this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
35 points (97.3% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1689 readers
81 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dave
RaoulDuke
35
Taranaki Maunga becomes a legal person as treaty settlement passes into law (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 3 days ago by Dave to c/newzealand
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Treaty of Waitangi settlement for Taranaki Maunga passed its second and third reading in Parliament on Thursday.

Around 400 people from the eight iwi of Taranaki - Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki iwi and Te Ātiawa - were at Parliament to see the settlement become law.

The Crown profoundly apologised for its confiscation of Taranaki Maunga and almost half a million hectares (1.2 million acres) of Taranaki lands in 1865.

As part of the settlement Mt Egmont will cease to be an official geographic name. The name of the national park, currently called Egmont National Park, will become Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki (meaning the highly regarded and treasured lands of Taranaki), while the highest peak will be Taranaki Maunga.

The park and its contents will be vested as a legal person, its peaks will be named Te Kāhui Tupua - so the park will effectively own itself. But Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi, a collective of both iwi and Crown representatives, will manage the park and develop plans which will be approved by the Conservation Minister.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deadbeef79000 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

"So our worldview is our maunga are ancestors, they're not resources but they are living beings and so the notion of legal personhood fits well with our worldview."

Emphasis mine. I've not seen the nuance of maunga as tupuna explained so effectively before. Neat.

Does anyone know what effects legal personhood has?

[–] Dave 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was hoping someone else would know more but it seems not so now you get my layman's understanding.

There is a page here that covers it, but it doesn't seem to really cover the consequences that well.

My understanding is this legal personhood status is similar to how a company has legal personhood. A company can own things in its own right, and a board of directors has to do what is in the best interest of the company.

I believe the setup with Taranaki is that it becomes its own legal entity, like a company but probably more similar to a trust, then that legal entity can own things, such as the land that makes up the mountain. The iwi are then tasked with making decisions on its behalf, like a board of directors makes decisions for a company, or trustees make decisions for a trust.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it is like a trust, then it will have the equivalent of a trust deed.

A trust deed, states the purpose of the trust, what it's goals are etc... The trustees make decisions in the best interest of the trust to fulfil trust deed.

So if is like a trust, decisions should be made in the BEST INTEREST of the mountain to fulfil its stated goals.

[–] Dave 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yes I believe that is the outcome the iwi were aiming for. All decisions need to be made from the point of view of the mountain. E.g. very hard to argue its in the mountain's best interest to be mined up.

[–] liv 2 points 3 hours ago

This. It's actually happening a bit these days, eg the Ganges in India has personhood, the Atrato river in Colombia, this cloud forest in Equador...