|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Māori Law Resources |
Last Updated: 10 March 2025
Mahuru | September 2023
Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Aotearoa
Wellington, New Zealand
Pūrongo Rangahau | Study Paper
24
Appendix 4:
Timeline of statutory and common law engagement
with tikanga
The following timeline is provided as a supplement to Part Two of this Study Paper. It illustrates how statutes and common law addressing tikanga have developed since 1840 and, as they do so, the inter-relationship between statutes and the common law. The timeline should be viewed with this illustrative purpose in mind. The descriptions of cases and statutes have been shortened. They do not provide a comprehensive analysis of the statutes and cases, which can be found in Part Two.
1841
Land
Claims Ordinance 1841
The Crown has exclusive right of preemption. This
right is only explicable upon recognising customary land
rights.[1]
1844
Native
Exemption Ordinance 1844
Muru-like penalties may apply in interracial
theft cases.[2] Māori who are
convicted of theft may pay up to four times the value of the goods instead of
facing other punishment.[3]
1846
Residents
Magistrates Courts Ordinance 1846
Maori assessors may sit in with any
Magistrate in civil cases as a “Native Assessor” with significant
decision-making
powers.[4]
1847 – COMMON LAW
R v
Symonds
Native title is cognisable at common law. Gives early
recognition to proprietary customary
interests.[5]
1847 & 1849 – COMMON LAW
R v
Native and R v
Rangitapiripiri
Maori laws and customs remain in place unless they are
contrary to the law of humanity. Smaller matters of Native custom are to be
left
to Māori themselves.[6]
1852
New
Zealand Constitution Act 1852
Districts may be set apart where Native
“laws, customs, or usages... so far as they are not repugnant to the
general principles
of humanity” would
apply.[7]
1858
English
Laws Act 1858
The laws of England apply in Aotearoa New Zealand
“so far as applicable to the circumstances of the said Colony of New
Zealand”.[8]
Native
Districts Regulation Act 1858
The Governor in Council may make
regulations within districts “...for the suppression of injurious Native
Customs; and for the
substitution of remedies and punishments for injuries in
cases in which compensation is now sought by means of such
Customs.”[9]
Native
Circuit Courts Act 1858
The Governor in Council may establish districts
where Native Title has not been
extinguished.[10] Within those
districts Māori assessors may sit with Magistrates in the Native Court
Circuit with criminal and civil
jurisdiction.[11] Also, two or more
Māori assessors may sit as “The Assessors’ Court” with
all the powers and functions of the
Native Circuit Court within those
districts.[12]
1862
Native
Lands Act 1862
Several changes to Māori customary rights regarding
land are made and the right of pre-emption to the Crown is
waived.[13] The Governor may
constitute a new court to ascertain Māori
land.[14]
1865
Native
Lands Act 1865
The Native Land Court may make determinations on
Māori custom as it relates to Māori land. The purpose is to ascertain
the
owners of land “still subject to Maori proprietary customs” and
to encourage the “extinction of such proprietary
customs”.[15]
Native
Rights Act 1865
Every interest in Māori land over which Native
title has not been extinguished will be determined according to the
“Ancient
Custom and Usage of Maori people so far as the same can be
ascertained”.[16]
1867
Native
Schools Act 1867
Native schools may be established and funded, provided
that the ordinary subjects of English education are taught in the English
language.[17]
1867 – COMMON LAW
Papakura
Claim of Succession
Children of intestate Māori will inherit land
in equal shares.[18] This decision
results in the fragmentation of Māori land.
1870 – COMMON LAW
Kauwaeranga
Judgment
Rights of local Māori to fish the foreshore are
recognised, but “title” rejected having regard to “the evil
consequences which might ensue from judicially declaring that the soil of the
foreshore ... will be vested in the
Natives”.[19]
1872 – COMMON LAW
Re
Lundon and Whitaker Claims Act 1871
The Crown is the sole source of
title to land.[20] That does not
prevent the Crown from recognising Māori customary rights at common
law.[21]
1877
Fish
Protection Act 1877
The “rights of Aboriginal natives to any
fishery secured to them” under the Treaty of Waitangi are
recognised.[22]
1877 – COMMON LAW
Wi
Parata v Bishop of Wellington
The Crown is the sole arbiter of its own
justice.[23] Proprietary customary
interests are rejected. The Treaty is a “simple nullity”, and
Māori are said to have no form
of civil government or law.
1881
The
Native Succession Act 1881
Maori may apply to the Court to
“inquire and ascertain who out to succeed” to Māori land or
hereditaments.[24] Courts are to be
“guided by Native custom or usage” regarding Māori land and
“guided by the law of New Zealand”
regarding
hereditaments.[25]
1882 – COMMON LAW
Mangakahia v New Zealand Timber Co
The Court
recognises customary ownership in
land.[26] However, the Court holds
that ownership according to Native custom does not enable customary owners to
enforce trespass under English
law.
1883
Native
Committees Act 1883
Elected “Native
Committee[s]”[27] may sit as a
court of arbitration and determine disputes between natives “where the
cause of the dispute has arisen within
the district and the matter does not
exceed twenty pounds in
value”.[28]
1888 – COMMON LAW
Rira Reti v Ngaraihi Te Paku
Maori customs
and usages are only enforceable insofar as the laws of England provide for their
recognition.[29]
1894
Native
Land Court Act 1894
The Native Land Court has the exclusive jurisdiction
to determine, on the death of any native, the interest in such Native land or
personal property according to Native
custom.[30]
1895
Native
Land Laws Amendment Act 1895
Ōhākī are unable to be
recognised as a legally valid distribution of
property.[31]
1900
Maori
Councils Act 1900
Councils may formulate general plans for the
management of Māori within particular districts. The councils’ duties
include
“the suppression of injurious Maori customs, and for the
substitution of remedies and punishments for injuries in cases in
which
compensation is now sought by means of such
customs”.[32]
1900 – COMMON LAW
Mueller v Taupiri Coal-Mines Ltd
Acknowledges
pre-existing customary proprietary rights in
riverbeds.[33]
1901 – COMMON LAW
Nireaha
Tamaki v Baker
It is “rather late in the day” for the
argument to be made as it was in Wi Parata that there was no customary law of
Māori
that the courts could
recognise.[34]
1902 – COMMON LAW
Wallis v
Solicitor General
As the law stood at the time of the Treaty of
Waitangi, the tribes of New Zealand were entitled to dispose of their lands as
they
pleased, subject only to the right of pre-emption of the
Crown.[35]
1907
Tohunga
Suppression Act 1907
Provides that it was an offence to practice as a
“tohunga” in the manner described in the
Act.[36]
1908 – COMMON LAW
Public
Trustee v Loasby
A three-part test determines whether Māori customs
could be recognised in the common
law.[37]
1909
Native
Land Act 1909
Whāngai is not recognised as a legal adoption
according to New Zealand law. Instead, an order must be made subject to certain
requirements by the Native Land
Court.[38]
Assumes the existence
of customary title independent of Crown
recognition.[39] Customary title is
not enforceable in any Court against the
Crown.[40] Crown action is unable to
be challenged in any court on the basis the customary title had not been duly
extinguished.[41]
1910 – COMMON LAW
Baldick
v Jackson
Rights to whaling are not affected by an English statute given
this was inconsistent with recognising Māori fishing rights preserved
by
the Treaty.[42]
1912 – COMMON LAW
Tamihana
Korokai v Solicitor-General
The Native Land Court has jurisdiction to
determine Māori customary rights in lake
beds.[43]
1914 – COMMON LAW
Waipapakura
v Hempton
Customary rights to fishing in tidal waters are unenforceable
in the absence of statutory
recognition.[44]
1915 & 1943
War
Pensions Act 1915 & 1943
Recognise marriage in accordance with “native custom” when
claims of partners to a war pension are being
determined.[45]
1917 – COMMON LAW
Tua Hotene v Morrinsville Town Board
The bed
of a river is vested in adjacent landowners according to the ad medium
filum rule.[46]
1919 – COMMON LAW
Hineiti
Rirerire Arani v Public Trustee
The right of Māori to adopt
according to Māori customs is not interfered with by the adoption
provisions in the Native Lands
Act.[47]
1945
Maori
Social and Economic Advancement Act 1945
Tribal committees and
Māori wardens are established and are empowered to promote Māori
interests within the districts.[48]
1950 – COMMON LAW
R
v Morison
At the time the Treaty was signed the Wanganui River was held
by Māori according to their custom and usages, but any such rights
vested
with the adjacent lands.[49]
1951
Maori
Purposes Act 1951
Maori are subject to the same marriage law
requirements as Europeans.[50]
1953
Maori
Affairs Act 1953
Marriage or adoption in accordance with Māori
custom is not valid.[51] No
Māori will is valid unless executed in the same manner as a European
will.[52]
1955
Adoption
Act 1955
No person is capable of being adopted in accordance with
Māori custom.[53]
1955 – COMMON LAW
Re the Bed of the Wanganui River (No 1)
Potential for customary rights in the Wanganui riverbed acknowledged
irrespective of adjacent land
ownership.[54]
1956 – COMMON LAW
Inspector of Fisheries v Ihaia Weepu
Customary rights to fish in the river are extinguished with the vesting of
adjacent lands and riverbed.[55]
Re the Bed of the Wanganui River (No 2)
Any customary title to the bed of
the Wanganui River was transferred with the alienation of the adjacent
land.[56]
1963 – COMMON LAW
Re the Ninety Mile Beach
Pre-existing
customary rights to foreshore acknowledged but they did not survive statutory
extinguishment.[57]
1965 – COMMON LAW
Keepa v Inspector of Fisheries
Any fishing
rights in the foreshore do not survive alienation of the adjacent
lands.[58]
1967
Maori
Affairs Amendment Act 1967
The registrar of a relevant court must change
the status of Māori freehold land owned by up to four owners to General
land.[59] Determinations of
succession to real and personal property of Māori must be made as if the
deceased had been a European.[60]
1968
Guardianship
Act 1968
The only guardians of a child as of right are the natural birth
mother and father of the child.[61]
1975
Treaty
of Waitangi Act 1975
The Waitangi Tribunal is established and has
jurisdiction to consider claims for breaches of the Treaty.
Protected
Objects Act 1975
The ownership and custody of taonga tūturu is
determined by the tikanga of the people associated with the
taonga.[62]
1976
Property
(Relationships) Act 1976
Amended in 2001 to exclude “taonga”
from the definition of “family
chattels”.[63] Taonga is not
defined in the Act.
1977
Town
and Country Planning Act 1977
Recognises in principle “the
relationship of the Maori people and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral land”.[64]
1985
Criminal
Justice Act 1985
Offenders may call witnesses to speak to the ethnic or
cultural background of the
offender.[65]
Law
Commission Act 1985
In making its recommendations, the Law Commission
must consider te ao Māori.[66]
1986 – COMMON LAW
Te Weehi
v Regional Fisheries Officer
Courts should not render indigenous rights
conceptually in terms only appropriate to English law systems. Right to fish
remains despite
alienation of adjacent
lands.[67]
1987 – COMMON LAW
Huakina
Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority
“[T]he Treaty is part
of the fabric of New Zealand society”, it has a status “perceivable,
whether or not enforceable,
in law” and it contains “promises which
the Crown is obliged to
perform”.[68] Also,
“customs and practices that include spiritual elements are cognisable in a
court of law provided they are properly established,
usually by
evidence.”[69]
The
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society v W A Habgood Ltd
The
definition of “ancestral land” in the Town and Country Planning Act
1977 is not limited only to land owned by Māori.
“There may be a
danger in interpreting what a European would describe as his or her ancestral
land. What is required to be determined
is the relationship of the Maori people
and their culture and traditions with their ancestral
land”.[70]
1988
Coroners
Act 1988
Coroners must have regard to certain matters when deciding
whether or not to authorise the examination of a body. These include a
person’s ethnic origins, social attitudes, customs, or spiritual
beliefs.[71]
1989
Children,
Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (now Oranga Tamariki Act 1989)
In principle, a young person’s whānau, hapū, and iwi are key
considerations when making decisions under the
Act.[72] Several provisions allow
the child’s whakapapa and cultural ties to be
considered.[73]
1991
Resource
Management Act 1991
Recognises, in principle, “the relationship of
Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites,
waahi tapu, and other
taonga”.[74]
“[K]aitiakitanga” must be considered when exercising powers under
the Act.[75]
Amendments in 2017
provide for shared decision-making agreements between local government and
tangata whenua, through their iwi authorities,
to participate in resource
management decisions.[76]
1992
Treaty
of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992
Transfers a portion
of commercial fishing quotas to
Maori.[77] Customary food gathering
is recognised through
regulations.[78]
Mental
Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992
In exercising
powers under this Act, recognition must be given to the person’s cultural
identity and ties with their whānau,
hapū and
iwi.[79]
1993
Te
Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993
Creates a significant shift in Māori
land policy, with a focus on retaining Māori land within Māori
ownership.
1995
Waikato
Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995
Legislates for the deed of settlement
reached between Waikato and the Crown for historical confiscation of Waikato
land. This is the
first major historical settlement Act of many that involve
recognition of tikanga.[80]
1997 – COMMON LAW
Barton-Prescott
v Director-General of Social Welfare
Tikanga concepts, including
whānau and whakapapa, are important in determining what is in the best
interests of the welfare of
a
Māori.[81]
1998 – COMMON LAW
Watercare
Services Ltd v Minhinnick
Whether an activity is “noxious,
dangerous, offensive or objectionable” should be approached from the
perspective of the
wider community. The approach of the High Court in directing
itself by reference to a reasonable Māori person representative
of the
Māori community was wrong.[82]
1999 – COMMON LAW
McRitchie
v Taranaki Fish and Game Council
Customary fishing rights do not attach
to introduced species that have been regulated since their
introduction.[83]
2000 – COMMON LAW
Te Waka
Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission
Those
entitled to benefit in the Maori fisheries settlement are successors of the
“iwi” in a traditional sense, that is,
all people who share kin
links and genealogy.[84]
2002
Climate
Change Response Act 2002
Members of the Climate Change Commission must
have an understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and te ao Māori (including
tikanga
Māori.[85] When
exercising powers under the Act, the Commission must have regard to “the
Crown-Māori relationship, te ao Māori...and
specific effects on iwi
and Māori”.[86]
Sentencing
Act 2002
Courts “must take into account the offender’s
personal, family, whānau, community and cultural background in imposing
a
sentence...”.[87]
Offenders may request the court to hear any person to speak on the cultural
background of an offender.[88]
2003 – COMMON LAW
Ngati
Apa v Attorney-General
Customary proprietary interests, in the context
of land, continue to exist unless such interests have been expressly
extinguished
in the statute.[89]
2004 – COMMON LAW
Proprietors
of Parininihi ki Waitotara Block v Ngaruahine Iwi Authority
The Loasby test contains the criteria that Māori custom must meet to be
part of the common law in Aotearoa New
Zealand.[90]
2006
Coroners
Act 2006
The Coroner must consider the customary requirement that
immediate family members be able to view, touch, or remain with or near the
body
according to tikanga Māori.[91]
2007 – COMMON LAW
R v
Iti
A similar test to Loasby is applied for recognition of customs in
the criminal law context. The custom in question – the discharge
of a
firearm on the marae ātea – is not reasonable in the
circumstances.[92]
2011
Marine
and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
Repeals the Foreshore and
Seabed Act 2004. Provides the right for iwi, hapū and whānau to seek
legal recognition of protected
customary rights and customary marine
title.[93]
2012 – COMMON LAW
Paki v
Attorney-General
Ngati Apa continues to be good law.
“[A]pplication of the common law presumption of riparian ownership to the
middle of the
flow could not arise until Maori customary interests were
excluded”.[94]
R v
Mason
A parallel or alternative criminal justice system based on tikanga
Maori is not available to
Māori.[95] Tikanga can play
“a meaningful role in criminal proceedings, provided it can be
accommodated within the existing statutory
system.”[96]
The Court of
Appeal observes “tikanga is not presently a viable legal process for
serious crime even if continuity of custom
could be
demonstrated”.[97]
Takamore
v Clarke
Tikanga values, like other important values, are relevant to
the development of the common law and should be balanced alongside other
relevant factors.[98]
2014
Te
Urewera Act 2014
Te Urewera has a legal personality in recognition of
Ngāi Tūhoe tikanga.[99]
Heritage
New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
All persons performing functions
under the Act must recognise “the relationship of Maori and their culture
and traditions with
their ancesteral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tupuna,
wāhi tapu, and other
taonga”.[100]
2016
Te
Ture mō Te Reo Māori Act 2016
Te reo Māori an official
and indigenous language of Aotearoa New
Zealand.[101]
2016 – COMMON LAW
Fenwick
v Naera
The strict no self-dealing rules of fiduciary relationships
apply to trustees of ahu whenua trusts under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act
1993, even
though it is common for trustees to have overlapping interests as beneficiaries
in multiple trusts in Māori land
governance.[102] Tikanga was not
considered in evaluating the application of the rule, however, “cultural
factors” may be relevant in
terms of remedy for
breach.[103]
Re
Tipene
The first application under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai
Moana) Act 2011 for an order recognising customary marine title.
The High Court
finds “overwhelming” evidence of the claimant group’s
exclusive use and occupation of the Tītī
islands since 1840 and that
the relevant area had been held in accordance with
tikanga.[104] An order recognising
customary marine title should be
made.[105]
2017
Te
Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017
“Te Awa
Tupua is a legal person and has all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities
of a legal person”.[106]
Children,
Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017
Modifies and renames the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act
1989. The principal sections within the Act are expanded by
recognising mana
tamaiti, whakapapa and
whanaungatanga.[107]
2018 – COMMON LAW
Tukaki
v Commonwealth of Australia
Tikanga values can be weighed in the
interpretation and application of s 8 of the Extradition Act 1999 despite no
reference to tikanga
in the
Act.[108]
Ngāti
Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney-General
“Rights and
interests according to tikanga may be legal rights recognised by the common law
and, in addition, establish questions
of status which have consequences under
contemporary
legislation”.[109]
Ngāi
Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation
Decision-maker has a statutory obligation to give effect to the principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi. Failure to have proper regard
to mana whenua when
considering whether to grant concessions to conduct guided tours on Rangitoto
and Motutapu islands is an error
of
law.[110]
Kusabs
v Staite
Regard must be had to whanaungatanga when considering fiduciary
duties in the context of Maori land
administration.[111]
2019
Kāinga
Ora–Homes and Communities Act 2019
The board of Kāinga Ora
must ensure systems and processes, for the purposes of carrying out its urban
development functions,
protect Māori interests in
land.[112] The board must
recognise and provide for “the relationship of Māori and their
culture and traditions with their ancestral
lands, waters, sites, wāhi
tapu, and other taonga.[113]
2020
Education
and Training Act 2020
The integration and reflection of tikanga
Māori within the schooling system are key objectives of schools and other
special institutions.[114]
COVID-19
Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020
There is an expert consenting
panel for considering projects under the
Act.[115] Collectively, the
members of the panel should have “expertise in tikanga Maori and
matauranga Māori”.[116]
The panel must also “recognise tikanga Māori where appropriate”
in the conduct of a hearing.[117]
2021 – COMMON LAW
Ngawaka
v Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board (No 2)
Courts must
be careful about ‘finding’
tikanga.[118] A court’s
recognition of tikanga can only ever be at a certain time for a certain
purpose.[119] A court’s
decision on tikanga cannot change the tikanga as determined by the hapū or
iwi.[120]
Ngāti
Maru Trust v Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whaia Maia Ltd
The
Environment Court does not have jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act
to confer, declare, or affirm tikanga-based rights,
powers and/or
authority.[121] This jurisdiction
rests in the High Court and/or Māori Land
Court.[122]
Re
Edwards (Te Whakatōhea No 2)
In the context of claims under the
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, whakapapa and whanaungatanga are
important concepts
in a court’s assessment of whether the applicant group
holds an area in accordance with
tikanga.[123] It is not the role
of the court to define the tikanga of the
applicants.[124] The proper
authorities on tikanga are those living persons who retain the mātauranga
of their tīpuna.[125]
Trans-Tasman
Resources Limited v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board
Tikanga-based
customary rights and interests are “existing interests” under the
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental
Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012
(EEZ Act).[126] Tikanga as law
must be taken into account as “other applicable law” under the EEZ
Act.[127]
“[E]xisting
interests” and “other applicable law” should not only be
viewed through a Pākehā lens
and all interests “reflect the
relevant values of the interest
holder”.[128]
Sweeney
v The Prison Manager, Spring Hill Corrections Facility
“[T]he
Courts can, and may have an obligation to, recognise and uphold the values of
tikanga Māori in applying the law
of judicial review and granting
remedies”.[129]
2022 – COMMMON LAW
Ngāti
Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney General (No 4)
Tikanga is
a “free-standing” and separate system of law that may be recognised
by courts or statutes.[130]
Ellis v
R
Tikanga will continue to be recognised in the development of the
common law of Aotearoa New Zealand as relevant, acknowledging that
tikanga is
the first law of Aotearoa New
Zealand.[131]
The traditional
colonial tests for the incorporation of tikanga in the common law should no
longer apply.[132]
Care must
be taken not to “pick and choose” elements of tikanga and the
integrity of tikanga must be taken seriously;
tikanga remains rooted in its own
world.[133]
Wairarapa
Moana Ki Pouākani Incorporation v Mercury New Zealand Limited
Tikanga is a “principles-based system of law that is highly sensitive
to context and sceptical of unbending
rules”.[134] Mana whenua was
not an absolute determining factor when it came to exercising the Waitangi
Tribunal’s resumption power over
land.[135]
[1] Ngati
Apa v Attorney-General [2003] NZCA 117; [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA) at
[36].
[2] Native
Exemption Ordinance 1844, s
7.
[3] Native
Exemption Ordinance 1844, s
7.
[4] Residents
Magistrates Courts Ordinance 1846, s
19.
[5] R v
Symonds (1847) NZPCC 367 (SC).
[6] R v
Rangatapiripiri [1847] NZSC; and R v
Native (Ratea) [1849] NZSC. Both cases can be found as part of the
New Zealand Lost Cases project run by Victoria University of Wellington. See
<http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZLostC/>
.
[7] New
Zealand Constitution Act 1852, s 71.
[8] English
Laws Act 1858, s 1.
[9] Native
Districts Regulation Act 1852, s 71.
[10] Native
Circuit Courts Act 1858, s 1.
[11] Native
Circuit Courts Act 1858, s 2.
[12] Native
Circuit Courts Act 1858, s 32.
[13] Native Lands Act 1862,
Preamble.
[14] Native
Lands Act 1862, s 4.
[15] Native
Lands Act 1865, Preamble.
[16] Native
Lands Act 1865, s 4.
[17] Native
Schools Act 1867, s 21.
[18]
”Papakura
- claim of succession” (12 April 1867) New Zealand Gazette 19.
[19] Alex Frame ”Kauwaeranga
judgment law in the Pacific” (1984) 18 Victoria University of
Wellington Law Review 227 at 244.
[20] Re
the Lundon and Whitaker Claims Act 1871 (1872) 2 NZCA 41 at 49.
[21] Ngati
Apa v Attorney-General [2003] NZCA 117; [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA) at [18].
[22] Fish
Protection Act 1877, s 8.
[23] Wi
Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877) 3 NZ Jur (NS) SC 72.
[24] The
Native Succession Act 1881, s 3.
[25] The
Native Succession Act 1881, s
3.
[26] Mangakahia v New
Zealand Timber Co Ltd (1881) 2 NZLR 345 (SC) at 350.
[27] Native
Committees Act 1883, s 4.
[28] Native
Committees Act 1883, s 11.
[29] Rira Reti v Ngaraihi Te
Paku (1888) 7 NZLR 235 (CA) at 238-240.
[30] Native
Land Court 1894, s 14.
[31]
Native
Land Laws Amendment Act 1895, s 33.
[32] Maori
Councils Act 1900, s 15.
[33] Mueller v Taupiri
Coal-Mines Ltd (1900) 20 NZLR 89 (CA).
[34] Tamaki v
Baker [1901] UKLawRpAC 18; [1901] AC 561 (PC) at
382-383.
[35] Wallis v
Solicitor-General [1903] AC 173 (PC) at 179.
[36] Tohunga
Suppression Act 1907, Preamble.
[37] Public
Trustee v Loasby [1908] NZGazLawRp 71; (1908) 27 NZLR 801 (SC) at 806.
[38] Native
Land Act 1909, ss 161 and 165.
[39] Ngati
Apa v Attorney-General [2003] NZCA 117; [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA) at [47].
[40] Native
Land Act 1909, s 84.
[41] Native
Land Act 1909, s 85.
[42] Baldick
v Jackson (1910) 30 NZLR 343 (HC).
[43] Tamihana
Korokai v Solicitor-General [1912] NZGazLawRp 230; (1912) 32 NZLR 321 (CA) at 345.
[44] Waipapakura
v Hempton [1914] NZGazLawRp 141; (1914) 33 NZLR 1065 (HC) at 1067 and 1068.
[45] War
Pensions Act 1915, s 8 and War
Pensions Act 1943, s 44.
[46] Tua Hotene v
Morrinsville Town Board [1917] NZGazLawRp 155; [1917] NZLR 936 (HC) at 945.
[47] Hineiti
Rirerire Arani v Public Trustee of New Zealand [1919] UKPC 71; [1920] AC 198 (PC).
[48] Maori
Social and Economic Advancement Act 1945, ss 11 and 14-21.
[49] R
v Morison [1949] NZGazLawRp 112; [1950] NZLR 247 (SC) at 256-257.
[50] Maori
Purposes Act 1951, s 8.
[51]
Maori
Affairs Act 1953, ss 79 and 80.
[52] Maori
Affairs Act 1953, pt 11.
[53] Adoption
Act 1955, s 19.
[54] Re
the Bed of the Wanganui River [1955] NZLR 419 (CA).
[55] Inspector of Fisheries v
Ihaia Weepu [1956] NZLR 920 at 928.
[56] Re the Bed of the
Wanganui River [1962] NZLR 600 (CA) at 618-620.
[57] Re the Ninety Mile
Beach [1963] NZLR 461 (CA).
[58] Keepa v Inspector of
Fisheries [1965] NZLR 322 (HC) at 326-327.
[59] Maori
Affairs Amendment Act 1967, s 6.
[60] Maori
Affairs Amendment Act 1967, s 76.
[61] Guardianship
Act 1968, s 6.
[62] Re
Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (2017) 71
Tairāwhiti MB 267 (71 TRW 267) at [35].
[63] Property
(Relationships) Amendment Act 2001, s 8.
[64] Town
and Country Planning Act 1977, s 3(1)(g).
[65] Criminal
Justice Act 1985, s 16.
[66]
Law
Commission Act 1985, s 5(2)(a).
[67] Te Weehi
v Regional Fisheries Officer [1986] NZHC 149; [1986] 1 NZLR 680 (HC) at 686-693.
[68] Huakina
Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] NZHC 130; [1987] 2 NZLR 188 (HC) at 206 and
210.
[69] Huakina
Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] NZHC 130; [1987] 2 NZLR 188 (HC) at 215.
[70] The
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society v W A Habgood Ltd [1987] NZHC 1379; (1987) 12 NZTPA 76
(HC) at 7.
[71] Coroners
Act 1988, s 8.
[72] Children,
Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (now Oranga Tamariki Act 1989), s
5.
[73] Children,
Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (now Oranga Tamariki Act 1989), ss
20-36 and 187.
[74] Resource
Management Act 1991, s 6(e).
[75] Resource
Management Act 1991, s 7.
[76] Resource
Legislation Amendment Act 2017.
[77] Treaty
of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
[78] Treaty
of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act
1992.
[79] Mental
Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, s 5.
[80] See for example Ngai
Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998; Ngāti
Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005; Affiliate
Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2008; and Tūhoe
Claims Settlement Act 2014.
[81] Barton-Prescott
v Director-General of Social Welfare [1997] NZHC 1262; [1997] 3 NZLR 179 (HC) at 185, 189 and
191.
[82] Watercare
Services Ltd v Minhinnick [1998] 1 NZLR 294 (CA).
[83] McRitchie
v Taranaki Fish and Game Council [1998] NZCA 203; [1999] 2 NZLR 139 (CA) at 153.
[84] Te Waka
Hi Ika o Te Arawa v Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission [1999] NZCA 232; [2000] 1 NZLR 285
(HC).
[85] Climate
Change Response Act 2002, s 5H.
[86] Climate
Change Response Act 2002, s 5M.
[87] Sentencing
Act 2002, s 8(i).
[88] Sentencing
Act 2002, s 27.
[89] Ngati
Apa v Attorney-General [2003] NZCA 117; [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA) at
[32]- [34].
[90] Proprietors
of Parininihi ki Waitotara Block v Ngaruahine Iwi Authority [2004] 2 NZLR 201
(HC) at [18].
[91] Coroners
Act 2006, ss 25 and 26.
[92]
R v
Iti [2007] NZCA 119, [2008] 1 NZLR 587 at [46]- [47].
[93] Marine
and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.
[94] Paki v
Attorney-General [2012] NZSC 50, [2012] NZLR 277 at [18].
[95] R v
Mason [2012] NZHC 1361 at [37].
[96] R v
Mason [2012] NZHC 1361, [2012] 2 NZLR 695 at [38].
[97] Mason v
R [2013] NZCA 310, (2013) 26 CRNZ 464 at [41].
[98] Takamore
v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116, [2013] NZLR 733 at [91]- [100].
[99] Te
Urewera Act 2014, s 3.
[100] Heritage
New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, s 4.
[101] Te
Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016, s 5.
[102] Fenwick
v Naera [2015] NZSC 68, [2016] 1 NZLR 354 at [97]- [101].
[103] Fenwick
v Naera [2015] NZSC 68, [2016] 1 NZLR 354 at [125].
[104] Re
Tipene [2016] NZHC 3199, [2017] NZAR 559 at [153]- [154].
[105] Re
Tipene [2016] NZHC 3199, [2017] NZAR 559 at [10].
[106] Te
Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, s 14.
[107] Children,
Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Takariki) Legislation Act 2017, ss
5 and 13.
[108] Tukaki
v Commonwealth of Australia [2018] NZCA 324, [2018] NZAR 1597 at [38].
[109] Ngāti
Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney-General [2018] NZSC 84, [2019]
1 NZLR 116 at 119.
[110] Ngāi
Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2018] NZSC 122,
[2019] 1 NZLR 368 at [89]- [100].
[111] Kusabs
v Staite [2019] NZCA 420, [2023] 2 NZLR 144 at [124].
[112] Kāinga
Ora–Homes and Communities Act 2019, s 4.
[113] Kāinga
Ora–Homes and Communities Act 2019, s
4.
[114] Education
and Training Act 2020, ss 32 and 268.
[115] COVID-19
Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, s 14.
[116] COVID-19
Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, sch 5 cl 17.
[117] COVID-19
Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, sch 6, pt 1, cl 21(7)(b).
[118] Ngawaka
v Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board (No 2) [2021] NZHC
291, [2021] 2 NZLR 1 at [58].
[119] Ngawaka
v Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board (No 2) [2021] NZHC
291, [2021] 2 NZLR 1 at
[58].
[120] Ngawaka
v Ngāti Rehua-Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board (No 2) [2021] NZHC
291, [2021] 2 NZLR 1 at
[58].
[121] Ngāti
Maru Trust v Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whaia Maia Ltd [2020]
NZHC 2768, [2021] 3 NZLR 352 at [67].
[122] Ngāti
Maru Trust v Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whaia Maia Ltd [2020]
NZHC 2768, [2021] 3 NZLR 352 at
[67].
[123] Re
Edwards (Te Whakatōhea No 2) [2021] NZHC 1025, [2022] 2 NZLR 772 at
[301].
[124] Re
Edwards (Te Whakatōhea No 2) [2021] NZHC 1025, [2022] 2 NZLR 772 at
[272].
[125] Re
Edwards (Te Whakatōhea No 2) [2021] NZHC 1025, [2022] 2 NZLR 772 at
[272].
[126] Trans-Tasman
Resources Limited v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board [2021] NZSC 127,
[2021] 1 NZLR 801 at [139]- [174].
[127] Trans-Tasman
Resources Limited v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board [2021] NZSC 127,
[2021] 1 NZLR 801 at [9].
[128] Trans-Tasman
Resources Limited v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board [2021] NZSC 127,
[2021] 1 NZLR 801 at [297].
[129] Sweeney
v The Prison Manager, Spring Hill Corrections Facility [2021] NZHC 181,
[2021] 2 NZLR 27 at [75].
[130] Ngāti
Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney General (No 4) [2022] NZHC
843, [2022] 3 NZLR 601 at [355] and [570].
[131] Ellis v
R (Continuance) [2022] NZSC 114, [2022] 1 NZLR 239 at [172].
[132] Ellis v
R (Continuance) [2022] NZSC 114, [2022] 1 NZLR 239 at [113]- [116] per
Glazebrook J, [177] per Winkelmann CJ and [260] per Williams J.
[133] Ellis v
R (Continuance) [2022] NZSC 114, [2022] 1 NZLR 239 at [180].
[134] Wairarapa
Moana Ki Pouākani Incorporation v Mercury New Zealand Limited [2022]
NZSC 142, [2022] 1 NZLR 767 at [76].
[135] Wairarapa
Moana Ki Pouākani Incorporation v Mercury New Zealand Limited [2022]
NZSC 142, [2022] 1 NZLR 767 at [74].
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZMaoriLRes/2023/1.html