1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:01,880
Speaker 1: The big twist in the twenty year legal saga. This

2
00:00:01,960 --> 00:00:04,480
Speaker 1: is over the Maori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed.

3
00:00:04,559 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: Supreme Courts weighed in. They ruled the majority of the

4
00:00:07,040 --> 00:00:10,600
Speaker 1: Court of Appeal erred in their decision. Max Harris as

5
00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:12,840
Speaker 1: a barrister at Thornton Chambers and is with us, very

6
00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:16,720
Speaker 1: good morning. Is this tricky if I'm the ultimate court

7
00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:19,000
Speaker 1: of the land, given being the government, do I need

8
00:00:19,040 --> 00:00:21,040
Speaker 1: to appeal anything? Given I can do what I want?

9
00:00:22,320 --> 00:00:25,439
Speaker 2: So this is the final top court making this decision,

10
00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:28,560
Speaker 2: so that the government can't appeal this decision and the

11
00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:31,639
Speaker 2: government has one here and then a unanimous decision at

12
00:00:31,640 --> 00:00:34,600
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court's found that the

13
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:37,479
Speaker 2: Court Appeal got it slightly wrong, right.

14
00:00:37,600 --> 00:00:40,400
Speaker 1: But having said that, what does it tell us about

15
00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:43,240
Speaker 1: what the appeal got what the Appeal court got wrong?

16
00:00:44,360 --> 00:00:48,080
Speaker 2: Yes, So what all this is about is customary marine title,

17
00:00:48,560 --> 00:00:54,040
Speaker 2: basically customary rights for Maori. And basically what the Supreme

18
00:00:54,040 --> 00:00:58,720
Speaker 2: Court said is two things are important control and continuity.

19
00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:01,640
Speaker 2: So the group trying to get these customer rights needs

20
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:04,880
Speaker 2: to have controlled the area and there also needs to

21
00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:07,240
Speaker 2: have been continuous use of the area and the Spring

22
00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 2: Court basically said, when you're looking at continuous use and control,

23
00:01:13,800 --> 00:01:17,520
Speaker 2: they're going to allow a wider range of interruptions. So

24
00:01:17,560 --> 00:01:21,200
Speaker 2: they've said things like a permanent port infrastructure, for example,

25
00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:25,760
Speaker 2: might be seen as interrupting that continuity over time. I

26
00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:28,920
Speaker 2: know that sounds a bit legalistic, but basically it means

27
00:01:28,959 --> 00:01:32,840
Speaker 2: that it's slightly harder for Mary to get a customer

28
00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:33,680
Speaker 2: member entirely after.

29
00:01:35,360 --> 00:01:39,120
Speaker 1: Was it overt overreach from the Appeal Court in the

30
00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:39,679
Speaker 1: first place?

31
00:01:41,520 --> 00:01:44,240
Speaker 2: Not in my view, Mike. They were trying to make

32
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:49,360
Speaker 2: sense of quite a complicated law. So what the courts

33
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 2: try to do is try to understand the intention of

34
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:54,720
Speaker 2: Parliament and not just across one law, but across the

35
00:01:54,760 --> 00:01:57,600
Speaker 2: whole law. And so I think they did have quite

36
00:01:57,600 --> 00:01:59,800
Speaker 2: a difficult task. But I think the Supreme Court has

37
00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:04,320
Speaker 2: quite a considered judgment here. It's unanimous, so it's written

38
00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:06,840
Speaker 2: by all of the judges, which is quite unusual. I mean,

39
00:02:06,880 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 2: they've also said some some other interesting things about how

40
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:10,600
Speaker 2: the law should apply.

41
00:02:10,919 --> 00:02:12,720
Speaker 1: In what the government of trying to do. Now take

42
00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:16,079
Speaker 1: it back to twenty eleven. Does that clear it up

43
00:02:16,120 --> 00:02:19,200
Speaker 1: as well as provide the intent the current government.

44
00:02:18,840 --> 00:02:22,720
Speaker 2: Wants or not Yeah, in maview this does clear up

45
00:02:22,760 --> 00:02:25,200
Speaker 2: quite a lot of things. The Court has also clarified

46
00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:30,520
Speaker 2: what that control requirement means, and they've clarified the kind

47
00:02:30,520 --> 00:02:32,840
Speaker 2: of the what the lawyers call the burden of proof.

48
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:35,639
Speaker 2: So I do think government really needs to go back

49
00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:37,720
Speaker 2: to the drawing food a little bit. They had the

50
00:02:37,880 --> 00:02:41,919
Speaker 2: solution prepared responding to the Court of Appeal judgment. Now

51
00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:44,440
Speaker 2: the position's changed, so I think we've got a bit

52
00:02:44,480 --> 00:02:46,600
Speaker 2: of a reset and I think the Prime Minister did

53
00:02:46,600 --> 00:02:49,120
Speaker 2: say yesterday he was getting careful advice and I think

54
00:02:49,200 --> 00:02:50,400
Speaker 2: that's probably the right option.

55
00:02:51,240 --> 00:02:54,240
Speaker 1: Max. Appreciate your time very much, barrister at Thorndon Chambers.

56
00:02:54,800 --> 00:02:57,679
Speaker 2: For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to

57
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:00,880
Speaker 2: news talks it'd be from six am weekday, or follow

58
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:02,480
Speaker 2: the podcast on iHeartRadio.