14 Dec 2023

Demolitions of Te Urewera huts found to be unlawful - judicial review

6:17 pm on 14 December 2023
One of the Department of Conservation back country huts in Te Urewera given historic status within the department, Waiotukapiti Hut, is a rare totara-slab hut built in the 1950s by the Department of Internal Affairs as a base for deer cullers.

One of the Department of Conservation back country huts in Te Urewera. (file image) Photo: Supplied / Pete Shaw

A judicial review has found demolition of a network of huts in Te Urewera was unlawful.

Twenty-nine huts were burned down in 2022 at the direction of Tūhoe's post settlement entity Te Uru Taumatua following a decision by Te Urewera Board to decommission Department of Conservation (DOC) infrastructure within Te Urewera.

The move was supported by the director-general of DOC.

Wharenui Tuna of Tūhoe (Te Whakatane hapū) obtained an interim injunction to prevent the destruction of further huts in November 2022.

A further 10 huts were burned down following the interim injunction. Te Uru Taumatua denied responsibility and police were investigating.

Now, the High Court has found the DOC director-general, Te Uru Taumatua and Te Urewera Board acted contrary to Te Urewera Act in allowing the huts to be demolished.

In particular, Te Uru Taumatua and the board acted failed to act so that:

  • The indigenous ecological systems and biodiversity of Te Urewera were preserved,
  • Tūhoetanga, which gives expression to Te Urewera, was valued and respected, and
  • Freedom of public entry and access to Te Urewera was preserved.

The court also found Te Uru Taumatua acted unlawfully by demolishing the huts without having in place an annual operational plan, and that Te Uru Taumatua and the director-general acted unlawfully by failing to prepare an annual operational plan for the past two years, as required by law.

The decision also said the board and DOC acted unlawfully "by purporting to adopt a retrospective annual operational plan authorising the huts' demolition".

The court described this as "a striking example of reviewable error" on behalf of the director-general.

Get the RNZ app

for ad-free news and current affairs