Formal Opposition to
Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā / Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill
(Government Bill 197–1, Paul Goldsmith)
From: Ukes Baha | 24 September 2025
Submitted in response to the call for Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā / Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill
Summary of Position
I oppose the Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā Bill in its current form.
While I support the principle of returning Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia as kaitiaki on behalf of ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi, the Bill uses mechanisms that erode constitutional safeguards, limit public accountability, and risk fragmenting Ngāpuhi’s collective settlement process.
Core stance: The Bill undermines the rule of law by ousting court review (cl 10)[1], subordinates Parliament to a deed that can be amended outside scrutiny (cl 8–9)[2], preserves Crown-imposed concessions and bylaws (Schedule; cl 13–14, 25), and allows future transfers of fee simple away from Ngāti Rēhia (cl 22).
Recommendation: Reject the Bill in its current form. If Parliament insists on proceeding, it must be amended to restore judicial oversight, reinstate normal conservation and planning safeguards, guarantee public access, and prevent the Bill from weakening future Ngāpuhi redress.
Constitutional & Democratic Framework
- Rule of law: Ouster of court jurisdiction (Clause 10: “no court, tribunal, or other judicial body has jurisdiction”) breaches a fundamental safeguard[1].
- Parliamentary sovereignty: Clauses 8–9 require the Act to be interpreted to further the deed, which includes future amendments (cl 9(b)(ii)). This outsources Parliament’s authority to an external document[2].
- Te Tiriti o Waitangi: The Bill frames the return as “on account” of a future settlement (Explanatory Note; cl 4), a structure that risks divide-and-rule[3].
- Public accountability: Clauses 16, 18, and 20 disapply parts of the Conservation Act 1987, Reserves Act 1977, and RMA 1991, excluding the public from processes that normally govern heritage land[4].
- Access and equality: Schedule interests show private guiding concessions (Antipodes Travel Ltd, Tourism Export Council NZ) continue, constraining hapū authority.
Clause-by-Clause Concerns
1. Ouster of Court Jurisdiction – Clause 10
Bill reference: “No court, tribunal, or other judicial body has jurisdiction… in respect of the deed, this Act, or the vesting.”
Problem: Removes judicial review of the deed itself, leaving only “implementation” questions open.
Position: Must be deleted to preserve the rule of law[1].
2. Deed Supremacy Over Parliament – Clauses 8–9
Bill reference: Clause 8: interpretation must “best further the deed.” Clause 9(b)(ii): “deed” includes amendments.
Problem: Future changes to the deed automatically alter how the Act is applied, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny[2].
Position: Restrict deed interpretation to the original text only, not future amendments.
3. Disapplication of Safeguards – Clauses 16, 18, 20
Bill references:
- Clause 16 exempts Kororipo Pā vesting from s 24 of the Conservation Act 1987.
- Clause 18 removes RMA 1991 oversight for vesting matters.
- Clause 20 disapplies parts of the Reserves Act 1977.
Problem: Removes the balance of conservation, heritage, and public voice[4].
Position: Standard safeguards must apply to heritage land of national significance.
4. Fragmentation of Settlement Process
Bill reference: Explanatory Note: vesting is “on account of a future comprehensive Ngāpuhi settlement.”
Problem: Risks reducing future redress, creates intra-hapū division, and weakens Ngāpuhi’s collective position.
External reference: Beehive release (11 Sep 2025) confirms this is “the first redress to Ngāpuhi… not a hapū settlement”[5].
5. Public Access and Existing Concessions – Schedule; Clauses 13–14, 25
Bill references:
- Schedule lists unregistered guiding permits for Antipodes Travel Ltd and Tourism Export Council NZ.
- Clause 25 preserves bylaws and restrictions imposed before vesting.
Problem: Ngāti Rēhia inherits Crown-imposed commercial and regulatory constraints.
Position: Require renegotiation of concessions and bylaws under hapū authority within 12 months.
6. Transferability Away from Ngāti Rēhia – Clause 22
Bill reference: Minister of Conservation may consent to transfer the fee simple to “new owners.”
Problem: Opens legal pathway to remove Ngāti Rēhia as administering body in future.
Position: Restrict transferability strictly to Ngāpuhi entities.
Anticipated Counterarguments
- “Symbolic act of goodwill.” Symbols without substance entrench Crown control; empowerment requires authority, not legal shortcuts.
- “Public access is guaranteed.” Access remains conditional, with commercial concessions and legacy bylaws intact.
- “Negotiated in good faith.” Good faith does not justify ouster clauses, deed supremacy, or removal of public oversight.
Conclusion & Recommendations
The return of Kororipo Pā must genuinely empower Ngāti Rēhia and uphold Ngāpuhi unity. This Bill instead entrenches Crown control, undermines constitutional safeguards, and sets a dangerous precedent.
Recommendations:
- Reject the Bill in full.
- If Parliament proceeds:
- Delete Clause 10 (restore court jurisdiction).
- Remove Clauses 8–9(b)(ii) (prevent deed amendments altering law).
- Reinstate normal Reserves Act, Conservation Act, and RMA processes.
- Guarantee “on-account” vesting will not reduce Ngāpuhi redress.
- Prohibit transfer to non-Ngāpuhi entities.
- Require renegotiation of existing concessions and bylaws.
- Guarantee public access under tikanga, not Crown bylaws.
References
- Philip Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (2014), ch. 23 (ouster clauses & rule of law).
- Geoffrey Palmer & Andrew Butler, Towards Democratic Renewal (2018), pp. 142–44 (Parliamentary sovereignty cannot be outsourced to deeds).
- Waitangi Tribunal, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti – The Declaration and the Treaty (Wai 1040) (2014), ch. 12 (Ngāpuhi settlement fragmentation risks).
- Geoffrey Palmer & Matthew Palmer, Bridled Power: New Zealand’s Constitution and Government (4th ed., 2004), ch. 11 (public accountability and statutory safeguards).
- Beehive release, “Kororipo Pā returned to Ngāti Rēhia on account of Ngāpuhi settlement,” 11 Sep 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com