184 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 62 PART 2 MARCH 2004
acknowledge and observe traditional laws and customs by which they have a connection with the land and waters claimed by them.”29 THE NEW ZEALAND LAW Aboriginal law in New Zealand is a complex interplay of a treaty, case law, legislation, settlement agreements and statutory extinguishments.30 The sovereignty of the British Crown over New Zealand (and thereby that of the New Zealand Government) is derived from the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. This treaty is only a few paragraphs long and has versions in English and Maori that are not consistent with each other.31 New Zealand courts have tended to apply the principles of the treaty rather than the actual wording. It may be noted that the Douglas Treaties in British Columbia were based on the Treaty of Waitangi. From the time of its introduction, the New Zealand common law has recognized Aboriginal title: R. v. Symonds,32 Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker,33 and Te Runaga o te ika Whenua v. Attorney-General.34 However, it is important to note that the Ngati Apa claim discussed below was not based on the common law but the Maori Land Acts, which were first introduced in 1862 (although the judgments of the Court of Appeal do discuss the common law as received in New Zealand). Under those Acts, “Maori customary land” is a concept that forms part of a statutory scheme to convert such land into Maori freehold land. The current definition of “Maori customary land” is found in s. 129(2)(a) of the current Maori Land Act or Te Ture Whenua, which defines it as land “held by Maori in accordance with tikanga Maori”. Section 3 of the Act in turn defines “tikanga Maori” as “Maori customary values and practices”, which are to be determined by the specialist Maori Land Court rather than the ordinary courts applying common law principles. Unlike common law Aboriginal title as applied in Canada in Delgamuukw35 and in Australia in Mabo [No. 2],36 tikanga Maori is based on the Maori customary values and practices at the time of the claim and not as at British sovereignty. The impact of the New Zealand Aboriginal law on the development of the Canadian law has been negligible. The Marlborough Sound Case (Ngati Apa) The decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the Marlborough Sound case, or Attorney-General v. Ngati Apa,37 originated in an application made by eight Maori tribes in the northern part of the South Island to the Maori Land Court to determine whether they had and continue to have customary rights over the foreshore and seabed. Ellis J. of the High Court heard the appeal from the Maori Land Court in June 2001.38 He first noted the national significance of the issues involved and said, “Stated shortly, the eight tribes claim that the foreshore and bed of the Marlborough Sounds is customary land within the meaning of those words used in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (also called the Maori Land Act 1993).” After setting out the questions in the case stated and the relevant legislation, he reviewed the ownership of territorial waters at 1840 and the decisions in Gann v. Free Fishes of Whistable,39 Iveagh (Earl) v. Martin,40 The Queen v. Keyn41 and The Sea and Submerged Lands Case.42 He then concluded, at paras. 21–22: