OFF THE HOOK

Our rangatahi (youth) have some really insightful sayings.  One of my favourites is, “Off the hook,” which signifies many things. 

Initially, it referred to a phone not being hung up.  Then, over the years its meaning morphed to include getting out of difficulties, as in, “His lawyer got him off the hook.”

Today, it has also come to mean being either very good, as in, “The kai was off the hook”, or something that is beyond normal, as in, “Man, that skateboarder’s moves were off the hook.” 

A third modern meaning is something that is considered illogical or even insane, as in, “It’s off the hook to claim that apples can be compared with oranges because they are both fruit.”  That’s the meaning that came to my mind as I sat in the judicial conference yesterday and listened to the Crown’s latest argument about the Ngāti Kahu claim for remedies that is currently before the Waitangi Tribunal. 

Essentially the Crown argues that, because the Tribunal is now composed of an entirely new panel, the previous Tribunal having recused itself, then they must start a new inquiry to determine for themselves if Ngāti Kahu has well-founded claims, even though that has already been determined by both the 1997 and 2012 Tribunal panels and reports.  Additionally, it argues that a new inquiry ought to be started to cover all other unheard claims up to the present day.

The basis of its argument is a legal principle, audi alteram partem, which translates as, “he who hears must decide.”  While there is undoubted merit in that principle, it must be offset against another legal principle that says, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”  Ngāti Kahu have been seeking remedies for thirty years now, and to suggest that the new Tribunal ought to make a ruling that will delay that any longer is, in my opinion, “off the hook”. 

As is usual with judicial processes, the arguments were largely technical and often complex and were advanced mainly by lawyers.  However, a couple of points were illustrative of the Crown’s position.

First, the Crown concedes the possibility that this new panel, if it does start a new inquiry to hear all claims up to the present day, may yet arrive at the same point as the previous two panels with regard to Ngāti Kahu’s claims being well-founded.  The very possibility of such an outcome would surely be a travesty of justice delayed and thus denied.

Second, the Crown asserted that, because Ngāti Kahu’s claims are made against the Crown, and because the Tribunal has been set up by the Crown to make recommendations to the Crown, then it too is entitled to be heard in a new inquiry and to receive the Tribunal’s report on that inquiry. 

However, the Tribunal Judge was clear that any decision it made for binding recommendations cannot be appealed by the Crown. 

As I complete this article the Crown is still talking and there is no way of knowing how the Tribunal will rule.  But it is very clear from the kōrero of our people that they agree with our rangatahi; the Crown’s arguments are “off the hook.”