High Court rules for wāhi taonga

‘‘The Environment Court quite rightly put [the] Raikes’ Christian beliefs to one side in making its determinations.’’ Justice Christine Grice

A Hawke’s Bay farmer’s efforts to overturn a decision by the Environment Court that part of his land be classed as wāhi taonga has been dismissed by the High Court.

Peter and Caroline Raikes brought the appeal after 70 hectares on their farm, Titiōkura Station in northern Hawke’s Bay, was found to be a ‘‘site of significance’’.

Justice Christine Grice described the matter as a ‘‘direct cultural clash about religious views’’ during an appeal heard in the High Court at Wellington in August this year.

‘‘The appellants say, the evidence included unsubstantiated cultural beliefs and myths which do not accord with their own religious beliefs.’’

In response to a proposed district plan change by the Hastings District Council, the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT) – a post-settlement governance entity representing a collective of hāpu – launched an appeal in the Environment Court in 2018.

The trust claimed the 70ha site was of cultural significance as it was a traditional muttonbird hunting site known as the Tı¯tı¯-a-Okura (the muttonbirds of Okura) saddle.

Peter Raikes disputed evidence given by the trust during the hearing, claiming Māori lore and related stories and traditions for example about Ranginui (the Sky Father) and Papatuanuku (the Earth Mother), were contrary to the Bible.

The appeal to the High Court submitted the Environment Court made errors in relying too heavily on the cultural evidence presented by the trust and failed to take into account the Raikes’ own Christian beliefs. It also submitted even if the site was wāhi taonga, the evidence did not justify recognition of the site to the extent of the area approved on their land.

In her reserved decision released on November 23, Justice Grice said the court was correct in noting the Raikes’ Christian views were ‘‘to be respected ... but that was not an issue under consideration’’.

The court was ‘‘entitled to place weight on the evidence of the tangata whenua’’ and had been sufficient in providing its reasoning for the decision.

‘‘The Environment Court quite rightly put [the] Raikes’ Christian beliefs to one side in making its determinations,’’ she said in her decision.

The Raikes also submitted the court had made two factual errors relating to the size and extent of the wāhi taonga designation.

Justice Grice acknowledged while the court ‘‘made an error in calculating the proportion of the total farm area affected’’, it was not material to the decision reached. The court was entitled to determine the ‘‘area as delineated by the kaumātua was appropriate in its extent’’.

Justice Grice ordered the Raikes to pay costs for the hearing to the council and the trust, for an amount to be decided later. In a statement following the decision, Peter Raikes said they were ‘‘very disappointed’’ the appeal had been dismissed.