By Anna Longdill
Application for judicial review of decision that candidate was ineligible to be appointed to the Independent Māori Statutory Board – definition of mataawaka in Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – proper interpretation of “not in a mana whenua group”
Hall v Brown [2025] NZHC 197 per Brewer J
Raymond Hall is the chairman of the board of Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust (the Waipareira Trust). In 2022, he applied to the selection body (a statutory body established under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009) for appointment to the Independent Māori Statutory Board as a mataawaka representative.
Mataawaka is defined in the Act as meaning Māori who live in Auckland and “are not in a mana whenua group”.
A law firm was contracted to provide administrative and legal support to the selection body. The practice manager conducted an internet search of Hall’s name to check his eligibility for appointment. She found that on the Waipareira Trust’s website, Hall’s whakapapa includes Ngāti Whātua, which is a mana whenua group.
The practice manager exchanged emails with Hall about this issue, seeking to confirm that his whakapapa included Ngāti Whātua.
Hall responded, drawing a distinction between who he was and where he was from. The CEO of the Waipareira Trust, John Tamihere, also responded to a subsequent email and challenged the statutory body’s interpretation of the legislation.
The selection body met on 19 October 2022. After receiving legal advice, it decided Hall was not eligible due to his being part of a mana whenua group (Ngāti Whātua).
Hall challenged this decision by way of judicial review. The key question was how to interpret the second part of the definition of mataawaka, “not in a mana whenua group”.
Hall argued that mere ancestral linkage to a mana whenua group does not mean that a person is “in” the mana whenua group and that there needs to be an additional element of chosen affiliation.
The selection body referred to dictionary definitions of “in” and argued that Hall’s whakapapa to Ngāti Whātua meant he was in a mana whenua group.
Applicable principles: Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, s 81, Schedule 2 – Legislation Act 2019, s 10 – what is the purpose and context for the stipulation “not in a mana whenua group” in the mataawaka definition? (the reason the Act distinguishes between mataawaka and mana whenua groups is so the interests of both will be advocated through and on the board) – was Hall ineligible because he is “in” a mana whenua group, namely Ngāti Whātua? (no, if candidate for appointment as mataawaka representative has an ancestral connection to a mana whenua group, but their connection is no more than that (ie, no conscious affiliation with the mana whenua group), then for the purposes of the Act they are not “in” the mana whenua group and will be eligible for appointment as a mataawaka representative) – appropriate relief? (declaration that decision was unlawful and of Hall’s eligibility. Court declined to quash current appointments of other individuals as mataawaka representatives given the impending appointment process for the 2025 – 2028 term)
Held: The application for judicial review is granted. The following declarations are made:
- The selection body’s decision that Hall was not eligible for appointment to the board as a mataawaka representative was unlawful.
- Hall is eligible to be considered by the selection body for appointment to the board as a mataawaka representative.
0 Comments