The rules round that are complicated.
The oposite side of that is it only applys to traditional lands.
With the building of the Kapiti Expressway a protester with apropiate heritage did buy a section in the way then claim it was ancestral land and unable to be sold. The sole purpose was to derail the project. She got sharp shift
This is a legal minefield which I could easily be misrepresenting, but notably the Property Law Act specifically states (8)(3) that it does not apply to Māori customary land (as defined by blah blah blah). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0091/latest/whole.html#DLM969113 Here's that definition: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/whole.html#DLM291286
Everything that happens in New Zealand is subject to New Zealand law, though. Māori customary land has its own laws which relate to what's actually entailed by ownership. Parliament's in control of the law, but it's strongly obliged, sometimes constitutionally obliged, to consider stuff like moral and other legal rights (like human rights) when making and changing laws.
This post has been edited by the author on 22 July 2016 at 11:16.
I love how waynowski called ethnic? Politics off this thread. Yet has not said anything about the last half dozen posts.
Maybe he just means positive ethnic? Politic comments.
Are the last 6 posts politics or law?
I know politics make the law but is that relevant.
I know thats not the question you ask but it might point to the answer.
That wasn't Mäori FrankB. But we know what your trying to say. Did you understand what I asked you?
Just stepping in here before things get out of hand and I have to close another thread.
In my view, in starting this thread, waynowski wanted to discuss land ownership without getting into a discussion of the Treaty and issues of redress. As such, the technical details of different forms of land ownership seem relevant. Note also that I cannot moderate content in Māori, which puts me in a difficult position.
Can we move forward please?
