|
MASTER Recommend to View at 75% ONLINE VERSION INFORMATION AND ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE CROWN DEPARTMENTS of NEW
ZEALAND. Hopefully, through the enlightenment of this Website, it may
well finally and fully inform all, World Wide. The true affair regarding; The New Zealand Government and The Crown, Agreeing to the Grant
of various strategic mineral resources to a specifically formed, Maori
Corporate Group. Platinum, Gold and Nickel for example, is associated in melange,
with those Nephrite, Serpentinite, Bowenite mineral deposits; All Host rock
minerals. Most New Zealanders and perhaps most Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu;
Don't either. Therefore, Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu received those Strategic
Minerals as well, free of charge. This is not Public Knowledge. Please note…. These actions would never have be
allowed in Australia or any other Nation in the British Commonwealth. In fact, I'm sure, other Nations, have never been advised or aware of
such. Probably most of New Zealander's do not know, to be truthful. Parliament of the day produced all this. Therefore all General
Government, Political Parties were Responsible. The Legal Rights Under Statutory Law, to the Specific Mineral
Resource (Pounamu – Serpentinite, Jade, Bowenite, at that time, belonged to
other private or Corporate persons . Including the right of further mineral
licenses, on discoveries by Licensee’s. The Discoverers, Applicants and License Holders At That Time And
Well Prior.. I HEREIN ALLEGE THIS MATTER IS AKIN TO THIEFT, TO THE HIGHTEST ORDER. THE EVIDENCE IS WITHIN. Revealing Information HEREIN. SURELY.?.. The Crown And New Zealand
Government, Cannot Legally, (Without Compensation), Grant A Mineral Resource
To Other Parties; When the Legitimate Discovery Rights Under
Statutory Law, To That Resource, Belonged To Others; The Discoverers,
Applicants and Holders At That Time And Well Prior. One must realise that I, Kenneth James
Landaus, dedicated at least 28 years of my life discovering greenstone
(pounamu) and other minerals in Otago, Southland and South Westland, New
Zealand. I always held a legitimate Miners Right or
appropriate License to do so. Or the company I was involved with, did. In other words, The Resource was
Legitimately Discovered and Located at Massive Financial Cost and Effort,
Over a very long period off time. And tremendous cost personally. Only for those Mining Privileges Rights,
allegedly, to be illegally Revoked, Except for a Select Few. The documentation herein, Proves Beyond
Doubt. Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu were Granted Pounamu
and ALSO IT’S LOCATIONS, Discovered by Others. Through Hard Work and
Massive Costs over Many Years, Mainly In very Wilderness Area’s. The Crown and Government were NOT prepared
to offer any Compensation whatsoever for these total losses etc. If on Initial Application Dates, under The
Mining Act 1971, All Applicants would have Applied for a Maximum License Term
of 40 YEARS. But we Naturally, Never Imagined, The Crown
would Grant OUR DISCOVERIES to other Persons without a Thank You, or
Compensation. Regardless of my Submissions to the Ngai
Tahu Pounamu Vesting Act Accordingly. HOWEVER AT THE END OF THE DAY : I
KEPT THE PEACE, BY CHOOSING NOT TO PROCEED WITH MY JUDICAL REVIEW, FOR
THE SAKE OF BELIEVING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY WOULD PREVAIL. UNBELIEVABLE, BUT TRUE. YET THE MAWHERA INCORPORATION
OF GREYMOUTH HAD THEIR APPLICATION GRANTED ON 31 OCTOBER 1989. See: mawherafile.pdf and mcmeoct.pdf or htm .This letter contradicts most information's provided to me
herein. NOTE: NO DISRESPECT TO TRONT,
AS THESE ACTION'S TOOK PLACE WELL PRIOR TO THE TE RUNANGA O NGAI TAHU VESTING
ACT. BUT MY APPLICATION FOR A PROSPECTING LICENSE WAS MADE APRIL 1989. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 229, MA.1971,
RELATING TO MY EXISTING MINING LICENSE RIGHTS. IT IS CONSIDERED AS A ILLEGAL
DISGRACE ,THAT AUTHORITIES APPROVED A FORTY YEAR MINING
PIVILEGE TERM TO AN INCORPORATION, (Not Te Rununga O Ngai Tahu), WELL PRIOR
TO THE NGAI TAHU POUNAMU VESTING
ACT. YET, AT THE SAME TIME COMPLETELY
WITHHELD MY PROSPECTING LICENSE APPLICATION AND RENEWAL RIGHTS TO MY CURRENT MINING LICENCE AND
WITHHELD MY APPLICATION FOR A SUBSEQUENT MINING PERMIT LICENCE UNDER THE NEW
MINING ACT 1991, AND A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO UNDER
: SECTION
229 OF THE MINING ACT 1971. NOTE: THESE ACTION'S TOOK PLACE WELL PRIOR TO THE TE RUNANGA O NGAI TAHU VESTING ACT. BUT MY APPLICATION FOR A
PROSPECTING LICENSE WAS MADE APRIL 1989.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 229, MA.1971, RELATING TO MY EXISTING MINING LICENSE RIGHTS. See also Enlightenment and visit more evidence at TIMELINE . AS AN EXAMPLE,
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT, THE LATTER CROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT ACT 2003, AND ALL
OTHER AMMENDMENTS PRIOR OR SINCE, THAT RECTIFIED CURRENT LICENSES, GRANTED OR STILL CURRENT
UNDER THE MINING ACT 1971 OR CROWN MINERALS ACT 1990; IN PARTICULAR, SECTIONS
57A, 68, 68B and 77. IT MUST BE
REALISED THAT ANY LATER AMMENDMENTS OR ANY
NEW ACTS; DID NOT CHANGE OR
EFFECT MY CURRENT SITUATIONS
REGARDING MY APPLICATIONS OR MINING PRIVILAGES, CURRENT AT THE PREVIOUS DATED
TIMES HEREIN SPECIFIED. IN OTHER WORDS,
MY DAMAGES OCCURRED WELL PIOR TO ALL. INCLUDING THE
GLENHARROW / PRIVY COUNCIL CASE. IF WE HAD KNOWN OUR
DISCOVERIES WERE NEVER TO BE GRANTED OR RENEWED, THEN WE WOULD HAVE INITIALLY
APPLIED FOR OUR LICENCES FOR 42 YEARS AS PER
MAWHERA, MAORI. --- With Due Respect. Notwithstanding the fact that, prior
to the Vesting; because I trusted the earlier advises from Ministers etc,
that I would not be adversely effected. I did not extract all my Nephrite Jade
discoveries, while my license was current and subject to all the Statutory
Rights I had under the currents Act’s, as listed in documentation herein,. I trusted the assurances of even our
Prime Minister; That I would not be adversely affected. I did not extract all my Nephrite Jade
Discoveries, while my Mining License was current and subject to all the
Statutory Rights I had under the currents Act’s, as listed in documentation herein. HERE IN I WISH I COULD MAKE THIS MATTER A LOT MORE
SIMPLE, BUT IT REALISTICALLY BELONGS IN THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH. My Statutory Rights and the alleged Deliberate Deprivation of these
Rights, before and after the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997. Concerning Pounamu (Greenstone - Nephrite Jade - Serpentinite) - Mining Privilege Applications under the Mining Act 1971,
Crown Minerals Act 1991 and related matters. Because the Crown have never, negotiated either compensation,
reimbursements of costs, as a Settlement with me or others, on the Issues
herein. In fact, I'm sure, other Nations, have never been advised or
aware of such. Probably most New Zealander's do not know, to be truthful. Parliament of the day produced all this. Mainly a Labour Lead,
Issue of the Time: Therefore all General Government, Political Parties were
responsible. I now intend to revisit all legal options
for some resolve with the Crown. Including, seeking a substantial financial
settlement in damages and reparations. Inclusive of costs and compounding
interest, on at least, my Mining Privilege Application Fee’s. Since 1988.
(Approximately 30 years). In fact, I'm sure, other Nations, have
never been advised or aware of such. Probably most of New Zealander's do not
know, to be truthful. Parliament of the day produced all this.
Mainly a Parliament Lead, Issue of the Time: Therefore all General
Government, Political Parties were to Blame. (Most not truly understanding
Statutory Mining Law, at all.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dedicated, to the 42,500 plus deceased New
Zealand Solders, Commemorated by the New Zealand Army “Tears on Greenstone” Waterfall at the War
Memorial, Waiouru, NZ. Including my late Father, who also fought
overseas during the Second World War. To all, I have sacrificed a large part of
my life for and beyond, in the call of being a REAL New Zealander. __________________________ I and my employee’s produced the large
highly polished jade tiles for the massive project. Along with many other large municipal
projects throughout New Zealand. Five close friends have also died in the time leading
up to the formation of this website: including myself. All had a
close involvement with the entire saga. Young and Older. Multi national New
Zealanders. And in one
way or another all, were effected by the matters enforced upon them by the
Crown. As was myself. ________________________________________________________________ Presented and Prepared by Kenneth J
Landaus. Previously, Managing Director, Pharoahs
Holdings Ltd, Nephrite Jade Ltd. Haast. Nickel Miner, New Caledonia. Minerals ( Gold- Platinum) Prospector, Jade
Miner and Manufacturer (Jadestone NZ Ltd), Haast, South Westland, New
Zealand. Exploration Contractor for various
exploration mining companies throughout New Zealand, including Nickel Mining
and Engineering overseas since 1968. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
I am pleased to provide :
My CV - (PDF)
or HTM
Four Relative
Personal References
Contact Me Here or info@jadestone.co.nz
One
may also order a Flashdrive, Offline Version, of this Website with a video
slideshow included.
A Small Glimpse of Mining,
Prospecting and Living in Remote South Westland
A
WEST COAST SLIDESHOW MOVIE MP4, IS
AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
|
|
|
|
Online
Version-Last Updated: 12 JUNE 2018
(If for any reason a hyperlink herein does not
function correctly, try finding link at timeline.htm.
To: Supporting Documents and Letters on this
page
To: TIMELINE of Documents and Correspondence
as below
To:
SUMMARY
DOCUMENT WITH EXTRACTS FROM STATEGIC LETTERS or PDF
To: LETTERS
REGARDING OFFERS OF REIMBURSEMENTS
To:
IMPORTANT
LETTER TO OMBUDSMAN - (PAINT's A TRUE PICTURE OF EVERYTHING TO DATE)
Catalogue of
relevant Sections of the Mining Act 1971
PLEASE NOTE: THE MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CROWN MINERALS IS NOW NAMED
PETROLEAM AND MINERALS NEW ZEALAND.
FOREWORD - PERSONAL STATEMENT
If ever brought before a Court of Law, this may well be the
largest case involving statutory law in New Zealand's history.
Notwithstanding the delicate Parliamentary and Ministerial
involvement, including, Treaty of Waitangi Settlement issues with Ngai Tahu Iwi
and my supply of
jade tiles for the New Zealand Army "Tears on
Greenstone" Commemorative War Memorial.
Also, it is specific to the Mining Acts, relevant Statutory
Regimes
and a rare and cherished NZ mineral resource.
I consider that one must view the vesting of the Pounamu mineral
resources to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu from the Crown, in comparison with other
naturally occurring
Crown owned resources within New Zealand. Land, Minerals,
Fisheries, Forestry, Gas and Water.
For example; If the Government vested all the ownership rights of
fisheries, without consideration of the existing rights of those that had legal
access
or ownership over that resource, then I am sure those with
existing rights would not accept that situation.
For example, what would Talleys Fisheries response be, and would
they be where they are today if the same scenarios happened to them 25 years
ago.
Especially as Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu as new owners of the minerals
have not shared the resource in anyway with the existing licensees of
ownership.
This letter to
Members of Parliament in 1997, basically
introduces one to my concerns and gives an overview of the situation up until
that time.
An Extract from the New
Zealand Law Society in their Submission on The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill:
States:
"If the Crown is unable to honour its
Treaty settlement obligations to Ngai Tahu concerning pounamu because of the
effect of the transitional provisions of the Crown Minerals Act
then a specific exception may be justified
for rights to pounamu only, subject to the payment of compensation to those
privilege holders whose rights are curtailed.
''A wrong to Ngai Tahu should not be
addressed by a wrong to others."
The
then current Justice Minister, said a similar thing.
See latest correspondence to both The New
Zealand Law Society and D. Williams, QC.
My New MASSIVE Mineral Discoveries and
subsequent Applications were also totally IGNORED when it came to the formation
of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting Bill.
(Except for my Logged Information’s already
provided to the specific Ministries, under the Act’s)
SEE SECTION 229 under the Mining Act 1971.
I ALLEGE:
I ENTERED INTO THE BUSINESS OF MINERAL
EXPLORATION IN NEW ZEALAND IN GOOD FAITH AND IN RELATION TO THE STATUTES AND
MINING LAWS.
THE CROWN SINCE HAVE DISRESPECTED ALL
TO THE MAXIMUM.
With my vast experience in
the Mineral Industry and knowledge of the geological formations and origins of
Nephrite Jade (Pounamu) and other associated minerals,
I can truthfully state,
that to date, the Ministries involved have now passed on all my privy
information's pertaining to my new discoveries, onto other private concerns.
With my vast experience in
the Mineral Industry and knowledge of the geological formations and origins of
Nephrite Jade (Pounamu) and other associated minerals, discoveries, onto other
private concerns.
I can truthfully state,
that to date, the Ministries involved have now passed on all my privy
information's pertaining to my new discoveries. Thus creating a massive
multi-benefit to the benefactors, but utter devastations
and massive losses to myself, as founder of these resources under
the Mining Acts of the day.
What makes it worse is the
Ministry granted other licenses well within the legal timeframe, while totally
ignored my Applications for up to 9 years.
Given the evidence
received under the Official Information Act as listed below in documentation, I
have to consider the matter as abhorrent, to say the least.
Especially, when most of
my discoveries of the whereabouts of both Nephite Jade (Pounamu) and other
strategic minerals whereabouts, that were found under various Prospectors
Rights and early
Mining Privileges, dating
back to the late 1970's. All were under the Mining Act 1971.
The principle reason why I
have waited so long to properly address this entire affair, was, I had to
patiently wait until all the later greenstone theft matters were finalised.
In order to prove beyond
doubt, that there was no involvement by myself. Due to the fact that I had
previous contract flying associations during the earlier years, with some of
the parties involved.
Also, I had to wait until
the Privy Council had made their decision on the Glenharrow Case.
Along with quite drastic
personal issues over the last 10 years. Caused by the loss of my entire
livelihood, over all the matters within this documentation.
In 1990, I, Kenneth James
Landaus, officially held one current Mining License, namely, ML-32 3021 (Under
the Mining Act 1971) and one Prospecting License Application, namely,
PLA-31 2583, (Under the Mining Act 1971).
Also one Mining Permit
Application, namely MPA- 41 452 (Under the Crown Minerals Act 1991), all
situated on Crown Land in South Westland.
All WERE UNDER THE STATUTARY
RIGHTS (Provided Herein) frm The Mining Act 1971.
This wilderness area is very
remote and rugged. It can experience some of the worst weather in New Zealand.
Since 1976, I have lived and
worked in the region and have held many Mining Licences and Applications under
various company names and worked for earlier jade and mineral
exploration companies.
Being the holder of a
Prospectors Right under the Mining Act 1971, which legally allowed me to
prospect in the region on Crown land and private land with permissions,
I personally discovered the
various mineral deposits, over many years at massive financial cost and time.
I also built a road into the
region from the Cascade Valley road end to Barn Bay and built a lodge in the
immediate area and had access to another at the Cascade Valley.
During the earlier years
while operating various other mining privileges in the region, I personally,
discovered the various mineral deposits, over many years, and at massive
financial
cost and time. The Ministry
CAN confirm this.
Regardless of being accused of otherwise by the current Minister of Energy. See : ME to MP-1997 (Hon Richard Prebble)
Note in this letter, the
Minister also remarks that I should apply to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu for a
renewal or application for a new license.
Also, the Moratorium only
related to Pounamu within North Westland, Arahura District.
View TIMELINE for more
or bottom of this main page.
See exerts below.
PLEASE
VISIT A DRAFT
COPY OF MY BRIEF VIEWS ON ALL GENERAL MATTERS FOR THE PREPARATION PURPOSES
OF A JUDICIAL REVIEW ON THIS ENTIRE MATTER.
An example
of the Ministries attitude generally is set out in a letter from the Minister
dated 30
June 2005, well after the Vesting
Act. Along with my
reply.
There was no legal obligation on Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu to provide
continual Rights to existing applicants, under any Act.
I comment here, that I allege that
Parliament and the Government of the day ministries failed in their Statutory
obligations by not providing a mandate within the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 that
protected the existing Rights of both current Mining Privileges and Mining
Privilege Applications under the Mining Act 1971.
As set out in the Section 43 extract below
and Subsection (2) of Section 69 with regard to "Any person may be granted more than one Mining
License".
(Meaning also, an application for a NEW
LICENSE or Renewal as such, of an EXSISTING LICENSE.
As in my case, the existing privilege was
my current Mining Privilege, but my Prospecting Application was made due to the
Rights provided under Section 229, MA 1971 and
Section 8, MA 1971. As mentioned below, under the then current mining
privilege or license. Please note here, that Section 8, Mining Act 1971,
relates directly to the Crown grant of land to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu and also
the minerals,
serpentinite and nephrite jade, (pounamu}.
Also note; that both were granted well after my discoveries and application
delineating the location as such.
Hence, it is blatantly obvious why, the
Ministry withheld my official Prospecting License Application to the extreme
period they did. For the ownership of both land and minerals for the advantage
of other persons.
Section 43, Clause (2), as
below, definitely was not adhered to by the Crown.
I allege,
that the Minister is incorrect by stating the above Vesting Act prohibits the
Crown from granting any further licenses or permits for pounamu..See Ngai
Tahu Pounamu Vesting Act.pdf
See: Ref10 below under
Mining License.
Also, until the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013, Section 4 of the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 read as the extract inserted below:
This read
in conjunction with Section
43 of the Mining Act 1971, does mean that to a certain degree that Section
43, was considered but in my view, legally was not “EXPRESSLY” provided for as,
“A CROWN GRANT OR CONVEYANCE”.
See under as per
Mining License below.
|
|
4. Existing privileges for pounamu.
(1) Nothing in Section 3 effects an existing privilege or the rights
or obligations of any holder of an existing privilege and the Crown Minerals
Act 1991 continues to apply in relation to that
privilege as if this Act had not been passed. Pounamu must be paid
by the Crown to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. Section 4(1) : Amended, on 24 May 2013,
by Section 65 of the Crown minerals Amendment Act 2013. (2013 No 14)
My letter dated 4
August 2005
explains to the Minister, my opinion on matters.
ALSO THIS LETTER to the
Associate Minister of Energy in 2005, basically summaries all the dilemma's I
have had to tolerate since 1990.
and HIS REPLY.
Here, I also remind
him of certain statutory matters and reject his offer. or PDF
There was no legal obligation on Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu to provide
continual Rights to existing applicants, under any Act.
I comment here, that I allege that
Parliament and the Government of the day ministries failed in their Statutory
obligations by not providing a mandate within the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) act 1997 that
protected the existing Rights of both current Mining Privileges and Mining
Privilege Applications under the Mining Act 1971.
As set out in the Section 43 extract below
and Subsection (2) of Section 69 with regard to "Any person may be granted more than one Mining
License".
(Meaning also, an application for a NEW
LICENSE or Renewal as such, of an EXISTING LICENSE)
As in my case, the existing privilege was
my current Mining Privilege, but my Prospecting Application was made due to the
Rights provided under Section 229, MA 1971 and
Section 8,
MA 1971.
As
mentioned below, under the then current mining privilege or license.
Clause (2), as below, definitely was not
adhered to by the Crown.
Irrespective of the Crowns actions
since I initiated these privileges, under the respective mining Acts and
subsequent amendments, my intention here, is to prove beyond
all reasonable doubt, that I should still retain the legitimacy of
these applications and privileges because it is evident the Crown have denied
me my statutory rights in the processes.
The
reasons why, I am now intent on seeking redresses, for the alleged intentional
deprivation of my Rights during the specific time period Dating
FROM 1985 until
2003.
a TYPICAL
EXAMPLE OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE MINISTER OF ENERGY ON THIS MATTER IS WITHIN A LETTER TO WEST
COAST MP DATED 05 mAY 1999,
FOUR YEARS PRIOR
TO THE CROWN MINERALS AMMENDMENT ACT 2003 AND FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE DECISION
OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL - GLENHARROW CASE OUTCOME.
THIS being the
PERIOD FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE
CROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT ACT 2003, WHERE THE MINISTRY EVENTUALLY
RECTIFIED THE
CROWN MINERALS ACT 1991, iN ORDER TO JUSTIFY WHAT I HAD BEEN TELLING THEM FOR
MANY YEARS, AS PER MY MANY DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED.
I HEREIN
ENDEAVOUR TO PROVIDE AMPLE EVIDENCE OVER ALL THESE YEARS THAT THE MINISTRY HAVE
INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD MY STATUTORY RIGHTS, PROVIDED TO ME VIA BOTH
THE MINING ACT
1971 AND THE CROWN MINERALS ACT 1991. CAUSING ME EXTREME DAMAGES, BOTH
CORPORATELY,FINANCALLY AND PERSONALLY.
I allege the then Minister of Energy did
not process my application according to the provisions of the Mining Act 1971.
He did pass it on to the current Minister
of Conservation, but between them, I allege, they illegally withheld the
application process for a period of nearly nine years.
The Mining License was for Nephrite Jade,
but under the said Act, I had the statutory right to discover any other mineral
and have it included in the same License.
Therefore Nephrite Jade (Pounamu) was not
the only mineral to which this application pertained. See also Sec 80, MA
1971
The
Ministry therefore denied me this Statutory right. A circumstance similar to
the right I had under my aligned Mining License; to discover new mineral
deposits and have priority rights above all other persons.
In both
circumstances, the Ngai Tahu (Vesting) Act 1997 was an irrelevant consideration
because the Ministry denied me all my Rights for other minerals by not
processing all my applications to this present day.
An
extract from a letter from Hon. D. Graham, Minister of Treaty of Waitangi
Negotiations.
In summary
of events to date, the controversial ownership of Crown minerals, Nephrite Jade
and Serpentinite (Pounamu) was allocated under the Mining Acts for the purpose
of mining development.
Thus achieving the allocation of Property Rights to any approved
persons under the Crown mining regulations and the Statutory Regimes.
See Sec139
, Sec 87
of the Mining Act 1971.
PART VIII
FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
NOTE: THIS SECTION WAS REPEALED
BY THE
CROWN MINERALS ACT 1991.
NOTE: THEN,SUBJECT TO SECTION
112 (c) OF THAT ACT, THIS SECTION
229 OF THE MINING ACT 1971,
REMAINED IN FORCE FOR THE GENERATION OF THAT MINING PRIVELEGE.
In summary of events to date, the controversial ownership of Crown
minerals, Nephrite Jade and Serpentinite (Pounamu) was allocated under the
Mining Acts for the purpose of mining development.
Thus achieving the allocation of Property Rights to any approved
persons under the Crown mining regulations and the Statutory Regimes.
See Sec139
, Sec 87
of the Mining Act 1971.
By denying my request for application
forms to both renew or make application for a new license on the current Mining
License , ML-32 3021, I allege the Ministry not only denied me my Statutory
Right
under Section 77
MA 1971.
Furthermore, because the Ministry delayed
all decisions on the renewal rights along with the mineral ownership issues,
the entire matter and in particular, the right to trade on my property rights
including the application for the
Prospecting License was adversely affected. Notwithstanding the valuation.
Due to the fact I had many hundreds of
tonnes of Greenstone still stored on the license area.
View part of my letter regarding my
attempt to legitimately apply for a new licence in renewal of the existing
Mining License ML 323021.
The formal
Application was originally sent to Mines Division, Greymouth.
As no response was received within the
month, I personally telephoned their Office.
The response was that they had received
the full application and had forwarded the Application directly to the main
Mines Division Office, Wellington, for processing
along with my Application Fee.
I never heard back from Wellington on the
matter. Except that I telephoned that Office also and was told it was received
and was being processed accordingly………
During all the time I had to wait for a
response on this application, I still legally had the right to discover further
resources, accordingly under the Act.
Yet I forwarded this letter 14 August 1997 and received this letter dated me20oct97
Note:
Sec87, Subsec,-(2b)----‘BE OWNER OF ALL MINERALS LAWFULLY MINED FROM THE LAND
UNDER THE LICENSE.’
And
Subsec,-(3)---- `THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHTS FOR MINING PURPOSES IN RELATION TO THE LAND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE
MINING LICENSE WAS GRANTED”.
During the period this mining
license was current, the minerals lawfully mined and owned were, by way of the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, vested by the Crown to other parties,
namely,
Te Ranunga O Ngai Tahu.
Therefore, proving the absolute fact, that Section 43 of the Mining Act 1971, was not fully considered in relation to the above.
See Comments on Glenharrow Case. Or Glenharrow-Privy Council Appeal Documents (2.21 mbs)
PLEASE NOTE: NEITHER SECTION 43 OR
SECTION 229, of MINING ACT 1971, WERE CONSIDERED IN THE GLENHARROW - PRIVY
COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ??
ALSO From Crown
Minerals (Note: this letter in part advises that, " if you wish to apply for
a new license, you must apply to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu").
Note:The Crown has never had an
arrangement or mandate as such with Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu.
And more importantly, it proves
their illegal motives of telling honest and legitimate licensees, like myself,
that I must instead make my new applications to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu rather
then the Crown.
Proving again that Crown Minerals
time and time again have advised in writing that one (I), must apply to Te
Runanga O NgaiTahu, if they wish to renew or apply for a new license over the
same area,under Section 77 of the
Mining Act 1971.
Especially refusing to action a request to renew my license under the Statutes, well within the legal time-frames. Notwithstanding the fact, the Crown never included this factor in the drafting of the TRONT (PV) Bill at all.
See below a letter to Crown Minerals and their response regarding matters of applying to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu, as continually advised by the Ministry.
The outcome of the Privy Council decision on the Glenharrow case proves that I have always been legally correct on all these matters.
(See letters in timeline below.)
My principle concerns are that the Crown
had granted other privileges for nephrite and serpentine (pounamu), during the
same period, while not processing my applications.
AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS: A MINING LICENSE WAS GRANTED, UNDER THE MINING ACT 1971, TO THE MAWHERA INCORPORATION ON 31 OCTOBER 1989, FOR THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 42 YEARS.
View confirmation
of granted license and term of license.
Regardless of the fact that the statutes of the day made every legal
attempt to promote prospecting and mining on a fair allocation of rights to ALL
persons.
To myself as a commercial prospector and miner most of my life, it made
no difference to me if the minerals I discovered were owned by the Crown or
other parties.
A legal allocation of property rights to prospect and mine in return
for royalties to the owners respectively, is all that was required.
From all events to date, it is blatantly obvious all Ministries of the
Crown involved with these matters have sided completely with Te Runanga O Ngai
Tahu on the matter of gifting
(vesting) the jade (Pounamu) minerals.
In the process, the Crown departments have allegedly conspired to be
rid of both the discoverers of the minerals and the applicants or current
licensees at the time.
Except those like the Mawhera Incorporation, who are affiliated with
Ngai Tahu.
Evidence is ample at this stage that the Crown have stepped over the
legal line and could well have committed various grave legal errors here, some
bordering on theft, of which
they have accused and convicted others on.
Notwithstanding racially prejudice, under current laws.
After nearly 30 years of nothing but deceit, and now in total disgust,
I finally speak my word as a true New Zealander that honoured and believed in
the current Act’s and Guide to
the Mining Act, when starting out in the industry many years ago with a
Prospectors Right.
In other words, the Crown have allowed me to discover and locate these
minerals, under the Mining Acts, at my expense and then vest those minerals, to
other private concerns along
with all my information I was required to supply to the Ministry.
Without any recompense whatsoever.
Furthermore,
I consider myself as an intelligent person and I am absolutely disgusted that
even the Privy Council of the British Commonwealth, represented by our Queen,
has not
even raised the issue in ‘The Glenharrow Case’ that may have reflected a total
different outcome for them.
All
applicants for mining privileges under the existing mining Acts of the day,
namely the Mining Act 1971, either had the opportunity just prior to the new
Crown Minerals Act 1991
to elect
wether or not, they preferred to retain their status as applicants under the
older Act or move to the new Act, (Crown Minerals Act 1991). I declared I
wished to retain my two
applications under the Mining Act 1971.
Crown
Minerals seem to have forgotten that.
The then,
Ministry of Energy, advised all existing applicants and privilege holders of
this optional choice.
There was no legal obligation on Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu to provide
continual Rights to existing applicants, under any Act.
I comment here, that I allege that
Parliament and the Government of the day ministries failed in their Statutory
obligations by not providing a mandate within the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) act 1997 that
protected the existing Rights of both current Mining Privileges and Mining Privilege
Applications under the Mining Act 1971.
As set out in the Section 43 extract below
and Subsection (2) of Section 69 with regard to "Any person may be granted more than one Mining
License".
(Meaning also, an application for a NEW
LICENSE or Renewal as such, of an EXISTING LICENSE)
As in my case, the existing privilege was
my current Mining Privilege, but my Prospecting Application was made due to the
Rights provided under Section 229, MA 1971 and
Section 8
, MA 1971. As mentioned below, under the
then current mining privilege or license. Please note here, that Section 8,
Mining Act 1971, relates directly to the Crown grant
of land to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu and also
the minerals, serpentinite and nephrite jade, (pounamu}. Also note; that both
were granted well after my discoveries and application
delineating the location as such.
Hence, it is blatantly obvious why, the
Ministry withheld my official Prospecting License Application to the extreme
period they did. For purposes of future ownership of both
land and minerals for the advantage of
other persons.
Clause (2), as below, definitely was not
adhered to by the Crown.
An example of the Ministries attitude generally is set out in a letter
from the Minister dated 30 June 2005,
well after the Vesting Act. Along with my
reply.
In addition to this statutory factor and
as mentioned above, Section
43 of the Mining Act 1971 specifically states as per this LINK.
Furthermore, I consider myself as an
intelligent person and I am absolutely disgusted that even the Privy Council of
the British Commonwealth, represented our Queen, has not
even raised the issue in ‘The Glenharrow
Case’ that may have reflected a totally different outcome for the Applicants.
I comment here; that the particular document, The Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997 or the initial Bill, did not make “an express reservation of rights” and
neither did the
Crown Minerals Act 1991 and later amendments.
SECTION 43, WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE PRIVY
COUNCIL- GLENHARROW APPEAL CASE DOCUMENT,
FOR SOME STRANGE REASON ?.
Section 43 of the Mining Act 1971 was the most powerful statute of all
in relation existing privileges under the MA 1971. Yet has allegedly, not been
heeded at all by the authorities administering the Act’s.
Although Section 43 of the Mining Act 1971, (Under General Provisions),
is pertaining to Existing Privileges,
it also states in Sub Sec (1); “-----acquired and held under this Act or any former Mining Act-----”
This statute is listed under the GENERAL
PROVISIONS of the Mining Act 1971 and relates therefore to any existing Privilege or
Application within this Act.
Furthermore, and relating directly to
myself regarding my Prospecting License Application 31 2583, Section 299 of the
Mining Act 1971 as per link below, is relevant to the situation
whereby on entering into wilderness land
on a totally new mineral discovery, another one, far more vast is discovered.
I also discovered other minerals within
these areas also, but now have been denied my statutory rights to these and the
rewards accordingly.
As in the case with these two privilege
applications. See as above : Sec 229-MA
1971
My Prospecting License 312583, Application,
was very crucial to the survival of my business along with Mining Permit Application 41452. (See more on this application at Timeline.
Both these were within close proximity to
my then current Mining License 32 3021. THIS APPLICATION WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH
SECTION 109
MA 1971 and Sec 229 of current Mining License ML-32 3021.
I relied heavily on the Statutory law of
the day, including what the then Prime Minister advised me, in his letter of 27
May 1991. "That my rights would not be
adversely effected".
Notwithstanding the facts, that I had
invested massive time and effort along with substantial costs in preliminary
surveys and evaluations over many hundreds of square kilometres discovering
these deposits.
(Please note, this is not classified as
exploration or prospecting. Visual assessments and mapping only.) Sec 229
inspired me to do this.
As at this date, it seems I have expended
many millions of dollars being faithful to the Acts of the day and now other
parties have complete control of ownership over my discoveries
under the mining Acts.
After 28 years, I have been left with
nothing. Not even a thanks from either Te Runanga Ngai Tahu or The Crown.
It is very obvious the Crown has revoked most current statutory rights
of existing licensees and applicants in the process of gifting the specific
Crown owned minerals to
Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu during the period 1989 to 2014.
Regardless of the fact that it was these applicants and licensees that
made the discoveries of these minerals under these Act’s and have expended vast
amounts in finance
and time doing so.
Only to have the Crown since, changing the law continually to “opt out”
of any liabilities for their actions.
A typical example of this, is the Associate Minister of Energy at the
time, Hon. H. Duynhoven, intentionally changing the then current Crown Minerals
Act 1991, by way of the
Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2003. In order to disallow the
interference of the Mining Act 1971.
See: Crown
Minerals Amendment Act 2003 and Associate
Minister of Energy welcomes Privy Council decision on Glenharrow Case.
The CM Act had
recently been amended once again. See: Crown
Minerals Amendment Act 2013
Because all my
applications were denied prior to the above AMENDMENTS (To RECTIFY WHAT I HAVE
BEEN TELLING THE CROWN FOR MANY MANY YEARS) and the
Glenharrow - Privy
Council case outcome, then I allege, the Crown remain legally responsible for
my current position to this day.
Also all my information’s and locations were mandatory to be filed with
all applications. The majority of applications all related to minerals on Crown
Land,
which remains the case to this time.
A typical example of the orgistrated and hypocritical epitome is show
within a Crown Minerals letter of July 2001, as above and in this letter
below, from Crown Minerals
business
manager: CM03
July 2002.
See: cm3jul02 and cm7oct97or visit at bookmark on this page
By denying my request for application forms to both renew or make
application for a new license on the current Mining License , ML-32 3021, I
allege the Ministry not only denied me my Statutory Right under Section 77-,MA 1971.
Furthermore, because the Ministry delayed all decisions on the
renewal rights along with the mineral ownership issues, the entire matter and
in particular, the right to trade on my property rights including the
application for the
Prospecting License was adversely affected. Notwithstanding the
valuation.
Note: Sec87, Subsec,-(2b)----‘BE OWNER OF ALL MINERALS LAWFULLY MINED FROM THE LAND
UNDER THE LICENSE.’
And Subsec,-(3)---- `THE
RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS FOR MINING PURPOSES
IN RELATION TO THE LAND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE MINING LICENSE WAS GRANTED”.
During the period this
mining license was current, the minerals lawfully mined and owned were, by way
of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, vested by the Crown to other
parties, namely, Te Ranunga O Ngai Tahu.
Therefore, proving the absolute fact, that Section 43 of the Mining
Act 1971, was not fully considered in relation to the above.
See
Comments on Glenharrow Case. Or Glenharrow-Privy
Council Appeal Documents (2.21
mbs)
ALSO From Crown Minerals (Note: this letter in part
advises that, " if you wish to apply for a new license, you must apply to
Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu").
Note:The Crown has never had an arrangement or
mandate as such with Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu.
And more importantly, it proves their illegal motives of telling
honest and legitimate licensees, like myself, that I must instead make my new
applications to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu rather than the Crown.
Proving again that Crown Minerals time and time again have advised
in writing that one (I), must apply to Te Runanga O NgaiTahu, if they wish to
renew or apply for a new license over the same
area,under Section 77 of the Mining Act 1971.
Especially refusing to action a request to renew my license under
the Statutes, well within the legal time-frames. Notwithstanding the fact, the
Crown never included this factor in the drafting
of the TRONT(PV)
Bill at all.
See below a letter to Crown Minerals and their response regarding matters of applying to Te Runanga O
Ngai Tahu, as continually advised by the Ministry.
The outcome of the Privy Council decision on the Glenharrow case
proves that I have always been legally correct on all these matters.
(See letters in timeline below.)
My
principle concerns are that the Crown had granted other privileges for nephrite
and serpentine (pounamu), during the same period, while not processing my applications.
AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS: A MINING LICENSE WAS GRANTED, UNDER THE
MINING ACT 1971, TO THE MAWHERA INCORPORATION ON 31 OCTOBER 1989, FOR THE
MAXIMUM PERIOD
OF 42 YEARS.
View
confirmation of granted licence and term of license.
After nearly 30 years of nothing but deceit, and
now in total disgust, I finally speak my word as a true New Zealander that
honoured and believed in the current Act’s and Guide to the
Mining Act,
when starting out in the industry many years ago with a Prospectors Right.
In other
words, the Crown have allowed me to discover and locate these minerals, under
the Mining Acts, at my expense and then vest those minerals, to other private
concerns
along with all
my information I was required to supply to the Ministry. Without any recompense
whatsoever.
Furthermore,
I consider myself as an intelligent person and I am absolutely disgusted that
even the Privy Council of the British Commonwealth, represented by our Queen,
has not
even raised the issue in ‘The Glenharrow Case’ that may have reflected a total
different outcome for them.
Regardless
of the fact that the statutes of the day made every legal attempt to promote
prospecting and mining on a fair allocation of rights to ALL persons.
To myself
as a commercial prospector and miner most of my life, it made no difference to
me if the minerals I discovered were owned by the Crown or other parties.
A legal
allocation of property rights to prospect and mine in return for royalties to
the owners respectively, is all that was required.
From all
events to date, it is blatantly obvious, all Ministries of the Crown involved
with these matters have sided completely with Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu on the
matter of gifting
(vesting)
the jade (Pounamu) minerals.
In the
process, the Crown departments have allegedly conspired to be rid of both the
discoverers of the minerals and the applicants or current licensees at the
time.
Except
those like the Mawhera Incorporation, who are affiliated with Ngai Tahu.
Evidence is
ample at this stage that the Crown have stepped over the legal line and could
well have committed various grave legal errors here, some bordering on theft,
of which
they have
accused and convicted others on. Notwithstanding racial prejudice, under
current laws.
All
applicants for mining privileges under the existing mining Acts of the day,
namely the Mining Act 1971, either had the opportunity just prior to the new
Crown Minerals Act 1991
to elect
wether or not, they preferred to retain their status as applicants under the
older Act or move to the new Act, (Crown Minerals Act 1991). I declared I
wished to retain my two
applications
under the Mining Act 1971.
Crown
Minerals seem to have forgotten that. The then, Ministry of Energy, advised all
existing applicants and privilege holders of this optional choice.
There was no legal obligation on Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu to provide
continual Rights to existing applicants, under any Act.
I comment here, that I allege that Parliament and the Government of
the day ministries failed in their Statutory obligations by not providing a
mandate within the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) act 1997 that protected the existing
Rights of both current Mining Privileges and Mining Privilege Applications
under the Mining Act 1971.
As set out in the Section 43 extract below and Subsection (2) of Section 69 with regard to "Any person may be granted more than one Mining
License".
(Meaning also, an application for a NEW LICENSE or Renewal as such,
of an EXISTING LICENSE)
As in my case, the existing privilege was my current Mining
Privilege, but my Prospecting Application was made due to the Rights provided under Section 229, MA 1971 and
Section
8 , MA 1971. As mentioned below, under the
then current mining privilege or license. Please note here, that Section 8,
Mining Act 1971, relates directly to the Crown
grant of land to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu and also the minerals,
serpentinite and nephrite jade, (pounamu}. Also note; that both were granted
well after my discoveries and
application delineating the location as such.
Hence, it is blatantly obvious why, the Ministry withheld my
official Prospecting License Application to the extreme period they did. For
purposes of future ownership of both
land and minerals for the advantage of other persons.
Clause (2), as below, definitely was not adhered to by the Crown.
An example
of the Ministries attitude generally is set out in a letter from the Minister
dated 30
June 2005, well after the Vesting
Act. Along with my reply.
In addition to this statutory factor and as mentioned above, Section
43 of the Mining Act 1971 specifically states as per this LINK.
Furthermore, I consider myself as an intelligent person, and I am
absolutely disgusted that even the Privy Council of the British Commonwealth,
represented our Queen,
has not even raised the issue in ‘The Glenharrow Case’ that may have
reflected a totally different outcome for the Applicants.
I comment here; that the particular document, The Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997 or the initial Bill, did not make “an express reservation of rights” and neither did the
Crown Minerals Act 1991 and later amendments.
SECTION 43, WAS NOT MENTIONED
IN THE PRIVY
COUNCIL- GLENHARROW APPEAL CASE DOCUMENT,
FOR SOME STRANGE REASON ?.
Section 43
of the Mining Act 1971 was the most powerful statute of all in relation to
existing privileges under the MA 1971. Yet has allegedly, not been heeded at
all by the authorities administering the Act’s.
Although
Section 43 of the Mining Act 1971, (Under General Provisions), is pertaining to
Existing Privileges,
it also
states in Sub Sec (1); “-----acquired
and held under this Act or any former Mining Act-----”
This statute is listed under the GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Mining
Act 1971 and relates therefore to any existing Privilege or Application
within this Act.
Furthermore,
and relating directly to myself regarding my Prospecting License Application 31
2583, Section 299 of the Mining Act 1971 as per link below, is relevant to the
situation
whereby on entering into wilderness land on a totally new mineral
discovery, another one, far more vast is discovered.
I also discovered other minerals within these areas also, but now
have been denied my statutory rights to these and the rewards accordingly.
As in the case with these two privilege applications. See: Sec 229-MA
1971
My Prospecting
License 312583, Application, was
very crucial to the survival of my business along with Mining Permit Application 41452. (Crown Minerals Act 1991). Both these were within close proximity to
my then current Mining License 32 3021. . THESE APPLICATIONs WERE
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 109 MA 1971 and Sec 229 of current Mining License ML-32
3021.
I relied heavily on the Statutory law of the day, including what the
then Prime Minister advised me, in his letter of 27
May 1991. "That my rights would not be
adversely effected".
notwithstanding the facts that I had invested massive time and
effort along with substantial costs in preliminary surveys and evaluations over
many hundreds of square kilometres discovering these deposits.
(Please note, this is not classified as exploration or prospecting.
Visual assessments and mapping only.) Sec 229 inspired me to do this.
As at this date, it seems I have expended many millions of dollars
being faithful to the Acts of the day and now other parties have complete
control of ownership over my discoveries under the Mining Acts.
After 26 years, I have been left with nothing. Not even a thanks
from either Te Runanga Ngai Tahu or The Crown.
It is very
obvious the Crown has revoked most current statutory rights of existing
licensees and applicants in the process of gifting the specific Crown owned
minerals to
Te Runanga
O Ngai Tahu during the period 1989 to 2014.
Regardless
of the fact that it was these applicants and licensees that made the
discoveries of these minerals under these Act’s and have expended vast amounts
in finance
and time
doing so.
Only to
have the Crown since, changing the law continually to “opt out” of any
liabilities for their actions.
A typical
example of this, is the Associate Minister of Energy at the time, Hon. H.
Duynhoven, intentionally changing the then current Crown Minerals Act 1991, by
way of the
Crown
Minerals Amendment Act 2003. In order to disallowthe interference of the Mining
Act 1971. See: Crown
Minerals Amendment Act 2003 and
Associate
Minister of Energy welcomes Privy Council decision on Glenharrow Case.
The CM Act has recently been amended once
again. See: Crown
Minerals Amendment Act 2013
Because all my
applications were denied prior to the above AMENDMENTS (To RECTIFY WHAT I HAVE
BEEN TELLING THE CROWN FOR MANY MANY YEARS) and the Glenharrow
- Privy Council case
outcome, then I allege,
the Crown remain legally
responsible for my current position to this day.
Also all my information’s and locations were mandatory to be filed with
all applications. The majority of applications all related to minerals on Crown
Land, which remains the case to this time.
A typical example of the orgistrated and hypocritical epitome is show
within a Crown Minerals letter of July 2001, as above and in this letter
below, from Crown Minerals business manager: CM03 July 2002.
See: cm3jul02 and cm7oct97or visit at bookmark on this page
See: “Can you apply for a new license” on page (1). AS ABOVE.
PROVING I HAVE BEEN CORRECT FROM THE OUTSET MANY YEARS PRIOR TO THIS LETTER AND
THE GLENHARROW - PRIVY COUNCIL CASE.
Please note throughout all my information’s and
correspondence herein, I have complained repetitively that Crown Minerals
refused to action my requests to both provide application
forms for a
renewal (new license application), well before the original license lapsed
(See: Mining License 32-3021 below) and they continually advised, as per many
letters herein, that
they could
not process any further applications. The Glenharrow–Privy Council decision
agreed with what I had been trying to tell the Crown since 1996, and the Crown
to this day,
have not
considered also Section 43 of the Mining Act 1991.
The only offer of recompense from the
Crown to date, was in 1996, by the Minister of Energy, D. Kidd
See also
exerts from Letters supplied under the Official Information Act between Crown
Offices: M.Commerce to Minister of Energy
and Minister of Energy to Waitangi Tribunal
MINING LICENSE 32- 3021
Catalogue of
relevant Sections of the Mining Act 1971
This License was granted
on 22 December 1989. The initial term of the license was 10 years. (Expiry date
was 22 December 1999), maximum term under the Mining Act 1971, was 40 years.
The
Crown neglected to record my initial request in August 1997 for an application
for the renewal of this current license.
This was sent to both the
Greymouth office and Wellington office of Crown Minerals, 15 months prior to
the expiry of the existing license.
During
this period the Crown Minerals Amendment Act had not come into force.
I was the one who had
previously alerted the Ministry to the fact that the Crown Minerals Act 1991
held provision for an existing License under the Mining Act 1971 to be exempt from
provisions
in the Crown Minerals Act
1991. See below.
With the combination of
both Section 43
and Section 77
of the Mining Act, I allege the Crown have defaulted in providing my statutory
rights that should have been accorded to me while
ML 32 3021 was current and
beyond.
Section 77. (2) " The
licensee shall have the right in priority over every other person to have
granted to him a new mining license in respect of the land to which the
existing license
relates, if he applies for
a new license not later than 30 day's before the expiry of the existing
license."
Contention:
Section 77 was not included in the
relevant subsections of Section 111 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 pertaining
to Existing Privileges. The Crown continue to dispute the interpretation
of this subsection, but
the fact remains that this right of priority over all other persons has
allegedly been illegitimately revoked. This right of priority also INCLUDES TE
RUNANGA O NGAI TAHU, as OTHER persons.
In August 1997,
prior to the enactment of the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, (As
above mentioned), the Crown refused to accept an application for a renewal (New
License under the Mining Act 1971).
THIS LICENSE WAS CURRENT BETWEEN 1989 and 1999, along with
the many other statutory rights considered with it.
Section
43. Existing mining privileges protected –
(1) No
Crown grant or conveyance, nor the grant of any mining privilege, shall have
the effect of revoking or injuriously affecting any existing mining privilege
acquired and held under this Act
or any
former Mining Act, whether or not any reservation or exception of the existing
mining privilege is contained in the Crown grant or conveyance or the grant of
the mining privilege.
(2)
Every such Crown grant or conveyance and every such grant of a mining privilege
shall be deemed to contain an express reservation of the rights to which the
holder of the existing mining privilege is entitled.
The Crown also dispute the
interpretation of this Section, but it does state “held under this Act” meaning
the Mining Act 1971. The right in dispute, is the right of priority accorded
under Section 77 as above.
Note that this license was denied the right of renewal
(New License), approximately 2 years before its expiry date and a REQUEST FOR
AN APPLICATION TO RENEW THIS LICENSE WAS MADE
PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE NGAI TAHU (Pounamu Vesting) ACT 1997. NOTWITHSTANDING
THE FACT I HAD PRIORITY OVER ALL OTHER PERSONS UNDER BOTH SEC 43
and SEC 77
of the MA 1971.
Also, even
though I undertook to renew my Mining License as above, Crown Minerals refused
to action this, saying I must apply to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu.
IN
PARTICULAR NOTE PART (2) of SEC 43.
Note, that Sec 43-Clause 2, MA 1971; specifically states “ deemed to contain an
express reservation of the rights to which the holder of the existing
mining
privilege is entitled.”
Nowhere
in the legal “Vesting” documentation is there an “EXPRESS RESERVATION OF RIGHTS”
as such. Even within the Glenharrow / Privy Council litigation documentation,
it was never mentioned.
Furthermore,
the Mining Act 1971, under General Provisions Relating to Applications for
Mining Privileges [ All types of applications except Prospector Rights], under
Variations of Conditions.
Within
the timeframe as set out in SEC 109,
and with Sec108, the Minister should have either made a
variation on conditions under Section 103D or declined the application within
that
timeframe
of 12months from the receipt of the applications on ANY statutory
grounds, thus giving me, the applicant, the right to object along with any
other persons, subject to law.
See also
Section
104A. Note that Section 104A specifically states in part: NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS ACT.
Section 109
would not have been in the MA Act 1971 unless it meant specifically that is the
normal maximum timeframe expected of the Minister to accept or decline.
From my experience dealing with many applications over the
previous years, this is correct.
Because all my applications were denied prior to
this and the Glenharrow Privy Council case outcome, then I allege, the Crown
remain legally responsible for my current position to this day.
Also their information’s and locations were made
mandatory to be filed with all applications. The majority of applications all
related to minerals on Crown Land, which remains the case to this time.
A typical example of the orgistrated and hypocritical
epitome is shown in this letter from Crown Minerals business manager, in 3 July
2002. After refusing to action my requests to renew my Mining License in August
1997,
and even the
supply of application forms by saying
I must apply to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu.
The below listed
letters prove beyond all doubt, my longstanding legal opinion on all matters
relating to the right to apply for a renewal on my then current mining license.
As included in the introduction above in the 1997 letter to Hon R,
Prebble from the Minister of Energy, on page two of that letter he states as
per this exert.
In effect, he has contradicted his statements on page
one of that letter.
In effect, what the Minister has said has been
contradicted by Crown Minerals because they continually ignored my request for
application also continually insisted I must instead apply to Te Runanga O Ngai
Tahu.
Yet the “Vesting Act” or, did not include any
provision for this at all or “Express Reservation of Rights”, as per Mining Act
1971, Section 43.
Letters from Crown Minerals also highlight these
issues.
See: cm7oct97 and
cm17mar98
and cm3jul02 .
See:
“Can you apply for a new license” on page (1). See
also cm15jul02 .
Also cm20may04 and cm10jun04,
which is considered as the most
important letter that highlights my concerns. Also 17 June 2004
The
below exert from that letter dated 10 June 2004 proves beyond all doubt that
Crown Minerals are having to admit that Section 43 was never considered when my
mining license was
current
and the only reason was because they never actioned my request to apply for a
new license or renewal as such.
Please note
throughout all my information’s and correspondence herein, I have complained
repetitively that Crown
Minerals refused to action my request to both provide application forms
for a renewal (new license application), well
before the original license lapsed (See: Mining License 32-3021 below) and they
continually advised, as per many letters herein, that they could not process
any further applications.
As per above letters, this request was well in
advance of my statutory timeframe prior to the expiry date of the particular
current Mining License.
My New MASSIVE Mineral Discoveries and
subsequent Applications
were also totally IGNORED.
SEE SECTION 229 under the Mining Act 1971.
The Glenharrow–Privy Council decision agreed with what I had been
trying to tell the Crown since 1996, and the Crown to this day, have not
considered also Section 43
of the Mining Act 1991.
The only offer of recompense from the Crown to date,
was in 1996, by the Minister of
Energy, D. Kidd.
See also exerts from Letters supplied under the Official Information
Act between Crown Offices: M.Commerce to
Minister of Energy and Minister of Energy
to Waitangi Tribunal
See: Ngai
Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997
See: Principal
Notes on Processing Applications
See: May-June 2004 -
Senior Adviser, Crown Minerals or at bookmark below.
See: 14 August 1997
- to Crown Minerals; Advising Intention to Apply for Renewal (New License)
See: 2004 - Debate with
Ministry of Commerce on Prospecting License Application 31 2583.
This enactment has been considered in the
vesting Act by including provision for the "existing privilege",
partially considered Section 43, because it specifically states an express
reservation of the rights.
However consideration has only been given
specifically to an existing privilege and not the express reservation of rights
to which the holder of existing mining privilege is entitled.
These rights are provided for
in Section 77 of the Mining Act 1971.
On page 6 of my Notes and Files, Ref.10,
Source No.8 /O.I. Act - Letter Crown Law Office to Ministry of Commerce, it
states in part:
" 6. It is interesting to note that Section 111 did not
include a reference to Section 77 of the MA 1971".
Section
111 states:
" -- a holder of an existing privilege makes an
application in respect of Crown owned minerals to which any of the enactment’s
specified in subsection (2) would have applied if this Act had
not been
enacted, then, notwithstanding section 107, --".
As a
renewal (new licence) application for ML 32 3021 does not apply to any of the
enactment’s specified in 111(2) and (1) states in part:
" notwithstanding
Section 107 ";
Then a renewal (new license) application under Section 111(2) of the
CM Act and a new license had to be applied for under Sections 111(1b), 23, 32,
then pursuant to Section 43 of the MA 1971, the existing rights of the
applicant cannot be
interfered with by grant or conveyance; (i.e. Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997).
Therefore
because my rights to apply for a renewal of ML 32 3021 were initially denied by
the Crown, but after argument in letters with myself, later conceded by the
Minister on the basis that the application would be approved
but the
license or permit would not be granted on the grounds that the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act prohibited any grant of a permit.
The Crown
has allegedly breached Section 43(2) of the MA 1971 by not providing express
reservation of the rights to which the holder of the existing mining privilege
is entitled.
Furthermore
the Ministry did not provided an application form for renewal as requested in
my letter of 14 August 1997, prior to the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997.
By not adhering to these matters the Crown have allegedly committed an
offence under Section 234 of the MA 1971.
Ministry statements and the vesting Act
advise that:
" The
rights of an existing licensee will not be affected by the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu
Vesting) Act 1997."
Section 3 of that Act, states in part:
"--Notwithstanding any other
enactment--"; and Section 4, states: " (1) Nothing in Section 3 affects an existing privilege or the
right or obligations of any holder of an existing privilege
and Part 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991
continues to apply in relation
to that privilege as if this Act had not been
passed"; Section 5, states
in part: " Notwithstanding anything in the Crown Minerals Act 1991";
and: "(a) Permit pursuant to an
application
made under
Section 23 of that Act before the commencement of this Act,
or (b)
Mining privilege pursuant to an application to which Section 112 of that Act
applies in respect of any pounamu to which Section 3 applies ".
(b) Applies only to existing applications
In summary, the Crown withheld the
processing of my application for a new license, (renewal or extension of current
license), for the simply reason of changing the mineral
ownership by way of The Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu) Vesting Act 1997.
The same reason the Crown withheld
the processing of my adjoining application for a Prospecting License for a
three year term, before declining the application on the grounds
the mineral no longer belonged to the
Crown.
Eight years after I lodged my application. Yet other
licenses were processed and granted within the same periods.
Below, a statement from my
Submission to the original Ngai Tahu (Pounamu) Vesting Bill, on 19 June 1997.
Note that
my current Mining License 32-3021 expired on 21 December 1999.
A request
for renewal under the Mining Act 1971 was made to the Ministry in a letter
dated 14 August 1997.
The
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu) Vesting Act 1997.
(Not signed
into law until December 1997)
Click
here for my full Submission – PDF
It is considered as irrelevant that the application
could be granted or declined for any particular mineral sought on the specific
land.
The point is, that my rights were denied by the Crown
prior to the enactment of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 and the
period 30 days prior to the expiry date of this license, thus causing extreme
disadvantage
to my accorded priority over other persons in
legitimately applying for a new license.
I allege that a new application in the process would
have further established my rights to have the new owners of any minerals
applied for, consider this right and application in any future transaction of
mineral ownership
and the perhaps the rights thereof to mine or extract
it.
The Crown therefore have denied me the right to apply
for a new license on that land for whatever mineral I wished to mine by not
responding to my written requests and by since refusing to recognise that these
rights were
also allowed for pursuant to the particular provisions
in the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997,
regardless of the actual vesting of the mineral ownership.
It is very obvious that Crown Minerals withheld all
action on this matter until Hon. H. Duynhoven, Associate Minister of Energy at
the time, initiated the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2003 which attempts to
rectify the statutes
more in Crown’s and Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu’s favour,
rather than the applicants or privilege holders.
The reason why my Prospecting License Application was
allegedly, illegally, withheld all those years.
GIVEN, Section 229
of the Mining Act 1971,
Section 43 of the MA 1971, especially subsection (2),
is specific to the express reservation of rights to the holder of the existing
mining license and that any Crown grant or conveyance shall contain express
reservation of
these rights.
These rights include those
provisions in Section 77 of the MA 1971.
Section 4 (1) of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act
1997 provided for these rights although not expressly as provided in the MA
1971.
Section 5 of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997
seems to revoke these rights and obligations included in the provisions of
Section 4 (1), but by including “Notwithstanding anything in the
Crown Minerals Act 1991” in that Section and also
stating “ Notwithstanding any other enactment” in Section 3, it must be
considered that an application for a new license or permit must be accepted and
processed according
to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and the Mining Act
1971, irrespective of the intention of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting Act.
In other words my rights
accorded under the Mining Act 1971 allegedly should have had a transitional
effect accordingly.
I have notified the Ministry
of this continually in the past.
In summary, the Crown withheld the
processing of my application for a new license, (renewal or extension of
current license), for the simply reason of changing the mineral ownership by
way of
The Ngai Tahu (Pounamu) Vesting Act
1997.
The same reason the Crown withheld
the processing of my adjoining application for a Prospecting License, applying
only for a three year term, before declining the application on the grounds the
mineral no longer belonged to the
Crown.
Nearly eight years after I lodged my
application. Yet other licenses were processed and granted within the same periods.
I had the right to have both a prospecting license and a mining license granted
over the same area of land for the
period at least until the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 was enacted.
Property Rights
Irrespective of all previous matters mentioned
in this document and in other material on this site.
Subject to the provisions of the Mining Act 1971
and the Transitional Provisions Relating to Minerals, of the Crown Minerals Act
1991, Mining Licence 32 3021 was refused an application for a new license under
Section 77
and Section 43 of the Mining Act 1971. The
request for application forms was made prior to the enactment of the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, prior to the 30 period of the expiry date of this
license and prior to
the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2003.
By refusing to allow me to apply for a new
license or permit, which we the holders had a right to apply for up to a period
of 42 years, the Ministry have revoked our property rights accorded under
Section 139 of the
Mining Act 1971, notwithstanding the provisions
in Sections 43, 77, 80, 87, 145 and 146 of that Act.
Further more, by vesting the pounamu minerals to
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu while this license was still current, this action
commercially devalued the licensed property, causing extreme disadvantage to
us, the licensees.
The Crown made no effort to purchase that
license from us or put responsibility on the new owners for a continuation of
our statutory accorded rights.
The Crown has never offered any compensation.
After much argument, the Ministry finally
advised that we had the right to apply for a new license or permit for up to 42
years but because the mineral was vested with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu in October
1997, then we
(or anyone else for that matter) would have to
apply to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu rather than the Crown. Simply because the Crown did not abide by
Section 43 of the MA1971.
The Crown advised that
they have no
agreement with Ngai Tahu to honour
the statutory rights accorded to the licensees. In effect both my statutory
rights and property rights were revoked while this license remained current.
PROSPECTING LICENSE APPLICATION 31 2583
Catalogue of
relevant Sections of the Mining Act 1971
Application for this
Prospecting License No.31 2583 was made in April 1989 for a maximum term of 3
years.
In a letter dated 10 May 1989, Crown Mineral
wrote advising me that a application for a mining licence would be more
appropriate.
It has to be presumed that Crown Minerals, then
Ministry of Energy, preferred that I delineate more specifically the exact
area’s or locations of the nephrite jade I wished to prospect and mine.
This of course would mean I would be divulging
strategic information which would extremely benefit other parties.
The narrow area and very long extension of the
application, over 175 kilometres long, would not be accepted as a mining
license application under the Mining Act 1971.
By making such an application, as it was,
delineated a very fine area anyway. This more or less showed the public exactly
where my earlier discoveries were situated.
Always an extreme disadvantage to me as the
discoverer, even to this day. Especially if my Application was declined for any
reason.
Which it eventually was.
One must consider that Section 229 of the Mining
Act 1971 inspired me to make this application after discovering it adjacent to
my current Mining License.
No objections were lodged following my initial
public notifications in accordance with the Act.
Neither
Ngai Tahu, Mawhera Incorporation or the Crown objected to the application after
public notification in Otago, Southland and Westland newspapers in July 1990.
The Crowns failure to
process this application subject to the Mining Act 1971 and their refusal to
recognise or accept my claims that they have failed their statutory
responsibilities by not doing so.
I allege the Crown. in
particular, the Minister of Energy at the time has breached not only Section
109 of the Mining Act 1971, but has not heeded the provisions in the MA 1971
especially subject to
Sec.109, but also the
lesser timeframe options and notifications he had available under all
Prospecting Licenses of the MA 1971 Sections 47 to 57b. These included both a
lesser timeframe for both
prospecting and mining
opportunities and others.
Thus allegedly may have
committed a continuing offence under Section 234 of that Act because the Crown
had no legal right to withhold the processing of this application for 10 years,
from April 1989,
up until 23 April 1998.
I had every right under
the current statutes to both receive and operate a limited timeframe
prospecting license followed by a limited timeframe mining license up until the
period the ownership of the
mineral was vested in Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu and any royalties
would have been paid under those Acts to Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu by the Crown.
Notwithstandng
the future possibilities of negotiating both prospecting and mining business
possibilities, in conjunction with Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu.
Crown Minerals and the
Secretary of Commerce have stressed that S.69 of the MA Act provides the power
to grant a mining license and also allows the Minister of Energy wide
discretionary powers.
Section 69 of the MA Act
1971 is specific to mining licenses; it does not however confer on the Minister
the right to disregard other provisions of the Act.
Especially when he Grants
licenses to others during the same period as showen throughout this
documentation.
(Prospecting Licences, under the MA Act 1971 are specific
to this application and although subject to his discretion and conditions,
subsection (1) clearly indicates the Minister is also subject to the
other provisions of the said
Act.)
The provisions in this case being S.109 (1,2,3),
of the MA Act 1971, notwithstanding the
enactments of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997; S.3 and S.5, both
stating in part;
“
notwithstanding any other enactment ”.
This
and other matters are raised above in the General Provisions sections as per
the ML 32 3021 section above.
Application for this Prospecting Licence 31 2583
was made in April 1989 for a maximum term of 3 years.
No objections were lodged following my initial
public notifications in accordance with the Act.
Neither
Ngai Tahu, Mawhera Incorporation or the Crown objected to the application after
public notification in Otago, Southland and Westland newspapers in July 1990.
Yet I was
continually advised in writing, it was the Department of Conservation that was not processing the Application.
Like all
applications, my rights to lodge an objection were denied because no decisions
were made at all by the Minister until after the enactment of the
Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997. Regardless of Section 109
and Section 229.
(As above)
A Judicial
Review being my only course of action to object other than a submission on the
Vesting Bill, which I exercised but was not heeded by anyone, except the fact
of highlighting the fact finally that
there was provision for my claims regarding my rights transferred
into the Crown Minerals Act 1991 from the Mining Act 1971.
My
application for a Mining License No. 32 3021 was applied for in approximately
the same period and was granted by the Minister of Energy on 22 December 1989.
Also Mining Licence Application 32 2682, Sweetman & Havill (now, Glenharrow Holdings Ltd) was granted
for pounamu one year after the grant of my Mining License No. 32 3021.
Both these mining licences were granted for a term of 10 years with
a statutory right of priority to apply for a new licence under Section 77 of
the Mining Act 1971 and under the
Transitional Provisions of the Crown
Minerals Act 1991.
Note here,
that I was advised by letter, that their application was more advanced than
mine.
I am well aware that my application was not dealt with at all for
nearly 10 years because both the Crown and Ngai Tahu knew that I had discovered
the largest jade deposits in New Zealand.
My Prospecting Licence Application 31 2583
would have only applied to a 3 year term.
The Guide to the Mining Act 1971; P17-4.6.1, states:
“ License applications without objections – The
Minister will grant the license”
Contention: Indicative,
but subject to the Act of course, that the Minister should have and was responsible
to grant or decline the application because there never were no objections.
I would have had to be notified, if there
were.
Section 109 : Applications to be disposed of within
specified time – (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, every
application for a mining privilege shall be disposed of by being granted or
refused
within 12 months after the date on which the application was made.
(2) The Minister may extend the period during which an
application for a mining privilege may be dealt with if he considers that an
extension is justified because of special circumstances.
(3) If an objection is made to an application for a mining privilege,
or if any objection on a question of law is made in respect of such an
application, the period from the date of service of the notice of objection
on the secretary to the date on which the objection is determined, or
the period from the date of filing the notice of objection to the date on which
the objection is finally determined, as the case may be, shall not
be included in the computation of any period of time for the purposes
of subsection (1) of this section.
Contention: Like all
applications, my rights to lodge an objection were denied because no decisions
were made at all by the Minister until after the enactment of the Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting Act) in 1997.
A Judical Review being my only course of action to object other than
a submission on the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill, which was exercised but
not heeded.
"License applications without objections - The
Minister will grant the licence."
"Section
109 of the Mining Act 1971 requires that an application be finally disposed of
by being granted or refused within 12 months after the date on which the
application was made unless an extension is granted
because of
special circumstances or an objection is lodged." None of these matters
were exercised or notified.
No
notification was ever received advising that the Minister was withholding a
decision pursuant to the statutes. Furthermore, Section 109 of the MA 1971
would not have been included in the Act if it was not meant
to be
understood as the normal time frame to process and decide on an Application as
such.
Ref 5 : Letter Crown Minerals to D.O.C [with
attachment]
Date : 19 May
1994
Source : No.19/O.I.Act
Extracts:
' I refer to the initial
requests and numerous reminders for decisions on consents from your Minister
for the applications listed below. At this time the average time between first
request and today's date is
three years, this does not
take into account the applications with respect to greenstone as we realise
these are held up by Waitangi Tribunal decisions.'
' I must point out that officials are required to have all Mining
Act 1971 and Coal Mines Act 1979 applications finalised to objection stage by
30 June 1994. Your urgent attention is needed to submit to your
Minister all outstanding
applications requiring his consent as soon as possible.'
The Ngai
Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997 did not become law until 1 October 1997, 9
years after my application was placed with the Ministry.
The
decision to decline the application also cited the Waitangi Tribunals
recommendations of 1991 and the Crown decision as consequence of these
developments by not issuing any further licenses for
pounamu in
the claim area of Ngai Tahu, pending settlement of the Ngai Tahu treaty claims.
Documented evidence substantiates that this claim area only related to
the pounamu within the Arahura Valley.
Irrespective of this recommendation the
Ministry still accepted further applications and fee's for pounamu
mining privileges as per my Mining Permit Application 41-452 lodged in 1996.
Allegedly being an indication that
lawfully they were obligated to do so. See: Letters Ministry
to Minister of Energy and Minister of
Energy to Waitangi Tribunal.
My letter of 1992 to the Ministry and the response See insert
Ref25) Then for what legal reason did the Minister of Conservation and the
Minister of Energy withhold my prospecting application?
Especially as this application pertained to ACCESS OF THE LAND FOR
PROSPECTING PURPOSES.
Below an extract from my
Files and Notes:
(3) If an objection is made to an
application for a mining privilege, or if any objection on a question of law is
made in respect of such an application, the period from the date of service of
the notice of objection on the Secretary
to the date on which the objection is determined, or the period from
the date of filing the notice of objection to the date on which the objection
is finally determined, as the case
may be, shall not be included in the computation of any period of time
for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section.
The Minister /
Ministry did not dispose of this application within the specified time
constraints.
The Minister did
not notify or advise of any period of extention.
My letter of 1992 to the Ministry and the response (see Ref 25
Files & Notes, confirms this. Also Ref 3
(F&N) confirms other privileges were granted during the period, see
Boustridge and Co and Mawhera including my ML 32 3021.
No objections were lodged on
public notices.
No statutory matters
prohibited the grant or decline of the application.
Section 104A, MA 1971 states: [ Minister
may decline application. :The Minister may at any time decline any application
for a mining privilege and, notwithstanding anything in this Act, any
objections under
this Act to the granting of that application shall
thereupon lapse and be of no effect.]
This section relates only to
a discretionary decline at any time.
Section 109, MA 1971 relates
to a decision within a period of time from when the application was made.
The Ministry declined this application under section 104A of the MA
1971 pursuant to the vesting Act but Section 240A (amendment) prohibited this
delegation of power because PLA 31 258 relates to land under Part III of
the Mining Act 1971.
As in my case, the existing privilege was my current Mining License
Privilege, but my Prospecting Application was made due to the Rights provided, as mentioned previously,
under the then current mining privilege or license. Also , SECTION
8, MA ACT 1971, relating to the land later vested
to Ngai Tahu.
As a footnote-----ALL I WISH TO SEE IS A LITTLE CONSIDERATION AND
JUSTICE FROM THE CROWN FOR WHAT I HAVE ACHIEVED FOR OUR COUNTRY ECONOMICALLY.
OTHERS HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND CONVICTED OF THEFT OVER ALL THESE
MATTERS; (Please Note: Not myself), BUT I ONE MUST CONSIDER THAT WHAT THE CROWN
HAVE DONE HERE, I CONSIDER, IS EVEN WORSE THAN THEFT.
For a
general over-view on all matters please visit my Extracts and
Notes
Statement of Claims
and Summary of Documents (Incomplete).
To TIMELINE of Documents and Correspondence
as below.
Click on listings below to open.
An Internet Connection is necessary on some of these reference
links
|
DOCUMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Summary_
Analysis ( Including
documents received under the Official Information Act. ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Submission to The Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Bill - JMM Association |
|
||
|
Submission to The Ngai Tahu
(Pounamu Vesting) Bill – K J Landaus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ngai Tahu Settlement Deed of
Covenant Relating to Greenstone Valley Area 1997-----------RELATES TO PROSPECTING LICENSE APPLICATION 31 2583 |
|
|
|
|
High Country Stations - Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.htm----------------------------------------------- RELATES TO PROSPECTING LICENSE APPLICATION 31 2583 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Alleged Breach of Bill of
Rights 1688 - (Internet
Connection Required) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Interpretation of
Application for License Renewal & Expropriation of Statutory Rights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MINING ACT 1971 – EXTRACTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PARLIAMENTARY, MINISTERIAL and OMBUDSMAN LETTERS:
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
09 November
1989 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
27
November 1990 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
14 March
1991 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
02 April
1991 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
27 May
1991 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
14 June
1996 |
from Secretary of Commerce –
( Advices Re: Existing Licenses and Applications) |
First Official Notice
on Current Licenses and Applications. States: Existing Rights will continue
until they expire. (Not existing licenses.??) (Could have had a PL
granted and a ML in this timeframe since Application date) |
|
|||||||||||
|
1996 |
from
Hon. Doug Kidd, Minister of Energy ( Offer of reimbursement of statutory
costs) |
|
||||||||||||
|
15 October
1996 |
from
Hon. Douglas Graham, Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations |
|
||||||||||||
|
02 September 1997 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
06 May
1997 |
Minister’s statements are incorrect |
## |
|
|
||||||||||
|
22 May
1997 |
from
Hon. Richard Prebble CBE - (Concerns on Pounamu Licensing Claims) |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
18 June
1997 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
20 August
1997 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
21 August
1997 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
20 October
1997 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
November
1997 |
Minister to Hon. Richard Prebble CBE
from Minister of Energy |
|
|
(PDF) |
|
|||||||||
|
22 April 1998 |
to Hon, M. Bradford,
Minister of Energy (Alleged Breach of the
Official Information Act and Suspension of Licensing) |
|
||||||||||||
|
09
December 1998 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
03 May
1999 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
05 May 1999 |
Hon.
Max Bradford, Minister for Enterprise and Commerce to Hon. Damien O'Connor MP |
VERY STATEGIC and IMPORTANT LETTER |
|
(PDF) |
|
|||||||||
|
31 May 1999 |
Requesting an
apology, but never received |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
25
November 1999 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
01
September 1999 |
to Sir B. Elwood, Ombudsman.
– (Powers of the Minister of Energy) |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
07 August
2000 |
G. Thomas, Ministerial
Adviser, Office of the Commissioner of Police. |
|
|
(PDF) |
|
|||||||||
|
15 August
2000 |
to G. Thomas, Ministerial
Adviser, Office of the Commissioner of Police. |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
16 July
2004 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
26 Aug
2004 |
reply from Hon. Harry
Duynhoven, Associate Minister of Energy |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
14 June
2005 |
Questioning offer to
reimburse Statutory Costs |
|
||||||||||||
|
30 June
2005 |
reply from Hon. Harry
Duynhoven, Associate Minister of Energy |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
05 July
2005 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
01 August 2005 |
reply
from Hon, Harry Duynhoven, Associate Minister of Energy |
Re: Judicial Review
and Reimbursements of Costs |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
04 August 2005 |
Re: Judicial Review
and Reimbursements of Costs |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
01
September 2005 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
06
September 2005 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
21
September 2005 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
31 July
2007 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
03
September 2007 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
23
October 2007 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
LEGAL: |
|
|||||||||||||
|
13 July 1998 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
26 April
2000 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
26 April
2000 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
08 June
2000 |
from G Thomas,
Superintendent, Ministerial Advisor, Office of the Commissioner, NZ Police |
|
||||||||||||
|
22 June
2000 |
to G Thomas, Superintendent,
Ministerial Advisor, Office of the Commissioner, NZ Police |
|
||||||||||||
|
10 July
2000 |
from G Thomas,
Superintendent, Ministerial Advisor, Office of the Commissioner, NZ Police |
|
||||||||||||
|
07 August
2000 |
from G Thomas,
Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner, NZ Police |
|
||||||||||||
|
15 August
2000 |
to G. Thomas,
Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner, NZ Police |
|
||||||||||||
|
31 July 2007 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
09 August
2007 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
09
October 2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
12
November 2007 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
2014 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
2014 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
2015 |
NOTE: No statement or legal opinion re:Section 43, MA 1971.But also no
criticism, of my claims within my documentation and presentations. |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
GENERAL: |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
02
December 1997 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
17 March
1998 |
from P. Stigley, Crown
Minerals; Ministry’s Statement of Position |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
08 April
1998 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
05 May
1998 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
22 June
2004 |
to P Stigley, Crown
Minerals; Obligations to Existing Licensee’s by Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
12 July
2004 |
|
|
(PDF) |
|
||||||||||
|
26 July
2004 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
28 July 2004 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
27September
2007 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
CORRESPONDENCE WITH CROWN MINERALS AND DAMIEN O’CONNOR
MP: |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
31July 2007 07 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
31 July
2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
03
September 2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
09 August
2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
02
October 2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
09
October 2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
09
October 2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
09
October 2007 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
MINING LICENSE
– ML 32 3021, APPLICATION FOR A NEW LICENSE (RENEWAL):
|
14 August
1997 |
to Crown Minerals; Advising
Intention to Apply for Renewal (New License) |
|
|
|
||||
|
07 October 1997 |
Reply on above request for all to renew my ML 32 3021) |
|
|
|||||
|
13 March 2001 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
04 July 2001 |
(See Comment note attached to this letter) |
## |
|
|||||
|
13 November 2001 |
from Z. Jackson-Frith, Credit Control Officer (Bond on Mining License |
|
|
|
||||
|
03 July
2002 |
(Relates to Privy Council Rulings
on New Licenses. No rulings on Renewals or Applications) |
|
||||||
|
15 July 2002 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
12 May
2004 |
(Relates
to Application for New ML) |
|
|
|
||||
|
20 May 2004 |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
10 June
2004 |
(Relates to
Application for New ML- Confirms receipt of Request) |
|
||||||
|
10 June 2004_2 |
(THIS LETTER HILIGHTS THE MAJORITY OF MY CONCERNS) |
|
|
|||||
|
17 June 2004 |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
12 July 2004 |
|
|
(PDF) |
|
||||
PROSPECTING
LICENSE APPLICATION – 31 2583:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 May 1989 |
from P.Brosnan, Ministry of Energy; Change to ML Application |
|
|
|
|
12 September 1989 |
from P.Brosnan, Ministry of Energy; Change to ML Application |
|
|
|
|
02 April 1991 |
|
|
|
|
|
27 May 1991 |
|
|
||
|
01 April 1992 |
|
|
|
|
|
24 April 1992 |
|
|
|
|
|
18 April 1994 |
|
|
||
|
21 April 1994 |
|
|
|
|
|
07 October 1997 |
|
(Comment) |
|
|
|
23 April 1998 |
from Secretary, Ministry of
Commerce; Decline of Application |
|
|
|
|
05 May 1998 |
to Manager, Crown Minerals;
Complaint of Alleged Breach of Mining Act 1971 |
|
|
|
|
08 May 1998 |
to P. Stigley, Crown
Minerals; Complaint of Alleged Breach of Mining Act 1971 |
|
|
|
|
29 November 2001 |
from P. Stigley, Business
Manager, Crown Minerals (Offer on PLA 31 2583) |
Application Fees. Offer on reimbursement of Costs |
|
|
|
12 May 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
07 October 1997 |
|
|
|
|
|
10 June 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
17 June 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
04 August 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROSPECTING PERMIT
APPLICATION – 41 452 (Crown Minerals
Act 1991)
NGAI TAHU :