DOCSLIB.ORG

Wai L Rev 2017-1 Internals.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wai L Rev 2017-1 Internals.Indd Waikato Law Review TAUMAURI VOLUME 25, 2017 A Commentary on the Supreme Court Decision of Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General 1 Karen Feint The Native Land Court at Cambridge, Māori Land Alienation and the Private Sector 26 RP Boast More than a Mere Shadow? The Colonial Agenda of Recent Treaty Settlements 41 Mick Strack and David Goodwin Section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007: A Tragedy of the Commonly Owned? 59 Thomas Gibbons Trimming the Fringe: Should New Zealand Limit the Cost of Borrowing in Consumer Credit Contracts? 79 Sascha Mueller Takiri ko te Ata Symposium Matiu Dickson: The Measure of the Man 100 Ani Mikaere Mā Wai Rā te Marae e Taurima? The Importance of Leadership in Tauranga Moana 107 Charlie Rahiri Book Review: International Indigenous Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 111 Seanna Howard Book Review: He Reo Wāhine: Māori Women’s Voices from the Nineteenth Century 115 Linda Te Aho Editor in Chief Linda Te Aho Editorial Assistance Mary-Rose Russell, Carey Church Senior Student Editor Philip McHugh Student Editors Nicole Morrall, Aref Shams, Cassidy McLean-House EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Chief Justice, The Honourable Dame Sian Elias (honorary member), Chief Justice of New Zealand. Professor John Borrows, JD (Toronto), PhD (Osgoode Hall), LL.D (Dalhousie), FRSC, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Law, Nexen Chair in Indigenous Leadership, University of Victoria, (Canada). Associate Professor T Brettel Dawson, Department of Law, Carleton University, Academic Director, National Judicial Institute (Canada). Gerald Bailey, QSO, LLB (Cant), Hon D (Waikato), Consultant Evans Bailey, Lawyers, former Chancellor of University of Waikato and member of the Council of Legal Education. Sir David Baragwanath, Honorary Professor, University of Waikato, Judge of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, The Hague. Professor John Farrar, LLB (Hons), LLM, LLD London, PhD Bristol, Emeritus Professor of Law, Bond University, Professor of Corporate Governance, University of Auckland. Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox, Maori Land Court. Judge Stephanie Milroy, Maori Land Court. Dr Dame Joan Metge, Law and Society, with particular interests in law’s role in an ethnically diverse society. Professor Margaret Bedggood, QSO, LLB Otago, MA NZ and London, former Chief Human Rights Commissioner. The Honourable Justice Paul Heath, Judge of the High Court of New Zealand. The Honourable Sir Eddie Durie, KNZM, first Māori appointed as a Justice of the High Court of New Zealand, and leading legal expert on the Treaty of Waitangi. Professor Alex Frame, LLB Auck LLM, LLD Well, former Chair in Te Piringa – Faculty of Law, University of Waikato and Director of Te Matahauariki Research Institute. Professor Paul Hunt, Department of Law, University of Essex, member of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex and Adjunct Professor, University of Waikato. The Honorable Justice Joseph Williams, Judge of the High Court of New Zealand. Judge Peter Spiller, Honorary Professor of Law, University of Waikato. Associate Professor Morne Olivier, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand. Professor Michael Hahn, Chair of European Law, University of Lausanne, Honorary Professor of Law, Te Piringa – Faculty of Law, University of Waikato. The Waikato Law Review is published annually by Te Piringa – Faculty of Law at The University of Waikato. Subscription to the Review costs $40 (domestic) and $45 (international) per year; and advertising space is available at a cost of $200 for a full page or $100 for a half page. Back numbers are available. Communications should be addressed to: The Editor Waikato Law Review Te Piringa – Faculty of Law Waikato University Private Bag 3105 Hamilton 3240 New Zealand North American readers should obtain subscriptions direct from the North American agents: Wm W Gault & Sons Inc 3011 Gulf Drive Holmes Beach Florida 34217-2199 USA This issue may be cited as (2017) 25 Wai L Rev. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be produced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any retrieval system, without permission from the Editor in Chief. ISSN 1172-9597 INTRODUCTION The Māori title of this peer-reviewed journal, Taumauri, means to think with care and caution, to deliberate on matters constructively and analytically. The 2017 edition of the Waikato Law Review embodies the Review’s values and goals: biculturalism, law in context and professionalism. It is fitting that in 2017, the year in which Te Piringa Faculty of Law celebrated its 25-year anniversary, the first two articles are examples of scholarly work that reflect all three of the Review’s goals. The first provides an in-depth and insightful commentary on the landmark Supreme Court decision of Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General.1 The decision is described by author and distinguished barrister, Karen Feint, as “unquestionably the Court’s most important decision yet on Māori legal issues” and as marking “a significant evolution in the understanding of the Crown-Māori relationship … that may give rise to enforceable legal duties owed by the Crown”. The case involves the question of whether the Crown may be held liable to Māori for breach of fiduciary duty. Posing an abstract question of law, Professor Alex Frame evaluated the possibilities of this previously untried legal remedy in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand in his article, “The Fiduciary Duties of the Crown to Māori: Will the Canadian Remedy Travel?”.2 Professor Frame’s erudite analysis complements Karen Feint’s commentary, and both will assist in understanding the complex issues raised in the Supreme Court judgments. This journal cherishes the Faculty’s goal of biculturalism, which carries a commitment to advancing and encouraging the Maōri dimension in the legal system. There are a number of contributions in this Review that have a Māori or indigenous theme. Professor Richard Boast’s article surveys the operations of the Native Land Court at Cambridge and considers the connections between the private sector and Māori land alienation.3 The article by Otago University academics, Dr Mick Strack and Dr David Goodwin, entitled “More than a Mere Shadow? The Colonial Agenda of Recent Treaty Settlements” provides a critique of the Treaty settlement process, and follows a long line of articles that have been published in the Waikato Law Review through the years which address this important issue. It is a pleasure to publish two proceedings from the Takiri ko te Ata symposium, held in Tauranga in 2017. The symposium acknowledged the lifework and legacy of the late Matiu Dickson, a rangatira from Tauranga Moana and senior law academic at Te Piringa Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, to whom the 2016 edition of this Review was dedicated. In her tribute, Ani Mikaere writes about the legitimacy of tikanga (Māori law) and makes the clear and important distinction between law and “lore”. To follow, Charlie Rahiri draws from the wisdom of Tauranga Moana leaders to share personal insights into the challenges of leadership in Māori society. Two recently published books with Māori and indigenous themes are reviewed. Seanna Howard, Clinician, and Professor of Practice at the James E Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona provides the first review. Te Piringa Faculty of Law enjoys a relationship agreement with the University of Arizona law faculty. We are delighted that Seanna accepted our invitation to review International Indigenous Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand. This collection of scholarly 1 Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2017] NZSC 17, [2017] 1 NZLR 423. 2 Alex Frame “The Fiduciary Duties of the Crown to Māori: Will the Canadian Remedy Travel?” [2005] 13 Waikato Law Review 70. 3 The article names various tribal groups present in Cambridge in the 1800s. It is important to note that Ngāti Koroki-Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā are the mana whenua groups of this area. works edited by Auckland University academic, Dr Andrew Erueti, focuses on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration). Despite New Zealand endorsing the Declaration in 2010, little is known about how it came to be adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and what its role and status will be in New Zealand law. The timely collection critically analyses the Declaration and provides valuable insights into its drafting. I provide a review of He Reo Wāhine: Māori Women’s Voices from the Nineteenth Century, a book that offers a glimpse into the valuable resources that lie in some of New Zealand’s manuscripts and archival collections. Over the years, the Waikato Law Review has published a number of contributions authored by legal practitioners, honouring the commitment to our Faculty goal of professionalism. In the 10 years since the introduction of the Property Law Act 2007, there have been more than 80 judgments on s 339 of that Act. Legal practitioner and Director of McCaw Lewis Lawyers, Thomas Gibbons, provides important practical insights on the s 339 remedy in his article, “Section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007: A Tragedy of the Commonly Owned”. Gibbons pays special attention to contested issues, and critiques the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Thomas v Mackintosh.4 Recognising that “New Zealand is a nation of debt”, Sascha Mueller’s article asks the question: “Trimming the Fringe: Should New Zealand Limit the Cost of Borrowing in Consumer Credit Contracts?” The article explores the merits of limiting the cost of borrowing fringe loans (also known as “payday loans”). The article proposes changes to the credit contract consumer protection provisions and discusses alternative means to aid borrowers in vital need of credit. It is no easy task to produce a high quality, peer-reviewed journal every year, and I take this opportunity to thank the authors, the peer reviewers in New Zealand and abroad to whom articles were sent, our student editors led by Philip McHugh, and Mary-Rose Russell, copy editor and proof-reader extraordinaire.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HW13 Generic Constitutional Issues Closing Submissions
    Wai 2180, #3.3.54 IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL WAI 2180 IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 AND IN THE MATTER of the Taihape: Rangitīkei ki Rangipō inquiry GENERIC CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CLOSING SUBMISSIONS Dated: 12 October 2020 ~ ~ ANNETTE Tamak.iLegal !l ar rl sters & So l le I to rs SYKES & C o. barristers & solicitors Level 2, Cuilam Building, 8 – Unit 1 Marguerita Street, 15 Osterley Way, Manukau, Rotorua, 3010 Auckland 2104 Phone: 07-460-0433 PO Box 75517, Manurewa Fax: 07-460-0434 Auckland 2243 Email: P. 09 263 5240 [email protected] E. [email protected] Counsel Acting: Darrell Naden / Annette Sykes 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5 TRIBUNAL STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................. 6 A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ...................................................................................... 8 1. Tino Rangatiratanga ................................................................................................. 8 Issues ............................................................................................................................... 8 2. Political engagement issues .................................................................................... 9 Issues ............................................................................................................................... 9 CROWN STATEMENT OF POSITION AND CONCESSIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Title in New Zealand: a Retrospect and Prospect P G Mchugh
    LAW NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL 2 VOL NO 2 2004 NOVEMBER NEW ZEALAND CENTRE FOR PUBLIC LAW Te Wananga o nga Kaupapa Ture a Iwi o Aotearoa New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law NZCPL OCCASIONAL PAPERS 1 Workways of the United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2 The Role of the New Zealand Law Commission Justice David Baragwanath 3 Legislature v Executive-The Struggle Continues: Observations on the Work of the Regulations Review Committee Hon Doug Kidd 4 The Maori Land Court-A Separate Legal System? Chief Judge Joe Williams 5 The Role of the Secretary of the Cabinet-The View from the Beehive Marie Shroff 6 The Role of the Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright 7 Final Appeal Courts: Some Comparisons Lord Cooke of Thorndon 8 Parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 Anthony Lester QC 9 Terrorism Legislation and the Human Rights Act 1998 Anthony Lester QC 10 2002: A Justice Odyssey Kim Economides VOLUME 2 • NUMBER 2 • NOVEMBER 2004 • ISSN 1176-3930 11 Tradition and Innovation in a Law Reform Agency Hon J Bruce Robertson 12 Democracy Through Law THIS ISSUE INCLUDES CONTRIBUTIONS BY: Lord Steyn 13 Hong Kong's Legal System: The Court of Final Appeal Hon Mr Justice Bokhary PJ Dame Sian Elias Gordon Hook 14 Establishing the Ground Rules of International Law: Where To from Here? Paul McHugh Lucy Hare Bill Mansfield Mark Bennett Malcolm Birdling 15 The Case that Stopped a Coup? The Rule of Law in Fiji George Williams Available from the New Zealand Centre for Public Law
    [Show full text]
  • Processes of Native Nationhood: the Ndii Genous Politics of Self-Government Stephen Cornell University of Arizona, [email protected]
    The International Indigenous Policy Journal Volume 6 | Issue 4 Article 4 September 2015 Processes of Native Nationhood: The ndiI genous Politics of Self-Government Stephen Cornell University of Arizona, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj Part of the Law and Politics Commons, Native American Studies Commons, Other Political Science Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Cornell, S. (2015). Processes of Native Nationhood: The ndI igenous Politics of Self-Government. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 6(4) . Retrieved from: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol6/iss4/4 DOI: 10.18584/iipj.2015.6.4.4 This Policy is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in The nI ternational Indigenous Policy Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Processes of Native Nationhood: The ndiI genous Politics of Self- Government Abstract Over the last three decades, Indigenous peoples in the CANZUS countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) have been reclaiming self-government as an Indigenous right and practice. In the process, they have been asserting various forms of Indigenous nationhood. This article argues that this development involves a common set of activities on the part of Indigenous peoples: (1) identifying as a nation or a people (determining who the appropriate collective “self” is in self-determination and self-government); (2) organizing as a political body (not just as a corporate holder of assets); and (3) acting on behalf of Indigenous goals (asserting and exercising practical decision-making power and responsibility, even in cases where central governments deny recognition).
    [Show full text]
  • Are Maori Rights Racially Discriminatory
    649 DO MĀORI RIGHTS RACIALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NON MĀORI? Claire Charters∗ Claire Charters argues that the claim that Māori rights discriminate against non-Māori needs to be tested to a greater extent than it has been in both political and academic circles to date, not least because of its importance to the type of nation New Zealand is and seeks to be. She illustrates that from a contextual, comparative and theoretical standpoint Māori rights do not discriminate against non-Māori and to suggest that they do so will only increase Māori's detachment from the New Zealand polity. I INTRODUCTION The suggestion that Māori rights discrminate against non-Māori New Zealanders is one that has attracted political and public attention as well as attention from legal academics. At heart, Brash's Orewa "One Law for All" speech expressed this sentiment, and the resulting up-surge in support for the National Party in 2004 indicated that a good number of New Zealanders share this view.1 Similarly, the New Zealand Government argued against provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the grounds that they discriminated against non-Indigenous.2 More recently, esteemed professor Philip Joseph suggested that the Māori seats constitute a discriminatory privilege upsetting the electoral equality of "one person, one vote, one value."3 In addition to the ∗ Ngati Whakaue, Nga Puhi, Tuwharetoa and Tainui. Senior Lecturer, Law Faculty, Victoria University of Wellington. My sincere thanks to Richard Boast, Claudia Geiringer, Kirsty Gover, Dean Knight, Paul McHugh, Nicole Roughan and the anonymous reviewer for comments on a draft of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • ERIN MATARIKI CARR the Honour of the Crown: Giving Effect to the True
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ResearchArchive at Victoria University of Wellington ERIN MATARIKI CARR The Honour of the Crown: Giving Effect to the True Purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi Submitted for the LLB (Honours) Degree Faculty of Law Victoria University of Wellington 2014 1 Word Length: 13, 823 Subjects and Topics: Treaty of Waitangi Constitutional Law Honour of the Crown Canadian Aboriginal jurisprudence Māori Tino rangatiratanga Kāwanatanga Tikanga Māori 2 Contents I Introduction II New Zealand Needs Constitutional Change to Reflect the True Constitutional Purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi A The Orthodox View: The Treaty within our Current Constitutional Arrangements B The Māori Perspective of the Treaty of Waitangi: Dual Sovereignty C The True Meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi: Dual Sovereignty III Convincing the Courts: The True Purpose of the Treaty Must be Given Effect A Ending the Cycle of Grievance B The ‘Organic’ Revolution: Reflecting Modern Social Values 1. The Waitangi Tribunal 2. The Treaty Settlements of Historical Claims Process 3. Treaty Principles C Judicial Duty to Develop the Constitution in Step with Social Values IV Giving Effect to the Treaty of Waitangi: A “Constitutional Kōrero” and the Honour of the Crown A Jones’ ‘Constitutional Kōrero’ B The Honour of the Crown 1. Historical Background & the Principle of the Honour of the Crown C Application of the Honour of the Crown in Canada 1. When is the Honour of the Crown engaged? 2. What are the duties
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty This Century - Maori and the Common Law Constitution
    1 SOVEREIGNTY THIS CENTURY - MAORI AND THE COMMON LAW CONSTITUTION Paul McHugh* This paper is an attempt to give a panorama of constitutional life in New Zealand this century as viewed through a particularly important window, the status of the aboriginal Maori people of these islands. Questions of Maori rights and their position in the constitutional order have become burning issues in this final quarter century and represent an immense challenge for the next. This exploration is particularly appropriate as we celebrate a century of law teaching in this capital city at a University which has produced many if not most of this country's distinguished and influential public lawyers. In many respects, the history we are about to review is also a history of common law constitutionalism in this country as well to a lesser extent as similar Anglophonic jurisdictions. We are looking not just at how that part of the common law we call "public law" has dealt with a particular ethnic group. Through this aboriginal window we are looking at the changing logic and reach of public law through the past century and at the nature and character of the common law itself. I INTRODUCTION The relationship between the Crown, as holding and embodying the power of the state, and its subjects has been the enduring preoccupation of common law constitutionalism. This fixation has been embodied in that single, highly problematic word "sovereignty". For common lawyers, sovereignty has been a powerful organising concept which has dominated the way in which they think about public power and the nature of authority.
    [Show full text]
  • 0-9 Bracegirld NZ Courtsnov 06
    The Courts and Parliament: Further cases and other developments in New Zealand Allan Bracegirdle ∗∗∗ Introduction A previous article examined a number of cases in New Zealand bearing on the relationship between the courts and Parliament in the new MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) parliamentary environment, with particular reference to cases in the area of defamation raising issues of parliamentary privilege. 1 The major case in the latter area has since come to a conclusion in the Privy Council, New Zealand’s highest court until its replacement by a domestically based Supreme Court in 2004. There have also been a number of other cases and other developments of interest to the relationship between the courts and Parliament over the course of the last Parliament (2002–5). General Cases and Related Developments Concerning Parliament Unsurprising Decisions The courts have continued to dispose of some cases raising issues of a constitutional kind. For example, in Milroy v Attorney-General ,2 an application for judicial review of officials’ advice and Ministerial decisions relating to a Treaty of Waitangi claim settlement, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision to decline to get involved. It said it would not interfere in the formulation of government policy preparatory to the introduction of legislation. It reiterated the concern it had expressed in another recent case, involving a challenge to a Government decision to disband the combat section of the Royal New Zealand Air Force, that it will often be constitutionally inappropriate for the courts to review policy or political decisions of such a character as to make them legally non-justiciable.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 1 the Parliament of New Zealand
    Chapter 1 The Parliament of New Zealand The Parliament of New Zealand met for the first time on 24 May 1854 in Auckland. At that time the Parliament was officially styled “The General Assembly of New Zealand”. It consisted of three bodies: the Governor, a Legislative Council and a House of Representatives. Only the House of Representatives, the elected component, has retained its unbroken membership of the Parliament under its original title, though it is now a much larger body, with 120 members, as compared with 37 in 1854. (The 51st Parliament—2014–2017—had 121 members as a result of an electoral “overhang” of one member.) The Parliament of New Zealand today consists of the Sovereign in right of New Zealand and the House of Representatives.1 The Sovereign was not originally mentioned as part of the General Assembly. Legislation was therefore passed in 1953, on the occasion of the Queen’s first visit to New Zealand, to remove any doubt about the Sovereign’s power to give the Royal assent to bills.2 The Sovereign’s powers as part of Parliament are exercised by Her Majesty’s representative, the Governor-General, who assumed this title in 1917. The Legislative Council, which was an appointive rather than elective body, was abolished on 1 January 1951,3 leaving Parliament a single-chamber or unicameral legislature ever since. THE Sovereign and the Governor-General The Sovereign has performed a number of acts as a constituent part of Parliament. These have included: giving the Royal assent to bills that have passed through the House; summoning and proroguing Parliament; delivering the Speech from the Throne at the opening of a session of Parliament; and sending messages to the House of Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Maori Affairs Policy
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. , I I CLOSING THE GAPS? THE POLITICS OF - MAORI AFFAIRS POLICY A thesis presented in partialfulfi lment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology at Massey University, Albany, New Zealand. Louise Virginia Humpage 2002 iii ABSTRACT In searching for ways to decolonise, indigenous peoples have promoted indigenous models of self-determination. Governments, in response, have attempted to protect state legitimacy through the depoliticisation of indigenous claims. An analysis of 'Closing the Gaps', a policy strategy introduced by the Labour-Alliance government in June 2000, illustrates that this has certainly been the case in Aotearoa New Zealand. The policy strategy provides an entry point into exploring the conceptual tensions contained within government policy for Maori, the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand. Based on an analysis of government documents and interview data, the thesis focuses on three main initiatives incorporated under the 'Closing the Gaps' umbrella. Each initiative highlights a number of bureaucratic, political and conceptual factors that explain why the strategy failed to match political rhetoric. The thesis argues that, in its eagerness to demonstrate a 'commitment' to Maori, the Labour-Alliance government neglected to distinguish between two different socio­ political projects. The first, 'social inclusion' for all disadvantaged peoples, was framed by a broader 'social development' approach whose ultimate goal was 'national cohesion'.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploration and Critique of the Sovereignty Assumed by the United Kingdom Over New Zealand
    An Exploration and Critique of the Sovereignty Assumed by the United Kingdom over New Zealand STEPHEN WINDSOR* I INTRODUCTION Two hundred years ago Maori were free and independent from external control. Today Maori are subject to New Zealand law. A fundamental aspect of New Zealand's legal system is that Parliament can legislate without restriction on any subject matter, including Maori affairs.' How did Maori lose their autonomy? How can that be justified? Parliament's sovereignty is usually traced back to 21 May 1840 when Captain William Hobson issued two proclamations declaring the Crown's sovereignty over New Zealand.2 Justice Richardson stated in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-Generalthat: 3 It now seems widely accepted as a matter of colonial law and international law that those proclamations approved by the Crown and the gazetting of the acquisition of New Zealand by the Crown in the London Gazette on 2 October 1840 authoritatively established Crown sovereignty over New Zealand. The purpose of this article is to question whetherthe United Kingdom's assumption of sovereignty was justified by international law. My analysis is based around a description of the rules and principles of international law that govern the acquisition of sovereignty over territory. These are elaborated on as they are applied to the New Zealand context. It is my view that the United Kingdom's seizure of power was illegal at international law. Finally, I deal with whether the revolutionary principle can be used. If the revolutionary principle were applied, Parliament's sovereignty * The Author would like to thank Professor Bruce Harrisand Kerensa Johnston of the University of Auckland for their encouragement and constructive advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicature Act 1908
    Reprint as at 1 July 2015 Judicature Act 1908 Public Act 1908 No 89 Date of assent 4 August 1908 Commencement see section 1(2) Contents Page Title 9 1 Short Title, etc 9 2 Interpretation 10 Part 1 The High Court Constitution of the court 3 Supreme Court reconstituted as High Court 11 4 The Judges of the High Court 11 4A Chief High Court Judge 13 4B Functions of Chief High Court Judge 14 4C Judges of High Court act on full-time basis but may be authorised 14 to act part-time 5 Senior Judge to act as Chief Justice in certain circumstances 14 [Repealed] 6 Judges to be barristers or solicitors 15 7 Commissions of Judges to continue during good behaviour 15 [Repealed] Note Changes authorised by subpart 2 of Part 2 of the Legislation Act 2012 have been made in this official reprint. Note 4 at the end of this reprint provides a list of the amendments incorporated. This Act is administered by the Ministry of Justice. 1 Reprinted as at Judicature Act 1908 1 July 2015 8 Judges may be removed or suspended on address of both Houses 15 of Assembly to the Queen [Repealed] 9 Governor may suspend Judge when Parliament not sitting 15 [Repealed] 9A Salaries and allowances of Judges 15 10 Salaries of Judges not to be diminished [Repealed] 17 11 Temporary Judges 17 11A Former Judges 17 11B Certificate by Chief Justice and Chief High Court Judge 18 12 Superannuation allowance of Judges [Repealed] 18 13 Age of retirement 18 14 Rights on retirement before attaining retiring age 18 15 How superannuation allowances of the existing Judges to be 19 computed [Repealed]
    [Show full text]
  • Paul G. Mchugh, Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law: a History of Sovereignty, Status and Self-Determination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): Ix; 661 Pp
    BOOK REVIEW Paul G. McHugh, Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law: A History of Sovereignty, Status and Self-Determination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): ix; 661 pp. BENJAMIN J. RICHARDSON∗ Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law1 makes an important contribution to scholarship on the history of Aboriginal peoples and the common law legal system. Indeed, this weighty tome verges on the magisterial in its comprehensiveness and depth of analysis. Paul McHugh meticulously traces the encounter between the common law and the Aboriginal peoples of North America and Australasia (Australia and New Zealand), beginning from the early settlement of the New World to the close of the 20th century. Because of their “strong historical correspondence,” McHugh favoured a comparative approach that looked at these jurisdictions together.2 Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law is significant because of the way McHugh carefully illuminates that complex history across several jurisdictions through the lens of the core themes of sovereignty, status and self-determination. The book is a culmination of many years of assiduous scholarship and teaching by McHugh on Aboriginal law.3 Presently, he is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Cambridge and holds a Visiting Professorship at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law is structured in three parts around the headings of “Sovereignty,” “Intermezzo” and “Self- determination.” In the first part, McHugh concentrates on the theme of sovereignty in British imperialism and the position of non-Christian peoples ∗ Professor Benjamin James Richardson, of the Osgoode Hall Law School, teaches and researches Aboriginal law and environmental law.
    [Show full text]