Ministerial Intervention or Real Victory?

A recent Supreme Court decision(9) appears to be a victory for the Maori who have always held strongly to the view that land acquired for reserve or other public purpose should be revested in or offered back to the owners if no longer required for the reserve or public purpose for which it was originally acquired.

The Cook County Council acquired some Maori land for a road but eventually earmarked it for a rubbish dump and thereafter for recreational purposes. The owners of the blocks had already given the Council substantial land fronting onto the Poverty Bay foreshore. Not unnaturally they felt they'd done their bit for recreation and they didn't want their land used for a rubbish dump.

They asked Mat Rata (then Minister of Lands) to re-vest the land in them. He said yes but the Council said that only the Land Settlement Board can revest. The Land Settlement Board, taking its role from the Minister's wishes, re-vested the land. The Council lost its Supreme Court appeal on substantially the same grounds.

The Court's rationale turned on what the Minister wanted, but what if Venn Young and not Mat Ratahad been the Minister? On the facts the Court's decision is meritorious but surely its reasoning is open to abuse? Is it right for the Minister of have such influence on what is ostensibly a judicial proceeding? In this sense the decision is a very dangerous one.