Talk:Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.JPG)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111002113930/http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9069858/parliament-passes-marine-and-coastal-area-bill/ to http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9069858/parliament-passes-marine-and-coastal-area-bill/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
2020 Reporting of Breach of Te Tiriti/The Treaty edit
The 2020 reporting section accurately quotes from the RNZ article, but the editorialising of the RNZ article misrepresents the Waitangi Tribunal report, which is apparent even from the section they quoted. The Waitangi Tribunal has not determined that the MACA Act itself is in breach of te Tiriti/the Treaty. Rather, the Tribunal determined, as a result of the first stage of its Inquiry, that the Crown's implementation of the Act has been in breach of te Tiriti/the Treaty.
The Tribunal has yet to determine whether or not the Act itself is in breach of te Tiriti/the Treaty. It will do so in Stage 2 of the MACA Inquiry, which is currently ongoing.
My preference would be for the article to be changed to reflect that it is the Crown's implementation of the Act, not the Act itself (yet), that was found to be in breach. I'm aware that Wikipedia places high priority on sourcing directly to media articles, but in this case this is a relatively minor misunderstanding, in a niche area of law.122.58.40.99 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)