1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,200
Speaker 1: Now the Justice Minister has indicated the government might overrule

2
00:00:03,240 --> 00:00:06,400
Speaker 1: court judgments on Teakunger. Paul Goldsmith has given a speech

3
00:00:06,400 --> 00:00:08,640
Speaker 1: in which he told lawyers he's worried that New Zealand

4
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:11,440
Speaker 1: is developing our own bespoke legal system and that the

5
00:00:11,480 --> 00:00:13,600
Speaker 1: government is prepared to legislate over the top of this.

6
00:00:13,720 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 1: Chris fin Layson is a lawyer and of course former

7
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:19,440
Speaker 1: Minister for Treating Negotiations. High Chris, Hi, Heather, how are

8
00:00:19,480 --> 00:00:21,279
Speaker 1: you well? Thank you? Now? What does it sound to

9
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:23,280
Speaker 1: you like he's planning to do here? Is he planning

10
00:00:23,280 --> 00:00:26,360
Speaker 1: to clarify Teakunger or is he planning to kill off

11
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:27,280
Speaker 1: Teacunger in law?

12
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:31,200
Speaker 2: Oh? Well, I don't think in fairness he's trying to

13
00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:34,360
Speaker 2: kill off Tea Kanger. I mean there are references to

14
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:38,839
Speaker 2: Tea Kunger in statute. For example, Simon Upton put it

15
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:42,159
Speaker 2: in the Resource Management Act in nineteen ninety one, and

16
00:00:42,200 --> 00:00:47,160
Speaker 2: everyone knows that Tea Kung is relevant to MARI customary

17
00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:51,040
Speaker 2: property rights. But I think the problem has been that

18
00:00:51,200 --> 00:00:54,600
Speaker 2: decision of the Supreme Court and Elis, which had absolutely

19
00:00:54,640 --> 00:00:57,400
Speaker 2: no MARI link at all, and you yet the court

20
00:00:58,640 --> 00:01:02,280
Speaker 2: held that's Tea Kung Mauri was relevant and deciding that

21
00:01:02,600 --> 00:01:06,760
Speaker 2: Alice's appeal against his convictions could carry on despite his death.

22
00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:10,440
Speaker 2: And so I think that's really where people have said

23
00:01:10,560 --> 00:01:12,559
Speaker 2: things have started to go a bit a miss.

24
00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:14,039
Speaker 1: Do you think that they made the wrong call?

25
00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:18,560
Speaker 2: Then no, well, I not necessarily the wrong call. They

26
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:21,440
Speaker 2: should have left that issue to parliament because many years ago,

27
00:01:22,520 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 2: did you ever hear of Ian mackay, a very prominent lawyer.

28
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:28,320
Speaker 2: He wrote a report, surprise surprise, it was called the

29
00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:31,440
Speaker 2: Mackaia Report on Defamation and one of the issues was

30
00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 2: whether the representatives of a dead person could commence a

31
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:38,600
Speaker 2: proceeding for a declaration that the dead person had been

32
00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:43,160
Speaker 2: defeint and Parliament, when it passed the Defamation legislation in

33
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:47,760
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety two, did not do that. And so basically

34
00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:49,720
Speaker 2: what you've got with Alice, in my view, was a

35
00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:53,080
Speaker 2: bit of judicial legislation and that's what annoys legislators.

36
00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:56,720
Speaker 1: So how would you tidy that up? Af you, Paul Goldsmith?

37
00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:00,240
Speaker 1: Would you put limitations on where t kunger can be used?

38
00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:01,400
Speaker 1: How do you deal with this?

39
00:02:02,440 --> 00:02:07,160
Speaker 2: Well, when the Supreme Court decided Elis, the Law Commission

40
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:10,560
Speaker 2: had been doing a substantial piece of work on tea

41
00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:14,000
Speaker 2: hunger and they produced a report it. It was by

42
00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:16,760
Speaker 2: Christian Fottter, who's now a judge of the Court of Appeal,

43
00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:19,320
Speaker 2: and it was a very good piece of work. I

44
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:22,680
Speaker 2: would have thought that what the Crown should be doing

45
00:02:22,800 --> 00:02:25,400
Speaker 2: is taking a good look at that report and trying

46
00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:28,760
Speaker 2: to provide some definition of where and when tea hunger

47
00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:33,280
Speaker 2: would apply. So no point just sort of having a

48
00:02:33,320 --> 00:02:37,160
Speaker 2: group lamentation about it. Is within the ability of Parliament

49
00:02:37,160 --> 00:02:40,040
Speaker 2: to knuckle down and do something a data do you also.

50
00:02:39,800 --> 00:02:43,760
Speaker 1: Chris, then have to define what the problem is that

51
00:02:43,800 --> 00:02:45,840
Speaker 1: I've had people on the show and I've said to them, okay,

52
00:02:46,280 --> 00:02:48,919
Speaker 1: define tea hung it to me in any number of circumstances,

53
00:02:48,919 --> 00:02:50,760
Speaker 1: How would it work, how would it apply? What is it?

54
00:02:50,960 --> 00:02:54,040
Speaker 1: And no one cares. It's a little bit. It's a wooly,

55
00:02:54,160 --> 00:02:55,840
Speaker 1: isn't it. So how do you actually define it?

56
00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:58,560
Speaker 2: No? I would define it as sort of in a

57
00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:05,480
Speaker 2: sense mari common law, which applies in particular circumstances and

58
00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:09,079
Speaker 2: particularly in relation to customary rights. But I heard a

59
00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:12,800
Speaker 2: case about a case the other day where lawyers, of

60
00:03:12,880 --> 00:03:16,400
Speaker 2: course are inventive, and it was a case in the

61
00:03:16,440 --> 00:03:19,320
Speaker 2: employment Court and people started to raise a whole lot

62
00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:22,079
Speaker 2: of stuff about tea hunger. Well, you know, the Employment

63
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:24,880
Speaker 2: Contracts Act doesn't refer to teacunger. It was a reasonably

64
00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:28,800
Speaker 2: straightforward case, but the issue was being confused by all

65
00:03:28,800 --> 00:03:32,840
Speaker 2: this stuff. So maybe it really is within the realm

66
00:03:32,880 --> 00:03:35,000
Speaker 2: of Parliament to sit down and do some work with us.

67
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:37,440
Speaker 1: Well in this case. Part of the problem here is

68
00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:39,360
Speaker 1: the uncertainty and that I don't know what it means.

69
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:41,440
Speaker 1: Somebody else might have a completely different idea. Do we

70
00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:43,720
Speaker 1: need to write down what we understand tea kung it

71
00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:44,960
Speaker 1: to be and then refer to that.

72
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:47,680
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's what the Law Commission had been

73
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:49,680
Speaker 2: doing in which Parliament hasn't packed up on. So you

74
00:03:49,680 --> 00:03:53,720
Speaker 2: should ask Goldsmith about the Law Commission report and what

75
00:03:53,880 --> 00:03:57,920
Speaker 2: steps has the Ministry of Justice taken to read the report,

76
00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:00,320
Speaker 2: understand it and have necessary implement.

77
00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:02,520
Speaker 1: Fascinating Hey, thank you very much, Chris, as always really

78
00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:05,960
Speaker 1: appreciate your time. As Christphin Layson, lawyer and former Minister

79
00:04:06,080 --> 00:04:09,640
Speaker 1: for Treaty of White Tongy negotiations. For more from Hither

80
00:04:09,760 --> 00:04:12,480
Speaker 1: Duplessy Allen Drive listen live to news talks.

81
00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:15,680
Speaker 2: It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast

82
00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:16,800
Speaker 2: on iHeartRadio