Senin, 09 Juli 2018

Sponsored Links

A fresh look at Te Tiriti - YouTube
src: i.ytimg.com

The Waitangi Tribunal (M? Ori: Te R? P? Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi ) is the New Zealand fixed inquiry commission established at under the Treaty of the Waitangi Act 1975. He was assigned to investigate and make recommendations on claims submitted by M? ori related to the act or omission of the Crown, in the period mostly since 1840, in violation of the promises made in the Waitangi Agreement. The Tribunal is not a court of law; Therefore, the Tribunal's recommendations and findings do not bind Crown. They are sometimes ignored, for example in coastal and seabed disputes.

The inquiry process contributes to the resolution of the Claim Agreement and the reconciliation of the outstanding issues between M? Ori and P? Keh ?. In 2014 the Tribunal found that Ng? Puhi rangatira did not submit their sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.


Video Waitangi Tribunal


Histori

In 1975, protests from indigenous peoples concerning the unresolved Treaty of Waitangi complaints had increased over time, and the Tribunal was established to provide legal proceedings for the investigation of such grievances. The Honorable Matiu Rata is the Minister of Affairs M? Ori in the early 1970s and the politicians who were most responsible for the creation of the Tribunal.

Initially the Tribunal was able to investigate complaints only since 1975, but in 1985 legal changes meant the Tribunal jurisdiction was extended back to 1840, the date of the Treaty of Waitangi. The subsequent findings of numerous Crown Agreement violations in various investigations caused a public reaction to the Tribunal. The tribunal was often a political issue in the 1990s and 2000s.

Initially Tribunal investigations and reports are a prerequisite for the settlement of the Agreement with the Government of New Zealand. But in 1999, to speed up settlements, the government changed the process so that prosecutors could head straight for settlements with the Settlement Agreement Office without getting involved in the Tribunal process. This is an increasingly popular shortcut for settlements in the face of the slow Tribunal process. The deadline for submitting historical claims is September 1, 2008, but contemporary claims can still be filed.

Famous court question

Taonga and Wai 26 and 150 radio frequency related claims

In June 1986, the Waitangi Court received a 26 Wai claim that the Waitangi Agreement was violated by the Crown which failed to await the recommendation in the Tribunal te reo M report? Ori (1986) before introducing a bill on the M language? ori. This caused a dispute because M? Ori is worried that the bill may precede and therefore does not fully take into account the recommendations of the Watangi Tribunal report. The second part of the claim identifies that Te reo M? Ori holds taonga status and (then) Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand "does not provide adequate support for M'ori radio listeners and television viewers." when the Crown has an obligation to uphold and promote te re? M? ori via electronic media.

In June 1990, Wai 150 claims were filed by Sir Graham Latimer on behalf of the New Zealand Board. The claim relates to Rangatiratanga on the radio frequency allocation; his claim is that in the absence of an agreement with M? ori, the sale of frequency management licenses under the Radio Communications Act of 1989 would violate the Waitangi Agreement; deny the rights of M? ori against the radio spectrum will reject the instrumental means to provide te re? M? ori to New Zealand. The Waitangi Court combines Wai 26 with Wai 150 claims. The Tribunal's final report recommended that the Crown suspend the radio frequency tender process and proceed to negotiate with Iwi.

Ng? I know claim

The Ng? I Know The Maori Trust Board filed a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1986. The claim covers nine different areas and was heard for two years from 1987. The Tribunal released a three-volume report in 1991 - at that time the most comprehensive investigation of the tribunal. It was found that 'The Crown acts selflessly and repeatedly violates the Treaty of Waitangi' in matters of land with tribes, and recommends great compensation. Ng? I know also filed claims relating to commercial fisheries, in the case of the Tribunal issuing its report in 1993. Ng? I Knew settled with the Crown in 1998, and received $ 170 million in compensation, apology, and the return of his sacred mountain Aoraki/Mount Cook (the tribe then gave this back to the Nation).

Claim Wai 262 with respect to m? tauranga M? ori

On July 2, 2011, the Tribunal released a long-awaited report into the Wai 262 claim: "Ko Aotearoa T? Nei" ('This Aotearoa' or 'This is New Zealand'). Wai Claim 262 concerns ownership, and the right to, m? Tauranga M? Ori (knowledge of M? Ori) with respect to native flora and fauna. Claim Wai 262, and report Ko Aotearoa T? Nei next, unusual in Tribunal terms because of its wide scope and contemporary nature of the problems encountered. This is the Tribunal's first "all-government" investigation, and considers more than 20 government departments and agencies, and makes recommendations for reform of "laws, policies or practices relating to health, education, science, intellectual property, indigenous flora and fauna , resource management, conservation, M 'ori language, art and culture, inheritance, and M/ori's involvement in developing New Zealand's position on international instruments affecting customary rights. "

In the cover letter of the report, the Tribunal argues that:

Request about water and geothermal issues

New Zealand M? Ori Council brought the claim before the Tribunal in early 2012, arguing that the sale of 49 percent of Power Might River (now Mercury Energy), Meridian Energy, and Genesis Energy will hurt the possibility of future recognition M? ori rights in water and geothermal resources. On August 1, 2012, the Tribunal released a memorandum that found that the government had to temporarily suspend its asset sale program until it released a full temporary report. The pre-publication report was later released on August 24, and suggested that the government should postpone the asset sale program until the problem has been resolved with M? Ori across the country. This finding is achieved on the basis that, if the government continues with a partial privatization program, it will reduce its ability to resolve tremendous claims to water and geothermal rights. In the case of potential opportunities for resolution, the Tribunal recommends that national hui be called so that all parties to the dispute can voice their positions.

Responding to The Tribunal's findings, the National Government suspended the Mighty River Power buoy until early 2013, but rejected calls for national hui and "plus share" ideas. However, hui was called for September 2012, but no representatives from the Government or the National Party were present. This issue was brought to justice, with the court finally ruling that a partial privatization program would not affect the Crown's ability to compensate the Maori, so sales could continue.

Te Paparahi o te Raki question

Tribunal's request, Te Paparahi o te Raki (Wai 1040) is in the process of considering M's understanding? Ori and the Crown of He Whistleblower o Rangatiratanga/The Declaration of Independence 1835 and the Treaty of Waitangi/Waitangi Agreement 1840. This aspect of the inquiry raises issues concerning the nature of sovereignty and whether the M'ori signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi are intended to transfer sovereignty.

The first phase of this report was released in November 2014. It was found that the heads of Ng? Puhi never agreed to surrender their sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Court manager Julie Tangaere said on the release of the report to Ng? Puhi plaintiff:

Maps Waitangi Tribunal



Organizational structure and strength

Strength of Investigation

Waitangi court is not a court. Since it was established as a permanent commission of inquiry, the method of investigation differs greatly from the court in several important respects:

  • Generally, the Tribunal has authority only to make recommendations. In certain limited circumstances, the Tribunal does have binding powers, but in many cases its recommendations do not bind Crowns, plaintiffs, or others who participate in their investigations. Instead, the court may make decisions that bind the parties to it.
  • The Tribunal process is more inquisitive and less hostile than that followed in court. In particular, he can conduct his own research so that it can try to find the truth of a problem, whereas the courts generally have to decide a matter solely on the evidence and legal arguments presented by the participating parties. In general a history researcher conducts historical research for the tribunal.
  • The Tribunal process is flexible - The Tribunal is not required to follow the rules of evidence generally applicable in court, and may adapt its procedures according to its presumption. For example, it may not allow cross-examination and rumors or oral evidence to be routinely received. For example, the Tribunal may follow 'te kawa o te marae'. Conversely, the procedure in court is much less flexible, and there is usually a strict rule of evidence to follow.
  • The Tribunal has no final authority to decide on legal points. The power is in court. However, the Tribunal has the exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Covenant as embodied in the texts of M? Ori and English.
  • The Tribunal has limited power to summon witnesses, oblige the production of documents, and maintain order at its assembly. But he lacks the general power to make an order to prevent something from happening or to force something to happen. Nor can it make the party to court process pay the fee.

Main points

  • The Tribunal did not complete the claim; actually only make recommendations to the government and the maori. This is not involved in the settlement process, and the claiming parties agree not to pursue the matter through the Tribunal when they are involved in the negotiation process.
  • Claims are settled through negotiations with the Government. The Office of the Settlement Agreement manages the negotiations for the settlement of the Agreement for the Government, and all matters relating to the negotiation shall be directed to that office.
  • The Tribunal can not make recommendations on the return of private land. He may investigate, and report, claims relating to privately owned land, but unless the land is memorized, the Tribunal may not recommend that it be returned to the ownership of M? Ori or that the Crown earned it. (Memorialed Land is owned land, or formerly owned, by a state-owned company or tertiary institution, or former land of New Zealand Railways, which has a warning (or notation) on their title certificate advising that the Waitangi Tribunal may recommend that the land be returned to M ? ori ownership.)
  • The Tribunal may register a claim from M? ori with a complaint against Crown policy, practice, action or disappearance. The tribunal does not need to check that the claimant has a mandate from any group, but may refuse to ask claims that are considered frivolous or annoying.

The Tribunal process is inquisitorial, not hostility. It seeks to get the truth out of this problem. The goal is to determine whether a claim is well established.

Tribunal Member

The tribunal may have a chairman and up to 20 members at a time. Members shall be appointed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen upon the recommendation of the Minister M or ori in consultation with the Minister of Justice, for a term which may be extended to three years. For specific questions, the panel consists of three to seven members, at least one of which must be M? Ori. The Chairman of the Waitangi Court may also appoint a District Court judge to serve as chairman. This panel became known as the Court for the investigation, for example the Northern Central Island Court or the Taranaki Court.

As of September 2012, the Tribunal membership is:

Headers

  • Chief Judge Wilson Isaac, Chief Justice of M? ori Land Court

Vice Chairman

  • Judge Patrick Savage, M? ori Land Court

Angolan Biasa

  • Dr Robyn Anderson, vine
  • Dr. Angela Ballara, vine
  • David Cochrane, pengacara
  • Ron Crosby, pengacara
  • Miriam Evans, Layanan Publik
  • Dr Aroha Harris, vine
  • Prof. Rawinia Higgins, akademis
  • Professor Professor Derek Lardelli ONZM, akademis
  • Sir sir Hirini Logo Mead KNZM, akademis
  • Basil Morrison CNZM, Mantan Politics Lokal Dan Presiden Pemerintah Lokal Selandia Baru
  • Lady Tureiti Moxon, Professor Directorate
  • Dr Hauata Palmer, Orang Tua
  • Dr Ann Parsonson, vine
  • Dr. Grant Phillipson, vine
  • Dr. Thomas Roa, Orang Tua
  • Tania Simpson, Kebijakan Passahat
  • Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, akademisi
  • Dr Monty Souter, vine
  • Professor Pou Temara, Akademis.
  • Hon. Bill Wilson QC, Mantan Juris

The Waitangi Tribunal Unit

The Waitangi Tribunal Unit is a special jurisdiction unit of the Department of Justice that provides the necessary support and services for the Tribunal to perform its duties. Approximately 60 full-time staff work in the Tribunal, which is divided into Research, Corporate Services and Support, Claims and Registrants, Report Writing, and Editorial Teams.

Gareth Morgan | Alf Grumble
src: alfgrumblemp.files.wordpress.com


See also

  • Waitangi Agreement
  • Waitangi claim and settlement agreement
  • Office of Settlement Agreements
  • New Zealand battleship
  • New Zealand land foreclosure
  • New Zealand History

Te KerÄ
src: www.kahurumanu.co.nz


References


Treaty House (Residence of James Busby), Waitangi | Despite … | Flickr
src: c1.staticflickr.com


External links

  • Waitangi Tribunal (official website)
  • Waitangi Act 1975 Agreement
  • The Story of Waitangi Tribunal in Te Ara
  • Waitangi Waitangi Process Process Agreement in Te Ara

Source of the article : Wikipedia

Comments
0 Comments