Court granted the application noting that when the Gazette Notice was published:

" ... the file is to be returned to Judge in Chambers for the consideration of the appointment of trustees. And those trustees are to be Marangairoa Trust. Mr Bristowe is to approach the Marangairoa Trust for a Certificate signed in accordance with their trust rules, accepting the trusts as now proposed by him." (See 36 Rua 138-140)

The land was set aside by way of notice published in the NZ Gazette (No. 124, p 2476 dated 19 August 1993). No trustees have been appointed.

4. Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII. Lot 2 DP 7439 (1099 m2). CT 5A1584

This application was filed by Mr Bristowe on 29 July 1994. The Court directed that there be a meeting beneficiaries regarding the reservations. Mr Bristowe did not want that and sought an amendment to the application from a section 338(2)/93 to a section 338(1 )/93 application. The Court heard the application on 3 October 1994 and at 40 Rua 86-90 Mr Bristowe recorded his true intention behind setting up the above reservations as follows:

"... but the real purpose was for any person who was Whanau a Kahu, Tuwhakairiora, Ruataupare and Ngati Rangi had to be a beneficiary, had to be all those, and it hasn't been clarified. That's what I happen to be, my grandmother is Ngati Rangi, my tipuna on the other side is Manahi Parapara, and Ruataupare and Tuwhakairiora and I think the idea of specifying the beneficiary hasn't been precisely looked [a]t."

He wanted this block set aside as a marae to be called the Uetaha Marae, a name that narrowed the beneficiaries entitled to participate in decisions regarding these reservations. He also made it clear it was his intention to vest control of the properties in the Marangairoa Trust. The Court adjourned the application until Mr Bristowe could file a certificate of title as evidence that title had been transferred to him.

At the next hearing of the application, the Court made a recommendation under section 338(1 )/93 that the block be set aside for the purpose of a meeting place for the common use and benefit of Te Whanau a Kahu. The reservation was to be called Uetaha. When the gazette notice was published, the file was to be returned to the Judge in chambers for consideration of the appointment of trustees. (See 40 Rua 272 dated 5 December 1995)

The land was set aside by way of notice published in the NZ Gazette (No. 35, p 971 dated 13 April 1995). No trustees have been appointed. The Gisborne Sheep-farmers building is situated on this site.

Maori Land Court Hearings

This matter first came before the Court on 11 July 2001. The Court heard evidence from Mr McClutichie for the Marangairoa Trust as to the state of disrepair of the buildings on all these reservations. Other evidence heard by the Court indicates that this evidence is a fair assessment of the state of the buildings. He indicated that since Mr Bristowe had

151 Gis MB 254

passed away, his whanau had taken occupancy of some of the buildings. Mr McClutchie also filed an affidavit on 11 July 2001 indicating that the Trust wanted to work with all the beneficiaries of the reservations to give effect to both the wishes of the late Mr Bristowe and the purposes for which the reservation was created.

It was obvious to me (although not surprising given the history behind this application and the change in appellations) that confusion over which reservations are administered by whom reigns among those who attended the Court.

As an example, the Court heard from Mr Mac Henare. He told the Court that the trustees of Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Section 4B Block II Tuatini Township have effectively been occupying the Gisborne Sheep-farmers building (Uetaha Marae) or Lot 2 DP 7439 (1099 m2), CT 5A1584 since Mr Bristowe's death. They were under the misunderstanding that they were the trustees for this block. They have used the building for marae events and for community and cultural purposes.

The Court was also told that Mr Selwyn Moana has been in occupation of the building (described as the butcher shop) which is on Section 4B Block II Tuatini Township. This is the section where both the Marangairoa Trust and the people appointed at 45 Rua 196-197 are trustees responsible jointly for its administration.

At that hearing the parties came to the following agreement subject to discussion with other interested parties:

"The parties agree to an order being made appointing the Marangairoa Trust and Maraea Pikimaunga Connie Henare of Te Puia, student, as Trustee of the Maori reservations referred to in the application subject to the said Marangairoa Trust and Maraea Pikimaunga Connie Henare being appointed Trustees of the Maori Reservation over Part 48 and referred to as the butcher shop in place of the present Trustees."

I adjourned the matter to allow the parties to discuss the agreement with their respective groups. During the period of the adjournment the Court received letters from Maraea Henare, Mac Henare both of whom were appointed trustees for Uetaha Marae Reservation. They indicated that they did not want to resign as trustees. Phillip Aspinall also wrote to the Court and said that he would abide by the decision of this Court.

In addition, a community hui was held at the Tokomaru Bay BNSW Building on 1 September 2001. The meeting was not publicly notified by publication in the Gisborne Herald, but rather by notice around the township and on the local notice boards. Mr Bristowe's whanau were not advised of the meeting. People in attendance included Mr Taite Pewhairangi, the Chairperson of Pakirikiri Marae and two members of the Tokomarua Bay Maori Committee. Mr McClutchie also indicated the Marangairoa Trust had the support of Tuatini Marae. There were twenty three people in total at the meeting and it was chaired by Mr Graham Smith JP. It was moved that the reservation status on all the land blocks involved in this application be removed.

Evidence of these positions were given at the next hearing of the application held on 3 September 2001. Counsel for the Marangairoa Trust told the Court that his clients had changed their mind regarding the compromise attempted at the previous Court sitting basically because of the meeting held in Tokomaru Bay on 1 September 2001. They

151 Gis ME 251)

preferred to have the reservations cancelled or alternatively they wanted to be appointed sole trustees for all the reservations. Kutia Eparaima of Te Aotawarirangai hapu spoke on behalf of the people Te Ariuru Marae in Waima, Tokomaru Bay. She claimed they did not support the continuation of the reservations, which were confusing the community. She did not want another marae in Tokomaru Bay. Evidence was given from Georgina Johnson claiming that Ruataupare Hapu did not support the creation or continuation of the reservations for the same or similar reasons.

On the other hand evidence was given by Mac Henare, Hare Hokinga, Paul Moana, and Maraea Henare who reiterated their support for Mr Bristowe's desire to have the reservations set aside for the purposes of a marae and community amenity. A letter was subsequently filed by Hokarere Mamaeroa Bristowe detailing some work that the trustees of Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Section 4B Block II Tuatini Township had done on the Gisborne Sheep-farmers building. The Court merely notes this letter is on file but does not rely on it, as the contents are not material to the legal issues before the Court other than to confirm that the wrong trustees have been in occupation of Lot 2 DP 7439 (1099 m2), CT 5A1584.

Relevant Law

These reservations were constituted pursuant to sections 439/53 and 338/93. All these reservations are now administered as reservations constituted under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. (See s 338(17)/93 reproduced below).

"338 Maori reservations for communal purposes

(1) The Chief Executive may, by notice in the Gazette issued on the recommendation of the Court, set apart any Maori freehold land or any General land as a Maori reservation for the purposes of a village site, marae, meeting place, recreation ground, sports ground, bathing place, church site, building site, burial ground, landing place, fishing ground, spring, well, catchment area or other source of water supply, timber reserve, or place of cultural, historical, or scenic interest, or for any other specified purpose.

(2) The Chief Executive may, by notice in the Gazette iSBued on the recommendation of the Court, declare any other Maori freehold land or General land to be included in any Maori reservation, and thereupon the land shall form part of that reservation accordingly.

(3) Except as provided in section 340 of this Act, every Maori reservation under this section shall be held for the common use or benefit of the owners or of Maori of the class or classes specified in the notice.

(5) On the recommendation of the Court, the Chief Executive, by notice in the Gazette, may, in respect of any Maori reservation made under this section, do anyone or more of the following things:

(a) Exclude from the reservation any part of the land comprised in it: (b) Cancel the reservation: (c) Redefine the purposes for which the reservation is made: (d) Redefine the persons or class of persons for whose use or benefit the reservation is made.

151 Gis MB 256

(6) No notice under this section shall affect any lease or licence, but no land shall be set apart as a Maori reservation while it is subject to any mortgage or charge.

(7) The Court may, by order, vest any Maori reservation in any body corporate or in any 2 or more persons in trust to hold and administer it for the benefit of the persons or class of persons for whose benefit the reservation is made, and may from time to time, as and when it thinks fit, appoint a new trustee or new trustees or additional trustees.

(8) The Court may, on the appointment of trustees under subsection (7) of this section, or on application at any time thereafter, set out the terms of the trust, and subject to any such terms, the Maori reservation shall be administered in accordance with, [and be subject to,] any regulations made under subsection (15) of this section.

(9) Upon the exclusion of any land from a reservation under this section or the cancellation of any such reservation, the land excluded or the land formerly comprised in the cancelled reservation shall vest, as of its former estate, in the persons in whom it was vested immediately before it was constituted as or included in the Maori reservation, or in their successors.

(10) In any case to which subsection (9) of this section applies, the Court may make an order vesting the land or any interest in the land in the person or persons found by the Court to be entitled to the land or interest.

(11) Except as provided in subsection (12) of this section, the land comprised within a Maori reservation shall, while the reservation subsists, be inalienable, whether to the Crown or to any other person.

[(17) Where any Maori reservation (set apart under any Act repealed by this Act or the corresponding provisions of any former Act) is subsisting at the commencement of this Act, this Act, and any regulations made under this Act, have effect,-

(a) in relation to the Maori reservation, as if it were a Maori reservation set apart under this section; and (b) in relation to any vesting order made in respect of the Maori reservation (under any Act repealed by this Act or the corresponding provisions of any former Act), as if that vesting order were a vesting order made under this section.]"

There have been a large number of decisions of this Court and the Maori Appellate Court dealing with the effects of the setting aside of land for the purposes of a Maori reservation. These decisions were issued under the Maori Affairs Act 1953. The principles that appear to have been established under that Act include the following:

1. Beneficial Owners v Persons for Whom Reservations Should be Set Apart

The provisions in the 1953 legislation were significant in Maori land law not only because of the condition of inalienability, but because it represented the only legislative acknowledgement of the tribal and communal basis of Maori land ownership and enabled that concept to be

151 Gis :MB 257

applied to areas of special tribal significance. (See In Re Mount Tauhara Maori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168)

In determining the appropriate beneficiaries of a Maori reservation the Court had regard to Maori customary concepts relating to turangawaewae and ancestry. Maori reservations are generally held for the whanau, hapu or tribe traditionally associated with it and very special circumstances must exist before a Maori reservation should be set aside for the common use and benefit of other groups. It is important that the customary distinction between hosts and guests, or owners and invitees be maintained. (See In Re Waipahihi Maori Reservation (1978) 59 Taupo MB 184; In Re Mount Tauhara Maori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168; and In Re Sections 722, 790, 792, 793 and 794 Town of Orakei Blocks IX Rangitoto Survey District (Orakei Marae) (1990) Appeal 1989/8)

It is important that the underlying beneficial ownership be maintained and that successions be completed. While the legal estate vests in the reservation trustees, the beneficial estate remains in the original owners or their successors. All that is passed over is a licence as to occupation use and enjoyment, of the land and the benefits accruing therefrom, for as long as the reservation status persists. Conversely the rights of the beneficial owners to the legal estate or exclusive use and enjoyment as beneficial owners, are suspended. (See In Re Mount Tauhara Maori ReselVation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168; and upheld by the Maori Appellate Court in In Re Rahui A 13 Block (1992) 32 Gib MB 370-382 and again In Re Ruawahia (1992) 2B 6 Waiariki AMB 52)

Appointment and Role of Trustees

Trustees are governed by the same rules of trust as other types of trustees and the Court appoints trustees. Elections are merely evidence of who those at the meeting supported for nomination to the Court. The Court will take into account a broad range of factors regarding who should be appointed as trustees including who the reservation has been set aside for, the characteristics of proposed trustees, if a body corporate the nature of its structure, operation and business. (In Re Sections 722, 790, 792, 793 and 794 Town of Orakei Blocks IX Rangitoto Survey District (Orakei Marae) (1990) Maori Appellate Court, Appeal 1989/8)

On matters relating to the administration of a reservation the trustees should consult with the persons for whose use and benefit the reservation is created. (See Reg. 4 of the Maori Reservation Regulations 1963; and In Re Mount Tauhara Maori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168)

To amend the purposes of a reservation, to redefine the beneficiaries, to redefine the boundaries or to exclude or add parts to the reservation, the trustees should consult with the underlying beneficial owners. (See In Re Mount Tauhara Maori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168)

151 Gis MB 258

Use of the Reservation

Maori were entitled to have recognition of the fact that the land was a Maori reservation, that it may have some special tribal significance, that Maori usually control it, and that others use it only for as long as they accepted and respected those facts. (See In Re Waipahihi Maori Reservation (1978) 59 Taupo MB 184)

Cancellation of Reservations

The total or partial cancellation of Maori reservations was appropriate only where circumstances had changed or where it was to enable some development not inconsistent with the reservation (as for example pensioner housing on marae) or some commercial development on a peripheral part in order to maintain the reservation. However, the Court's main concern was to ensure that the area is not so changed as to defeat the purposes for which the reservation was created, or to allow some incompatible user and the Court had a duty to protect Maori reservations. (See In Re Mount Tauhara Maori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168)

Where a modern generation of beneficiaries proposed the exclusion of some central or major part for some reason not inconsistent with the legislation and the reservation itself, then if the Court was minded to permit such development, it had to ask itself whether or not the reservation status should remain in respect of the whole land. The Court had to weigh not only the arguments and views of contemporary owners and beneficiaries, but such views as were documented in the Court's records of those of an earlier generation who supported the use of their land for some common purpose or the common good, when the reservation was first made. It may be that in proposing the reservation in the first place, the then owners sought some measure of retention in perpetuity of an area of special tribal significance. The Court was concerned to protect the values of a past generation from the exigent demands of some future generation with a more materialistic mind. The restrictions on leasing, for example, were consistent with the Court needing to take a strict approach and the need for it to protect Maori reservations from development proposals requiring long term leases. (See In Re Mount Tauhara Maori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168)

Since the enactment of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Maori Appellate Court has confirmed the importance of the decision In Re Mount Tauhara Maori Reservation (1977) 58 Taupo MB 168. (See In Re Section 1A Parish of Katikati (1995) 18 WMAC 260 and In Re Part Maraetai 3B (1996) 19 WMAC 34) The end result is that the principles that are listed above apply to section 439/53 reservations that continue under section 338/93 and to newly constituted reservations under the same section. The approach taken by the Maori Appellate Court is consistent with the Maori Reservation Regulations 1994 rr 6-7.

The only additional relevant principle relates to the appointment of trustees. When one considers the retention and utilisation principles now underpinning the 1993 Act

151 Gis MB 259

(Preamble, section 2 and section 17) then in my view an inclusive approach that takes into account the views of both the beneficial owners and the persons for whom the reservation was set aside regarding the appointment of trustees is to be preferred as much as possible.

Application to Facts

In this case, the Court has set aside land that is general land as a Maori reservation. Mr Bristowe was obviously trying the get all the blocks set aside for the purposes of one marae which would also be used as a community amenity. The name of that marae was changed from Ruatepupuke to Uetaha as he tried to limit the class of persons for whom it was to be set aside. Initially they were to be s~t aside for the benefit of Te Whanau a Kahu, Te Whanau a Ruataupare and Ngati-Rangi: He later tried to clarify that the lands were to be set aside for the benefit of those people who could whakapapa to all three hapu of Ngati Porou. However, for at least three of the blocks he worked with that has not been the result of the gazette notices. Instead three of the reservations have been set aside for all hapu members of Te Whanau a Kahu, Te Whanau a Ruataupare and Ngati-Rangi~Only one block has been set aside soley for Te Whanau a Kahu and that is the block now called Uetaha Marae (Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Lot 2 DP 7439 (1099 m2), CT 5A1584 or the Gisborne Sheep-farmers Building).

Initially too Mr Bristowe only wanted the Marangairoa Trust to be the Trustees for all four blocks but that desire was never crystalised by way of orders from this Court. After his death the category of trustees for Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Section 4B Block II Tuatini Township was broadened to include other people. I can not avoid the conclusion, that had Mr Bristowe lived he would not have supported those appointments. The indications are from all the Court records that he wanted the Marangairoa Trust to be the trustees for all the blocks. My view is strengthened by the fact that he also left the lands to the Marangairoa Trust and they are now the owners of the blocks.

However, the Court is now faced with the reality that all the blocks subject to this particular application have been set aside without the appointment of trustees. Decisions that are to be made for the future administration of the reservations, including the appointment of trustees should be made having regard to both the views of the owners and the views of the hapu for whom they were set aside.

The general principles pertaining to reservations that I have outlined indicate that a resolution can be found, one that involves informed consultation and discussion between all parties. To date consultation has been flawed and must be corrected. The relevant legal principles also indicate that the Court should not cancel the reservation status of this land without very good reasons being put to it to do so.

Orders and Directions

The scheme that Mr Bristowe attempted has, through no fault of his I am sure, led to confusion for all people involved including both the people for whom the reservations were set aside and the beneficial owners of the land. Having regard to the law, the need to tidy up what is an unfortunate state of affairs and to facilitate some easing of the tensions that exist between the parties, the Court makes the following orders:

* and Te Whanau a Tuwhakairiora

151 Gis Jv1B 260

Appointment of Trustees

1. It makes an order under section 338(7)/93 to appoint the Marangairoa Trust and Mrs Maraea to represent the persons for whom the reservations were set aside. That order is made taking into account the views of the community representing the three hapu and Mr Bristowe's family associated with these reservations as put in evidence before this Court.

Notice Under Section 37(3)/93

2. Subject to hearing Submissions:

The Court puts all parties on notice that it will use the power it has under section 37(3)/93 to invoke its jurisdiction under section 338(5)/93 to recommend that the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri redefine the purposes for which the reservation was set aside from being a "marae or meeting place and community amenity" to being soley "a community amenity". This appears to be consistent with the expectations of the owners and the community for whom the reservations were to be set aside.

The Court also puts all parties on notice that it will use the same power to invoke its jurisdiction under section 338(5)/93 to recommend that the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri redefine the class of beneficiaries for Tokomaru Survey District Block VIII, Lot 2 DP 7439 (1099 m2), CT 5N584 (or the Gisborne Sheep-farmers Building) from being for Te Whanau a Kahu soley to a more inclusive arrangement which covers Te Whanau a Kahu, Te Whanau a Ruataupare and Ngati-Rangi.* I note that Mr Bristowe wanted the reservations to be only for those persons who could whakapapa to all three hapu, but this was not the legal result and the Marangairoa Trust is now the owner of these lands. It may be that Te Aotawarirangi hapu should also be included for all reservations and I will hear submissions on that.

These orders will be made subject to hearing submissions from all interested parties at a Special Fixture at a time to be arranged by the Registrar.

Consequential Directions

3. The Registrar is to convene a meeting of beneficial owners and persons for whom the reservations were set aside. That meeting is to be held at the Maori Land Court Gisborne within 6 weeks. The meeting should be advertised twice in the Gisborne Herald and should encourage the maximum participation from Te Whanau a Kahu, Te Whanau a Ruataupare, Ngati-Rangi and Te Aotawarirangi. * At that meeting the following agenda items will be dealt with:

• Summary of this Maori Land Court Judgment dated 18 April 2002. • Roles and Responsibilities of Trustees. • Changing the Classes of Persons for Whom all three Reservations are Set Aside. • Changing the Purposes for Which the Reservations Are set Aside (from "marae and

community amenity" to being solely a "community amenity"). • Charter for the Reservations covering the details listed in r 7 Maori Reservations

Regulations 1994). • Roles and Responsibilities of Maori Reservation Trustees.

* and Te Whanau a Tuwhakairiora

(

151 Gis MB 261

I require the Registrar to provide a written report to the Court on the outcome of this meeting and to do so under the following headings:

• The views of Marangairoa Trust as owner of the lands on all agenda items; • The views of representatives of the 4 hapu Te Whanau a Kahu, Te Whanau a

Ruataupare, Ngati-Rangi and Te Aotawarirangi*on all agenda items.

* and Te Whanau a Tuwhakairiora

JUDGE

t '7f ~':'~:~:~ :r: ~. :~:~.~.~.-: .. ~~ ' . '.: .. :."" ... ~-: .. :~~~~,:' ~.; _: ~J