In the course of working on the study paper He Poutama (NZLC SP24) addressing the legal dimensions of tikanga, Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission came to examine its own earlier work to identify the influence of tikanga on that work. This article collects together that research.

Tāneora Fraser*

Kupu whakataki – Foreword, Dr Carwyn Jones, Māori Law Review co-editor

He Poutama is a study paper published by Te Aka Matua o te Ture | the Law Commission which addresses the legal dimensions of tikanga and aims to provide some guidance for the interaction of tikanga and state law. It is a significant report and a major contribution to this quickly developing area of New Zealand law. The Māori Law Review has previously published a summary of the study paper and a series of three articles which examine key aspects of He Poutama in greater detail. The following piece by Tāneora Fraser, a senior legal and policy adviser at the Law Commission, who worked on the study paper, explores the Commission’s earlier work in this area and adds further important context to He Poutama.

Hei tīmatanga kōrero – Introduction

In September 2023 Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission (the Commission) published a study paper on tikanga and its place in Aotearoa New Zealand’s legal system, He Poutama.^[1] During the development of He Poutama, the Commission undertook research into its past publications to identify how tikanga has influenced its own work.

This article collects together that research. While this research was not included in He Poutama, it does provide valuable insight for both the public sector and the wider legal profession. The Commission has a unique statutory obligation to “take into account te ao Maori” when making its recommendations.^[2] This duty, together with the duty to act independently,^[3] has allowed the Commission to think critically about Māori issues, including the relationship between tikanga and New Zealand law.^[4] Some of this thinking is well known because of the Commission’s 2001 study paper Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law and now, He Poutama.^[5] However, much of it can be found reflected in earlier and lesser known publications.^[6]

This article focuses on these lesser-known publications and discusses four recurring themes that have informed the Commission’s approach to consideration of tikanga:

1. the importance of understanding and providing for tikanga – both for Māori and generally;
2. the strength of tikanga as a system;
3. the limits of “State law” to provide tikanga-consistent solutions; and
4. the constitutional significance of tikanga and its relationship to the legitimacy of the law.

The article begins by discussing the Mātaitai project. This project was the first of the Commission’s projects to substantively engage with Māori issues.

Kōrerorero – Discussion

Mātaitai: The Treaty of Waitangi and Māori Fisheries

A project on Māori fishing rights provided the first opportunity for the Commission to substantively engage with Māori issues. This culminated in the 1989 preliminary paper The Treaty of Waitangi and Māori Fisheries | Mātaitai: Ngā Tikanga Māori me te Tiriti o Waitangi.^[7] The Mātaitai project began as a reference on how the law should best give effect to Māori rights in their traditional fisheries in light of te Tiriti o Waitangi/theTreaty of Waitangi (the Treaty). Before the Commission finished its work, the issue had been progressed through the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts, and the Maori Fisheries Bill had been introduced to Parliament. The Commission decided not to produce a final report but presented its findings in Mātaitai as background to the ongoing work, and “to provide perspective”.^[8]

The work on Mātaitai began at a time when perceptions about the role of the Treaty in New Zealand law were dramatically changing.^[9] The discussion in Mātaitai reflects this context and the deeper questions being asked about constitutional matters, equality and the rule of law.

For instance, in a section titled “Special Privileges and Equality”,^[10] the report addressed criticism that the recognition of Māori interests according to tikanga amounted to a special rule or privilege for Māori that would be contrary to the rule of law, including the notion of equality before the law. It said:^[11]

However, a phrase such as equality before the law must itself be properly understood. It means and can only mean that those in like circumstances should be treated alike. Our law abounds in instances of powers, rights and obligations that exist for some but not all…

Moreover, the rule of law in the full sense has to do with the content of the law as well as its equal application. A law that applies equally to all may be unfair to all or to some. The law does not exist in a vacuum. It arises out of the circumstances and reflects the experience, perspectives and values of those who make it. The common law was "the custom of the people of England". It was fashioned by the history and the environment of the people of England and in modern times the English people who settled the various overseas communities … What does justice to one set of people in one sort of community in one place may be inadequate or oppressive in another.

While acknowledging that belief in a unitary legal system was then held strongly within New Zealand society, Mātaitai suggested that depriving Māori of the opportunity to be governed by Māori institutions, values and customs would “deny, rather than promote real equality”.^[12] Because fishing rights were vested in the hapū who exercise mana over the fisheries and were never sold or given away, upholding those rights was an application of the rule of law rather than a privilege afforded to Māori.^[13]

The Commission acknowledged the inevitable outcome that the common law would be extended and applied to all people in Aotearoa New Zealand.^[14] However, it also noted the lost potential for “the possible integration of indigenous custom into the law”, saying:^[15]

What was not faced up to then or later outside the sphere of land law, and succession in relation to Maori land, was the possible integration of indigenous custom into the law so that it reflected the real circumstances of the time and place… the common law did very possibly have the capacity to acknowledge and integrate Maori custom in relation to rights in the nature of property.

Understanding and providing for tikanga

It is important that tikanga is understood and provided for in Aotearoa New Zealand law, both for Māori and more generally.

The importance to Māori of understanding and providing for tikanga

The Commission’s first review of succession law was the first reference to engage substantively with tikanga as part of a topic that was not a kaupapa Māori-specific reference.^[16] From the outset of the review it was recognised that “[testamentary claims] is an area of intense interest for Māori” and that:^[17]

The Crown must respect Māori control over the inheritance of property. Laws affecting succession to Māori property should recognise that the fundamental principles of tikanga (custom law) apply amongst Māori people.

In the consultation process for this review, wānanga were held at several marae to hear Māori views. The importance to Māori of appropriately recognising tikanga can be seen in their responses:^[18]

The dismantling process (of tikanga), this was the task of ture … we are divorced of what is ours…

… ture Pākehā stripped us of our rights, of tikanga Maori - I believe we need to revert to traditional values because we have found tikanga Pākehā insufficient…

We are talking about physical matters, but there is a spiritual dimension - Pākehā don't share this view …

Pākehā mind set is blind. In recent years there has been a turning to Maori situations and tikanga. Knowledge of tikanga (takes you to a) set of rules and conventions. There is a whole set of rules to support tikanga.

The Commission's 1999 report Justice: The Experiences of Māori Women identified that recognition of tikanga can be an affirmation of identity and that it enabled Māori women to participate as Māori. It said:^[19]

Recognition of Māori values and their implementation is an indicator that the law and its processes acknowledge and respect Māori … We have discussed earlier in this chapter some of the values that are important to Māori women because they enable Māori to participate as Māori.

Similarly, the Commission’s 1999/2000 Annual Report commented that “[e]ffective outcomes for Māori require policy development which takes into account Māori values and processes by which those policies can be implemented”.^[20]

The importance of understanding and providing for tikanga more generally

Several other Commission publications consider how tikanga may operate as a “broader system applicable to all aspects of society”.^[21]

For example, Adoption and its Alternatives emphasised that the adoption system as a whole could be improved by adopting Māori values as the basis to reform adoption law. It said:^[22]

Our consultation process has shown us that Māori values have gained widespread support and are regarded as providing the basis upon which to move forward. The principles that we discuss in this report, such as openness and honesty, access to information about one’s self and one’s origins, family placement or placement within the same cultural group before adoption elsewhere is considered, may relieve some of the concerns that Māori have expressed in relation to the monocultural nature of the present Adoption Act.

The value of providing for tikanga for the benefit of all New Zealanders was also recognised in the Commission’s 2021 review of succession law. In addition to concluding that responsible kāwanatanga required the Crown to enable Māori to live according to tikanga, it concluded that:^[23]

… state succession law should weave new law that reflects tikanga Māori and other values shared by New Zealanders (a “third law”). We think this is a deeply important approach to law-making in Aotearoa New Zealand to support a nation that is grounded in the commitments of te Tiriti, to the benefit of all New Zealanders. As we discussed in the Issues Paper, this approach requires tikanga Māori to be considered in both defining and responding to a policy “problem” rather than just incorporating tikanga into a pre-existing model of state law.

Similarly, the 2020 report on The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations notes the interests in common that Māori have with all New Zealanders and the significance of those interests for developing a regime for the collection and use of DNA:^[24]

Māori have an interest in common with all New Zealanders in the investigation and prosecution of crime in a manner that is fair, effective and proportionate. The responsibility of the individual to the collective, and the responsibility of the collective for addressing wrongs committed by an individual underpin the whanaungatanga-based system of tikanga and are also central to Pākehā notions of justice. Broadly, therefore, the objective of recognising and providing for tikanga Māori supports the adoption of a regime for the collection and use of DNA in criminal investigations as part of wider efforts to improve the criminal justice system and to deliver a fairer and safer community for all.

The strength of tikanga as a system

Tikanga values are often discussed in isolation from one another. As He Poutama explained, there is a risk that such an approach leads to treating tikanga as a “grab bag” of isolated values.^[25] A review of the Commission’s past work reveals a willingness to engage with tikanga as a comprehensive legal system capable of responding to a range of issues. The Commission has also commented on some features of tikanga that contribute to its continuing efficacy.

In 2021, the Commission’s report on succession law concluded that “tikanga Māori provides a framework for the succession to taonga and for resolving disputes over taonga”.^[26] The tikanga concepts applicable to taonga include mana, tapu, kōrero, mauri and utu.^[27] These attributes of taonga are interconnected. The way that they manifest in the taonga will depend on the context of the taonga and may also affect the correct outcome for issues concerning the taonga.^[28] On this basis, the recommendation was that succession to taonga should be left to tikanga to determine.^[29]

In an issues paper published in 2023 on preventive detention and post-sentence orders, the Commission said that tikanga “includes a system of values and principles that guide and direct rights and obligations in a Māori way of living”.^[30] It discussed the inherent mana and tapu of all people and the relationship between mana, tapu and the collective.^[31] It defined whanaungatanga as meaning “the individual is secondary to the collective”,^[32] and requiring the strengthening and maintenance of relationships.^[33] The maintenance of this balance is driven by utu.^[34] In the context of public safety, definitions of unacceptable behaviour according to tikanga are “drawn from these broader values and principles”.^[35] Offending affected the mana and tapu of both the offender and the victim, as well as the collective.^[36]

These two examples demonstrate an engagement with tikanga beyond an assessment of the relevant values or principles applicable to an issue. By stating how different tikanga operate in relation to each other and to the relevant issue, it is clearer how tikanga operates as a system.^[37]

Features of tikanga that contribute to its continuing efficacy include the longevity, dynamism and available repositories of tikanga which contribute to its renewal.

The 2013 Report on the Legal Framework for Burial and Cremation in New Zealand acknowledged the longevity of tikanga:^[38]

Rules and customary practices based in tikanga have also evolved over hundreds of years and give expression to the fundamental principles, values and beliefs which underpin Māori culture.

In Māori Customs and Values in New Zealand Law, it was noted that tikanga is a dynamic system guided by “fundamental values”:^[39]

Tikanga Māori should not be seen as fixed from time immemorial, but as based on a continuing review of fundamental principles in a dialogue between the past and the present… It is this ability of tikanga to change that accounts for its variations among tribes. While the practice of tikanga can differ depending on the circumstances of particular iwi, hapū or whānau, those changes are always guided by the fundamental values that underpin tikanga.

Similarly, the 2022 surrogacy report acknowledged that, while certain principles of tikanga are fundamental, “tikanga is dynamic and has evolved over time to adapt to and accommodate developments in society and technology”.^[40]

Repositories of tikanga such as whakataukī, whakatauākī, pūrākau and mōteatea are vital for the continuing renewal of tikanga within Māori fora.^[41] These repositories also provide legitimacy for tikanga as a system capable of relying on its own resources for renewal. The study paper Treaty of Waitangi Claims: Addressing the Post-Settlement Phase relied on whakataukī to demonstrate the “principles of collective responsibility” that underpin tikanga. For example, to demonstrate the importance of transparency, the whakataukī “He tanga kakaho koia kitea e te kanohi, tena ko te kokanga ngākau e kore e kitea” was used.^[42] “He waka eke noa” and “Mā pango mā whero ka oti te mahi” were also used to demonstrate the value in collective endeavours.^[43]

For completeness, it is worth noting that the Commission has also discussed the limits of tikanga to adapt to a modern, commercial environment. In Waka Umanga: A Proposed Law for Māori Governance Entities, a need was identified for modern Māori governance structures to enable Māori to participate in “both Māori and Pākehā worlds” as “competent entrepreneurs”, while also maintaining tikanga Māori.^[44] The tension was articulated in this way:^[45]

One view is that compliance with tikanga Māori is necessary to maintain a Māori dimension within the organisation and to encourage it to operate with Māori objectives in mind. Another is that the mere use of that term leads to uncertainty, particularly legal and commercial uncertainty, and that something more specific is required.

The report ultimately found that while tikanga could form part of the objectives of modern Māori governance entities, an entity operating within a modern commercial environment needs to have certainty about the rules and directions under which it operates.^[46]

The limits of “State law”

The Commission has considered whether “State law” is an appropriate conduit for the recognition of tikanga.^[47] There is a diverse range of opinion amongst Māori and non-Māori on the relationship between State law and tikanga, and the role that State law could, or should play.

One position is seen in a working paper by Professor Patu Hohepa and Dr David V Williams. This argued that Western and Māori legal systems are not compatible, stating:^[48]

Maori law is bound to cultural and political systems and admits it. It is overtly driven by those systems. It is part of the magico religious or spiritual system because its origins are from the primal creation where the principles of explanation, inspiration and control, fairness and justice began. The legal system was also human, aware of human frailties, and therefore it was not static or sterile … This was not an adversarial process; it was not a matter of winners and losers. It was a search for consensus that justice had been done and seen to be done and all parties were satisfied as to the outcome so that the collective can once again live in harmony.

The authors suggested that marae, and not courts, are the centres for discussing tikanga, saying:^[49]

Tikanga Māori cannot be practised, controlled or exercised in the Māori Land Court, the High Court and the Family Court because its structure and philosophy subverts or co-opts and is antithetical to tikanga and that would be its effect in marae. For many generations the judges in fact have been the definers and in some cases the inventors of tikanga.

The 2001 report Adoption and its Alternatives acknowledged the limits of State law to recognise whāngai. The position in this report was that recognising whāngai within legislation would inevitably invite questions about its definition and it considered the better approach was to leave Māori to practice whāngai “as Māori have always done”.^[50]

When the Commission revisited succession law in its 2021 report, it was aware that the answer to appropriately providing for tikanga in its recommendations was likely to be complex, multi-faceted and require an acknowledgement of the limits of State law. Three ways were identified by which the law might recognise and provide for tikanga Māori:^[51]

1. The first was for “State succession law” to recognise tikanga Māori to enable Māori to live according to tikanga.
2. The second was to weave new law that reflects tikanga Māori and other values shared by New Zealanders (a “third law”).
3. The third was to exclude taonga from the general application of State succession law in order that succession to taonga be determined according to tikanga Māori.

The Commission’s recommendation that taonga should be defined and succession to taonga be determined according to tikanga reflects the third approach. However, there is also a role for State law in facilitating the resolution of disputes in accordance with tikanga. It recommended changes to court practice and jurisdiction for this purpose.^[52]

The significance of tikanga for the legitimacy of the law

From its earliest reports, the Commission has recognised the connection between providing for tikanga and the legitimacy of New Zealand law. It has suggested that law reform proposals that fail to recognise and provide for tikanga may lead to law that is not constitutionally sound.

In the 1989 Mātaitai preliminary paper, the recognition of Māori fishing rights was described as an affirmation of the rule of law because those rights had never been lawfully extinguished.^[53] Unless there had been extinguishment, those fishing rights should be upheld by New Zealand law.^[54] Implicit in this conclusion is that rights sourced from tikanga are legitimate and tikanga operates as a source of law.

The 2020 report on the use of DNA in criminal investigations expanded on the constitutional importance of tikanga. It suggested four ways in which tikanga is “constitutionally significant” for the development of the law:^[55]

1. First, as an independent source of rights and obligations in te ao Māori and the first law of Aotearoa.
2. Second, where tikanga values comprise a source of the New Zealand common law or have been integrated into law by statutory reference.
3. Third, in terms of the Treaty rights and obligations that relate to tikanga.
4. Fourth, to give effect to New Zealand’s international obligations in relation to Māori as indigenous people, including under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The unique position of Māori as tangata whenua is recognised as a justification for providing for tikanga within New Zealand law. The 2000 Coroners report acknowledged the diversity of cultures in Aotearoa New Zealand and the need to meet the interests of different groups.^[56] Nevertheless, several reasons for focusing on Māori values were presented, including “the unique status of Māori in New Zealand” and the acknowledgement of, and commitment to, the principles of the Treaty.^[57] This was echoed in Adoption and its Alternatives, where the Commission said:^[58]

In this chapter we have focussed mainly on Māori views of adoption. We do not disregard or devalue the concerns of other cultural groups, but have focussed on Māori views because of the unique status that Māori occupy as tangata whenua and as partners to the Treaty of Waitangi.

In several reports, the Commission has also concluded that constitutionally responsible law making requires the law to “enable Māori to act in accordance with tikanga Māori and promote responsible kāwanatanga that facilitates tino rangatiratanga under te Tiriti o Waitangi”.^[59]

Ngā kupu whakatepe – Conclusion

This article has drawn together key threads from the Commission’s approach to tikanga issues in its work preceding the 2023 study paper He Poutama on the place that tikanga has in Aotearoa New Zealand law. This body of earlier work from the Commission, along with the analysis now available from He Poutama, helps to provide a basis for the public sector and the legal profession to engage usefully with tikanga.

Ngā kupu āpiti – Notes

* LLB, Kaitohutohu | Senior Legal and Policy Adviser at Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission.

[1] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission He Poutama (NZLS SP24, 2023).

[2] Law Commission Act 1985, s 5(2)(a). This duty is not found in any other statute.

[3] Law Commission Act 1985, 5(3).

[4] We note that the Commission has also substantially considered te Tiriti o Waitangi | Treaty of Waitangi. However, this article focuses on tikanga and so we do not include those discussions here.

[5] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Maori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law (NZLC SP9, 2001).

[6] In the late 1990s, several research papers were commissioned to help inform the writing of Māori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law. These papers were written by well-known experts and were never published as Law Commission publications. As such we do not consider them a formal (?) part of the body of Law Commission thinking about tikanga Māori. However, these papers are now available on the Law Commission website at: <Māori Customary Law | Law Commission>.

[7] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Mataitai: Nga tikanga Maori me te Tiriti o Waitangi I The Treaty of Waitangi and Māori Fisheries (NZLC PP9, 1989).

[8] At 4.

[9] For example, the well-known Lands and Broadcasting Assets cases were released in 1987 and 1992 respectively. See New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641; (1987) 6 NZAR 353 (HC and CA); New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1992] 2 NZLR 576 (CA).

[10] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Mataitai: Nga tikanga Maori me te Tiriti o Waitangi I The Treaty of Waitangi and Māori Fisheries (NZLC PP9, 1989) at 89-91.

[11] At 89-90.

[12] At 90 and 93.

[13] At 91.

[14] At 142.

[15] At 142.

[16] The Commission published Tenure and Estates in Land in 1992 which only briefly discussed Māori land. See Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Tenure and Estates in Land: A Discussion Paper (NZLC PP20, 1992) at 12-13, 23-27.

[17] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Succession Law: Testamentary Claims (NZLC PP24, 1996) at 2. The early recognition of Māori interests in the first succession reference resulted in efforts to consult widely with Māori and an unpublished draft paper considering how the law might provide for tikanga. See Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Draft Preliminary Paper on Maori Succession Laws: An Indigenous Law of Succession (vol 1, 17 April 1997). The published miscellaneous paper of Professor Patu Hohepa and David V Williams prepared for the project has also made an enduring contribution to the Commission’s work. See Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission The Taking into Account of Te Ao Maori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession (NZLC MP6, 1996).

[18] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Draft Preliminary Paper on Maori Succession Laws: An Indigenous Law of Succession (vol 1, 17 April 1997) at 8-21.

[19] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Te Tikanga o te Ture: Te Mātauranga o ngā Wāhine Māori e pa ana ki tēnei I Justice: the Experiences of Māori Women (NZLC R53, 1999) at 37-38.

[20] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Report of the Law Commission | Te Aka Matua o te Ture for the year ended 30 June 2000 (NZLC E31, 2000) at 67.

[21] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Hapori whānui me te tangata mōrea nui: he arotake o te mauhere ārai hē me ngā ōta nō muri whakawhiu | Public safety and serious offenders: a review of preventive detention and post-sentence orders (NZLC IP51, 2023) at [2.3].

[22] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Adoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework (NZLC R65, 2000) at 88.

[23] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission He arotake i te āheinga ki ngā rawa a te tangata ka mate ana | Review of succession law: rights to a person’s property on death (NZLC R145, 2021) at 80.

[24] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Te Whakamahi i te Ira Tangata i ngā Mātai Taihara I The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations (NZLC R144, 2020) at 65-66.

[25] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission He Poutama (NZLC SP24, 2023) at [3.10], citing Nin Tomas “Key concepts of tikanga Maori (Maori custom law) and their use as regulators of human relationships to natural resources in Tai Tokerau, past and present” (PhD Thesis, Waipapa Taumata Rau | University of Auckland, 2006) at 33.

[26] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission He arotake i te āheinga ki ngā rawa a te tangata ka mate ana | Review of succession law: rights to a person’s property on death (NZLC R145, 2021) at [3.35].

[27] At [3.12].

[28] At [3.12]-[3.13].

[29] At Recommendation 5.

[30] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Hapori whānui me te tangata mōrea nui: he arotake o te mauhere ārai hē me ngā ōta nō muri whakawhiu | Public safety and serious offenders: a review of preventive detention and post-sentence orders (NZLC IP51, 2023) at [2.3].

[31] At [2.8].

[32] At [2.9].

[33] At [2.9].

[34] At [2.8]-[2.9].

[35] At [2.11].

[36] At [2.12].

[37] Another example can be found in Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Te Kōpu Whāngai: He Arotake | Review of Surrogacy (NZLC IP47, 2021) at [4.4]-[4.39]. Chapter 3 of He Poutama is also dedicated to explaining tikanga as a “system of norms”.

[38] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission The Legal Framework for Burial and Cremation in New Zealand: A First Principles Review (NZLC IP34, 2013) at 17.

[39] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Maori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law (NZLC SP9, 2001) at 3-4.

[40] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Te Kōpū Whāngai: He Arotake | Review of Surrogacy (NZLC R146, 2022) at 57.

[41] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Maori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law (NZLC SP9, 2001) at 5.

[42] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Treaty of Waitangi Claims: Addressing the Post-Settlement Phase (NZLC SP13, 2002) at 10. The Commission translated this as “If the layers of reeds in the roof of a house do not lie parallel to the rafters the eye can see the crookedness; but the recesses of the human heart you cannot see”.

[43] At 10. The Commission translated these as “A canoe on which everyone can embark” and “By red and by black the work is finished” respectively.

[44] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Waka Umanga: A Proposed Law for Māori Governance Entities (NZLC R92, 2006) at 19-21.

[45] At 41.

[46] At 42.

[47] In He Poutama, the Commission described “State law” as including “legislation, other regulation, judge-made common law and state-based institutions, conventions and norms that underpin state law”. The same meaning is meant here. See Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission He Poutama (NZLC SP24, 2023) at [1.20].

[48] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission The Taking into Account of Te Ao Maori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession (NZLC MP6, 1996) at 22.

[49] At 24.

[50] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Adoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework (NZLC R65, 2000) at 86.

[51] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission He arotake i te āheinga ki ngā rawa a te tangata ka mate ana | Review of succession law: rights to a person’s property on death (NZLC R145, 2021) at 80-81.

[52] At 96, 297-299.

[53] See Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Mataitai: Nga tikanga Maori me te Tiriti o Waitangi I The Treaty of Waitangi and Māori Fisheries (NZLC PP9, 1989) at 91.

[54] See the full discussion at 89-91.

[55] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Te Whakamahi i te Ira Tangata i ngā Mātai Taihara: The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations (NZLC R144, 2020) at 59-60. The exact wording has changed slightly in later publications to reflect the iterative nature of the Commission’s thinking, but the core themes remain the same.

[56] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Coroners (NZLC R62, 2000) at 66.

[57] At 66.

[58] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Adoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework (NZLC R65, 2000) at 73.

[59] Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Te Kōpū Whāngai: He Arotake | Review of Surrogacy (NZLC R146, 2022) at 41; Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission He arotake i te āheinga ki ngā rawa a te tangata ka mate ana | Review of succession law: rights to a person’s property on death (NZLC R145, 2021) at 79-80; Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Te Whakamahi i te Ira Tangata i ngā Mātai Taihara I The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations (NZLC R144, 2020) at 58-59.

Author: Guest Author

View all posts by Guest Author