I) Introduction:
This is a significant case regarding Māori freehold land in Environmental law. Mrs Grace (the plaintiff) declined to negotiate the sale of her land with the Minister of Land Information (the defendant) for the purpose of a motorway. Her land, was needed for the building of a state highway in Wellington. In the Environment Court, Thompson J stated that it was not “fair, sound and reasonably necessary” for Mrs Grace’s land to be taken, following the requirements of the Public Works Act 1981 (the Act). This judgment paralleled that of the Māori Land Court recommendation.
II) Issue:
The main issue decided in the Environment Court with regards to Mrs Grace’s land being taken for the building of a motorway was:
…whether it would be … fair, sound and reasonably necessary… for the land to be taken as a means of achieving …show more content…
By the Minister attempting to acquire Mrs Grace’s land, this is not acknowledging the Act. There was no evidence that the Minister had reviewed alternative routes that would prevent Mrs Grace’s land from being acquired. This shows the continuing application of government organisations failing to consider the detrimental effect on the Maori community by taking Maori land, further emphasising the alienation of Maori land. In relation to the alienation of Māori land, in which the plaintiff sums up in the phrase ‘enough is enough’ this addresses the issue of whether the Treaty of Waitangi should be integrated in the Public Works Act in order to protect Māori land from public works acquisition. It is stated by the New Zealand Law Society that a public work must benefit the public, but as stated by Thompson J these objectives can be met without the plaintiff’s land. This case is a positive step towards the acknowledgment in terms of Māori land rights, and is significant in relation to Tikanga and the Māori
This is a significant case regarding Māori freehold land in Environmental law. Mrs Grace (the plaintiff) declined to negotiate the sale of her land with the Minister of Land Information (the defendant) for the purpose of a motorway. Her land, was needed for the building of a state highway in Wellington. In the Environment Court, Thompson J stated that it was not “fair, sound and reasonably necessary” for Mrs Grace’s land to be taken, following the requirements of the Public Works Act 1981 (the Act). This judgment paralleled that of the Māori Land Court recommendation.
II) Issue:
The main issue decided in the Environment Court with regards to Mrs Grace’s land being taken for the building of a motorway was:
…whether it would be … fair, sound and reasonably necessary… for the land to be taken as a means of achieving …show more content…
By the Minister attempting to acquire Mrs Grace’s land, this is not acknowledging the Act. There was no evidence that the Minister had reviewed alternative routes that would prevent Mrs Grace’s land from being acquired. This shows the continuing application of government organisations failing to consider the detrimental effect on the Maori community by taking Maori land, further emphasising the alienation of Maori land. In relation to the alienation of Māori land, in which the plaintiff sums up in the phrase ‘enough is enough’ this addresses the issue of whether the Treaty of Waitangi should be integrated in the Public Works Act in order to protect Māori land from public works acquisition. It is stated by the New Zealand Law Society that a public work must benefit the public, but as stated by Thompson J these objectives can be met without the plaintiff’s land. This case is a positive step towards the acknowledgment in terms of Māori land rights, and is significant in relation to Tikanga and the Māori