Dividing Relationship Property - Time For Change? Te Mātatoha Rawa .
October 2017, Wellington, New Zealand ISSUES PAPER 41Dividing relationship property– time for change?Te mātatoha rawa tokorau– Kua eke te wā?
October 2017, Wellington, New Zealand ISSUES PAPER 41Dividing relationship property– time for change?Te mātatoha rawa tokorau– Kua eke te wā?Version: 8 Nov 2017
General informationThe Law Commission is an independent, publicly funded, central advisorybody established by statute to undertake the systematic review, reformand development of the law of New Zealand. Its purpose is to helpachieve law that is just, principled, and accessible, and that reflects theheritage and aspirations of the peoples of New Zealand.The Commissioners are:Douglas White – PresidentDonna BuckinghamBelinda Clark QSOHelen McQueenThe General Manager of the Law Commission is Jasmine TietjensThe office of the Law Commission is at Level 19, 171 Featherston Street,WellingtonPostal address: PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New ZealandDocument Exchange Number: sp 23534Telephone: (04) 473-3453, Facsimile: (04) 471-0959Email: com@lawcom.govt.nzInternet: www.lawcom.govt.nzA catalogue record for this title is available from the National Library ofNew Zealand.ISBN: 978-1-877569-82-1 (Online)ISSN: 1177-7877 (Online)This title may be cited as NZLC IP41This title is also available on the Internet at the Law Commission’swebsite: www.lawcom.govt.nzKei te pātengi raraunga o Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa te whakarārangio tēnei pukapuka.This work is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution 4.0 International License.
ContentsAcknowlegementsHave your say45Glossary7PART A – INTRODUCING THE LAW COMMISSION’S REVIEW10Chapter 1 – Context, scope and approach11IntroductionSocial context of this reviewScope of this review and our approach so farStructure of this Issues Paper11121415Chapter 2 – Why do we have the PRA?19Marriage and property practices in traditional Māori societyPost-colonial history of relationship property lawThe PRA as social legislationTikanga Māori and the PRA19243540Chapter 3 – What does the PRA do?45The framework of the PRAHow it works – The PRA rulesApplication of the PRA on deathHow New Zealand compares internationally45536162Chapter 4 – What are the big questions of this review?66Is the framework of the PRA sound?The big questionsOther general issues667281PART B – WHAT RELATIONSHIPS SHOULD THE PRA COVER?84Chapter 5 – Who is covered by the PRA?85IntroductionRelationships covered by the PRAThe inclusion of de facto relationships in the PRA858589Chapter 6 – The definition of de facto relationship96Two people who “live together as a couple”Issues with the definition of de facto relationshipOptions for reform97105118Chapter 7 – Specific relationship types and family arrangements124Māori customary marriagesRelationships involving young peopleRelationships with and between members of the LGBTQI communityContemporaneous relationshipsMulti-partner relationshipsDomestic relationships124126129131134135
PART C – WHAT PROPERTY SHOULD THE PRA COVER?141Chapter 8 – What property is covered?142IntroductionThe PRA’s definitions of “property” and “owner”Should the PRA apply to wider economic resources?Is the definition of property future-proof?Exclusion of Māori land from the PRA142142145149153Chapter 9 – Classifying relationship property and separate property163Relationship property, separate property and debtsThe basis for classificationIs the basis for classification appropriate for contemporary New Zealand?Options for Reform163169170179Chapter 10 – When separate property becomes relationship property183Increasing the value of separate propertyApplying separate property to relationship propertyIntermingling of gifts and inheritances with relationship propertyImplications of moving to a “fruits of the relationship” approach184197199205Chapter 11 – Issues with particular types of property & debts211ACC and insurance paymentsSuper profits and earning capacityTaongaHeirloomsStudent loansFamily gifting and lending211215226233235239PART D – HOW SHOULD THE PRA DIVIDE PROPERTY?242Chapter 12 – The general rule of equal sharing and exceptions243IntroductionEqual sharingExtraordinary circumstancesMisconductDissipations of relationship propertySuccessive and contemporaneous relationships243243246250256260Chapter 13 – Valuation267Valuation of Property in the PRA’s overall schemeDetermining valueIssues and options for reform267268274Chapter 14 – How a court implements a division of property280Division ordersInterim property ordersNon-division ordersProtection of rights under the PRA280291299304
PART E – HOW SHOULD THE PRA TREAT SHORT-TERMRELATIONSHIPS?309Chapter 15 – The three year rule310IntroductionShould the PRA have different rules for short-term relationships?How does the three year rule operate?Should the qualifying period be longer?Options for reform310311312316321Chapter 16 – Short-term marriages and civil unions326The property division rulesIssues with sections 14 and 14AAOptions for reform326328330Chapter 17 – Short-term de facto relationships334Background to section 14AThe section 14A(2) testThe property division rulesIssues with section 14AOptions for reform334335336336344PART F – WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN EQUAL SHARING DOES NOTLEAD TO EQUALITY?350Chapter 18 – Does section 15 achieve post-separation equality?351IntroductionHistorical backgroundWhat is section 15 trying to achieve?How does section 15 work in practice?Determining the amount of section 15 awardsOther issues with section 15351352354359378387Chapter 19 – Options for reform391Is reform needed?Common objectives and characteristics of section 15 reformOption 1: Retain section 15 but lower the hurdles that partner A must overcomeOption 2: Repeal section 15 and address financial inequality in other PRA rulesOption 3: Replace section 15 with financial reconciliation orders391393397400402PART G – WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO PROPERTY HELD ON TRUST?423Chapter 20 – Trusts424IntroductionThe use of trusts in New ZealandTrusts used by New Zealand familiesThe PRA and property held on trust424425428433Chapter 21 – The Issues456Issue 1: The priority trusts have over rights under the PRA may be causing problemsIssue 2: It is unclear whether an interest in a trust is property456469
Issue 3: The Supreme Court’s decision in Clayton v Clayton [Vaughan Road Property Trust] didnot resolve the tension between the PRA and trusts475Issue 4: Remedies outside the PRA to recover property held on trust are inconsistent andcreate procedural difficulties478Issue 5: Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980481Issue 6: Whether there are adequate remedies in the wider law to deal with trusts and rightsunder the PRA484Chapter 22 – Options for Reform487Reform is necessary – what are the options?487Option 1: Revise the PRA’s definition of “property” to include all beneficial interests in atrust490Option 2: Revise the PRA’s definition of “relationship property” to include some property heldon trust494Option 3: Broaden section 44C502Option 4: A new provision modelled on section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 505PART H – RESOLVING PROPERTY MATTERS IN AND OUT OF COURT508Chapter 23 – How are property matters resolved in practice?509IntroductionAchieving just and efficient resolution of property matters under the PRAHow do people resolve property matters in practice?509510517Chapter 24 – Resolving property matters out of court523Do people have access to appropriate information?Is access to legal advice appropriate?Access to dispute resolution services523527530Chapter 25 – Going to court554PRA proceedings in the Family CourtIs the court process operating effectively?Options to improve the court process554563567Chapter 26 – Jurisdiction of the courts583IntroductionThe Family Court as a specialist courtThe limited role of the High Court in PRA proceedingsThe PRA is a (partial) codeIssues with the Family Court’s jurisdictionIssues with the High Court’s jurisdictionOptions for reforming the jurisdiction of the Family Court and High CourtOther jurisdiction issues583583587588592613620628PART I – HOW SHOULD THE PRA RECOGNISE CHILDREN’S INTERESTS?638Chapter 27 – Children and the PRA639IntroductionHow does parental separation affect children?How does the PRA Fit in?639640648Chapter 28 – The case for taking a more child-centred approach under the PRA 652How does the PRA recognise children’s interests?652
Should children’s interests have a role in the PRA?Should the PRA take a more child-centred approach?Which children is the PRA concerned about?Minor or dependent children653654661671Chapter 29 – Options for reform that take a more child-centred approach674Promoting Children’s interests in the principles of the PRASection 26Postponement of vestingOccupation and tenancy ordersFurniture ordersParticipation of children in PRA proceedings674678692698700702PART J – CAN PARTNERS MAKE THEIR OWN AGREEMENT ABOUTPROPERTY?705Chapter 30 – Contracting out of the PRA706IntroductionThe law governing contracting out agreementsAre the contracting out provisions are working well?Issues regarding what a contracting out agreement can coverOther issues706707718723733PART K – SHOULD THE PRA AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS?744Chapter 31 – The PRA and creditors745IntroductionThe rights of creditors under the PRAIssues with the way the PRA treats the rights of creditors745745753PART L – WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN PEOPLE OR PROPERTY HAVE ALINK TO ANOTHER COUNTRY?773Chapter 32 – Cross-border issues and the PRA774IntroductionWhat are cross-border issues in the PRA context?The intersection of private international law and the PRAWhat is private international law?How does New Zealand law deal with cross-border issues in relationship propertymatters?Section 7Section 7AWhat happens when the current law is applied?774775776778Chapter 33 – Approaches to reform801When should the PRA apply?When will a New Zealand court decide the matter?How and where can a judgment or order be enforced?801815822781783791795
PART M – WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHEN ONE PARTNER DIES?825Chapter 34 – Dividing relationship property when one partner dies826Overview of succession lawHistory of Part 8 of the PRAWhat happens to a partner’s property when they die?827830834Chapter 35 – Specific issues with Part 8842Issue 1: Public understanding of the application of the PRA on death842Issue 2: The different treatment of short-term relationships on death844Issue 3: Problems with option A and option B846Issue 4: The deceased’s personal representative does not have the same rights as the survivingpartner851Chapter 36 – Resolving the tensions between the PRA and succession law: the casefor a separate statute861The different contexts of relationships ending on death and on separationPreferred approach: a separate statute for succession law861865APPENDICES867Appendix A – Terms of Reference867Appendix B – Consultation869
ForewordThe Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) is a crucial part of NewZealand’s social legislation. It contains the rules for the division ofproperty when a relationship ends as a result of separation or on thedeath of one of the partners. The PRA is, however, now over 40 yearsold and is in need of review. In this review, the Law Commission askswhether the existing rules in the PRA are still achieving a just divisionof property at the end of a relationship.When first enacted in 1976, the PRA challenged and helped redefinethe role of women in society. When it was amended in 2001, the PRAsought fair treatment for different relationship types by extending itsapplication to de facto relationships and same-sex relationships. ThePRA has both reflected and shaped societal values in the way peopleenter, conduct and leave relationships. Yet we know that New Zealandin 2017 looks very different to New Zealand in 1976, and even 2001.Our Study Paper, Relationships and Families in Contemporary NewZealand: He hononga tangata, he hononga whānau i Aotearoa o nāianei,confirms that the changes have been dramatic. For example, in 1976the marriage rate was 35 per 1,000 unmarried adults yet by 2016 thatrate had dropped to 11. Children are now ten times more likely toidentify with more than one ethnicity than older New Zealanders.There have also been some broad changes to New Zealand law overthe last 40 years. A more child-centred approach, particularly inthe family law context, is well-established. New Zealand law hasincreasingly sought to recognise tikanga Māori. Human rights law hasdeveloped and plays an important role in our legal framework. Thecourts have responded to New Zealanders’ widespread use of trustsby developing remedies to recover property held on trust. All of thesedevelopments are relevant to the legal context in which the PRAoperates.Consequently, in this Issues Paper, Dividing Relationship Property –Time for Change? Te mātatoha rawa tokorau – Kua eke te wā?, we ask“if New Zealand has changed so much, is the policy of the PRA stillsound, and are the right principles guiding its rules?” Our preliminaryview is that the policy and principles remain sound. We discuss these1
in detail in Part A, which I encourage everyone to read before turningto specific issues.What has emerged from our work so far are some important questionsrelating to the rules of the PRA and how they attempt to ensure a justdivision of property. These questions are:1Does the PRA always apply to the right relationships inthe right way?2Does the PRA divide property that should be keptseparate?3How should the PRA deal with trusts?4What should happen if equal sharing does not lead toequality?5How should the PRA recognise children’s interests?6Does the PRA facilitate the inexpensive, simple andspeedy resolution of PRA matters consistent withjustice?7Does the PRA provide adequately for tikanga Māori?8How should the PRA’s rules apply to relationshipsending on death?Each of these important questions gives rise to a number of furtherquestions. For example, in asking whether the PRA facilitates theinexpensive, simple and speedy resolution of PRA matters consistentwith justice, we have looked not only at the resolution of matters inand out of court, but we have also looked at the resolution of mattersinvolving a cross-border element such as when property or one of theparties is located overseas.We hope that our online consultation platform and ConsultationPaper (which summarises each important question) will helpmembers of the public and interested groups to identify easily thoseareas that interest them and provide feedback on those areas. We alsowarmly invite members of the public and interested groups to attendthe consultation meetings we will be holding throughout the country(details of which can be found on our website).The PRA is likely to affect the lives of most New Zealanders. Pleaseread this Issues Paper and share your opinions on the issues andoptions for reform discussed throughout. We emphasise that the2
views we express are preliminary and do not preclude furtherconsideration of the issues. The feedback we receive will influence therecommendations we make to the Government at the end of 2018.Ngā mihi nuiDouglas WhitePresident3
AcknowledgementsThe Law Commission gratefully acknowledges the contributions of thepeople and organisations that have shaped our views in this IssuesPaper and the accompanying Study Paper, Relationships and Families inContemporary New Zealand – He hononga tangata, he hononga whānau iAotearoa o nāianei (NZLC SP22, 2017). A list appears in Appendix B.In particular we acknowledge the generous contribution of time andexpertise from our Expert Advisory Group: Professor Bill Atkin, Victoria University of Wellington Judge Andrew Becroft, Children’s Commissioner Mr Stephen van Bohemen, Barrister Mr David Goddard QC, Thorndon Chambers Mr Greg Kelly, Greg Kelly Law Professor Nicola Peart, University of Otago Dr Jan Pryor Professor Jacinta Ruru, University of Otago Judge Laurence Ryan, Principal Family Court Judge Ms Renika Siciliano, McCaw Lewis Ms Kirsty Swadling, Barrister and MediatorWe are also grateful for the support and guidance of the Māori LiaisonCommittee to the Law Commission.Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the opportunity to participate inthe Otago University Faculty of Law’s Colloquium on 40 Years of the PRA:Reflection and Reform held in December 2016 in Auckland.The Lead Commissioner on this project is Helen McQueen. The Adviserswho have worked on this project are Emma Bassett, Alec Dawson,John-Luke Day, Nichola Lambie, Francis McKeefry, Mihiata Pirini, LisaYarwood, and Karen Yates. The clerks who have worked on this project areFady Girgis and Maddy Nash.4
Have your sayThis Issues Paper, a Consultation Paper and the accompanying StudyPaper, Relationships and Families in Contemporary New Zealand – Hehononga tangata, he hononga whānau i Aotearoa o nāianei (NZLC SP22,2017), are available online at www.lawcom.govt.nz.We want to know what you think about the Property (Relationships)Act 1976 and whether reform is needed. In this Issues Paper and theConsultation Paper we ask a series of questions. You can respond to anyor all of these questions, raise any issues we haven’t covered, or tell usyour story. If you are sending us a submission (by email or in the post) itis helpful if you state the number of the question you are discussing.Your feedback will help shape the Law Commission’s recommendationsto the Government.When can I have my say?The deadline for submissions or comments on this issues paper is 7February 2018.How can I have my say?You can go online to our consultation website prareview.lawcom.govt.nzand read the papers and respond to our online consultation questions (ortell us your story).You can come along to a public meeting and speak to one of our team.Details of the public meetings can be found at www.lawcom.govt.nz.You can email your submission to: pra@lawcom.govt.nzYou can post your written submission to:Property (Relationships) Act ReviewLaw CommissionPO Box 2590Wellington 6011DX SP 235345
What happens to my submission?The Law Commission’s processes are essentially public, and it is subjectto the Official Information Act 1982. Therefore your submission willnormally be made available on request. Any requests for withholding ofinformation on grounds of confidentiality or for any other reason will bedetermined in accordance with the Official Information Act 1982. TheLaw Commission also complies with the Privacy Act 1993, which governshow we collect, hold, use and disclose personal information provided inyour submission. You have the right to access and correct your personalinformation.We will use submissions to inform our consideration of the issues thatarise in this review, and in any future reviews that cover the same orrelated issues. The Commission may refer to submissions in its reports,but as a matter of course we will anonymise submissions from privateindividuals. All submissions are kept by us as part of our official records.If you do not want all or part of your submission to be released (includingyour name) or referred to in any Commission publication, please tell uswhich parts should be withheld and the reasons why. When possible,your views will be taken into account.6
GlossaryTerms and abbreviations commonly used in this Issues Paper have themeanings set out below.Māori termsHapū – Extended kin group, consisting of many whānau.Iwi – Tribe, descent group consisting of many hapū.Mana - Prestige.Tikanga – Law, custom, traditional behaviour, philosophy.Tupuna/Tipuna – Ancestor, grandparent.Whānau – Family group including nuclear or extended family.Whanaungatanga – Kinship, connectedness, a web of relationships ofdescent and marriage.General terms2001 amendments – The amendments to the PRA that came into effecton 1 February 2002 through the Property (Relationships) AmendmentAct 2001.Beneficiary – A person who has received, or who will or may receive, abenefit under a trust or an estate.Children – Minor or dependent children, except where expressly stated.Contracting out agreement – An agreement made between the partners,or a partner and a deceased partner’s personal representative, undersection 21, section 21A or section 21B of the PRA with respect to thestatus, ownership and division of their property, for the purpose ofcontracting out of the provisions of the PRA.De facto relationship – Under the PRA, a relationship between twopersons who are both aged 18 or older, who live together as a couplebut are not married or in a civil union with one another. The PRA listsa range of matters in section 2D(2) that indicate whether two persons“live together as a couple”, such as the duration of the relationship, theexistence of a common residence and the degree of financial dependency7
between the partners. Note that the definition of de facto relationshipunder the PRA is different to the definition used in other statutes, and forthe collection of statistics. See discussion in the Study Paper.Estate – A person’s property left after he or she dies.Framework of the PRA – Collectively the PRA’s policy, theory, principlesand rules as described in Chapter 3.Intestacy – When a person dies without leaving a will, or where the willdoes not effectively dispose of the deceased’s property.Jurisdiction – A court’s power to hear, decide and make orders in a case,including the territorial limits of the court’s power.Māori land – Land that is defined as Māori land under the Te TureWhenua Māori Act 1993. This includes Māori customary land (heldin accordance with tikanga Māori) and Māori freehold land (Māoricustomary land to which the beneficial ownership has been determinedaccording to tikanga Māori by order of the Māori Land Court).Non-division orders – The types of orders a court can make under thePRA that grant a partner temporary rights to use or occupy property,but do not affect each partner’s entitlement to a share of relationshipproperty when division occurs.Policy of the PRA – The policy of the PRA is the just division of propertyat the end of a relationship, as described in Chapter 3.PRA – The Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Between 1976 and 2001 thePRA was called the Matrimonial Property Act 1976.Principles of the PRA – The principles which form the basis for the PRA’srules, including implicit and explicit principles, as described in Chapter 3.Qualifying relationship – A marriage, civil union or de facto relationshipof three or more years’ duration.Relationship property – The property described in section 8 of the PRA,which generally includes the family home, family chattels and propertyacquired during the relationship.Separate property – The property described in section 9 and section 10 ofthe PRA which is generally any property that is not relationship propertyand specifically includes any property a partner receives from a thirdparty by way of gift or inheritance.8
Short-term relationship – A relationship of less than three years’duration, and includes short-term marriages, short-term civil unions andshort-term de facto relationships.Stepfamily – A couple with children, where at least one child is thebiological or adopted child of only one partner. Stepfamilies includecouples who are married, in a civil union or in a de facto relationship.Stepfamilies also include “blended families.” Blended families are thosethat include children from previous relationships as well biological oradopted children of the partners.Study Paper – The Law Commission’s study paper, Relationships andFamilies in Contemporary New Zealand – He hononga tangata, he honongawhānau i Aotearoa o nāianei (NZLC SP22, October 2017), published jointlywith this Issues Paper.Succession law – The system of rules that says who gets people’s propertywhen they die.Trust – A legal relationship in which the owner of property holds anddeals with that property for the benefit of certain persons or for aparticular purpose.Trustee – A person who owns property on trust and is required to dealwith the property in accordance with the terms of the trust.Working Group – The Working Group on Matrimonial Property andFamily Property established in 1988 to review the Matrimonial PropertyAct 1976, the Family Protection Act 1955, the provision for matrimonialproperty on death and the provision for couples living in de factorelationships.9
Part A –Introducingthe LawCommission’sreview10
Introduction1.1Dividing property when relationships end is often a challengingtask, and one which typically comes at a time of emotionalupheaval. When relationships end as a result of separation,both partners will generally be worse off financially, because theresources that were being used to support one household mustnow support two. How property is divided can significantly affectthe financial recovery of partners and any children they mighthave. Different issues arise when a relationship ends on the deathof one partner. The interests of the surviving partner may have tobe balanced against competing interests, for example any childrenof the deceased.1.2The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)1 sets out specialrules of property division that apply when relationships end.These rules apply when partners separate, unless they agreeotherwise. The rules can also apply when one partner dies. Peoplecan use the rules in the PRA to work out their entitlements andcome to an agreement about the division of their property, or theycan ask a court to apply the rules and make a decision for them.1.3This Issues Paper asks whether the PRA rules are operatingappropriately in contemporary New Zealand. Is the PRA achievinga just division of property at the end of relationships?1.4In this chapter we explain the context of this review, its scope andour process so far. The rest of Part A is arranged as follows:(a) In Chapter 2 we explore why we have the PRA. Weexplain that the PRA is social legislation, and outline itshistory.(b) In Chapter 3 we discuss what the PRA attempts toachieve. We describe the framework of the PRA and howit works in practice.1For ease of reading, we will refer to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 as the PRA in the remainder of this IssuesPaper.11INTRODUCTIONChapter 1 – Context, scope andapproachA
Our terminology and approach to anonymisation ofcourt decisions1.5Three types of relationships are at the centre of the PRA:marriages, civil unions and de facto relationships. For readability,we use the term “relationship” unless we are referring to a specificrelationship type. Likewise, we use the term “partner” to referto a spouse, civil union partner or de facto partner. Often thediscussion in this Issues Paper takes place after a relationshipends, but for simplicity we will continue to refer to “partners”rather than “former partners”.1.6In Chapter 4 we ask whether the PRA should be amended to userelationship neutral terms, and invite submissions on this issue.1.7Many court decisions under the PRA are anonymised throughthe use of fictitious names or the use of parties’ initials. Somedecisions are not anonymised yet are still subject to publicationrestrictions.2 To address this, we have replaced the names ofparties with initials when our discussion of the facts of a caseincludes sensitive information which could identify individualswho may be vulnerable.3Social context of this review1.8The PRA was enacted over 40 years ago. Since then New Zealandhas undergone a period of significant change. We discuss thesechanges in detail in our Study Paper, Relationships and Familiesin Contemporary New Zealand – He hononga tangata, he honongawhānau i Aotearoa o nāianei (NZLC SP22, 2017) (Study Paper).1.9New Zealand is more ethnically diverse. The Māori, Pacific andAsian populations have more than doubled since 1976.4 In 2013,2Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 35A; Family Court Act 1980, ss 11B–11D.3For a copy of our anonymisation policy please contact the Law Commission.4Law Commission Relationships and Families in Contemporary New Zealand – He hononga tangata, he hononga whānau iAotearoa o nāianei (NZLC SP22, 2017) at Introduction citing Ian Pool “Population change - Key population trends” (5 May2011) Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand www.teara.govt.nz and Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStats aboutculture and identity (April 2014) at 6.12INTRODUCTION(c) In Chapter 4 we discuss the big questions we haveidentified so far, and some of the options for reformthat might significantly change how the PRA works inpractice.A
1.10These population shifts have coincided with changing patternsof partnering, family formation, separation and re-partnering.9What it means to be partnered has changed significantly sincethe 1970s, when the paradigm relationship involved a marriagebetween a man and a woman, in which children were raisedand wealth was accumulated over time. Now, fewer people aremarrying and more people are living in de facto relationships.10In 2016, 46 per cent of all births were to parents who were notmarried (or in a civil union).11 There is also greater recognitionand acceptance of relationships that sit outside the 1970sparadigm, including same-sex relationships.12 More relationshipsend in separation,13 and increasing rates of separation are driving5Statistics New Zealand 2013 Quickstats about Māori (December 2013) at 5.6In 2013, 22.8 per cent of children under 15 identified with more than one ethnic group, compared to just 2.6 per cent ofadults aged 65 and over: Law Commission Relationships and Families in Contemporary New Zealand – He hononga tangata,he hononga whānau i Aotearoa o nāianei (NZLC SP22, 2017) at Introduction citing Statistics New Zealand 2013 QuickStatsabout culture and identity (April 2014) at 7.7Law Commission Relationships and Families in Contemporary New Zealand – He hononga tangata, he hononga whānau iAotearoa o nāianei (NZLC SP22, 2017) at Introduction citing Statistics New Zealand National Population Projections:2016(base
The PRA's definitions of "property" and "owner" 142 Should the PRA apply to wider economic resources? 145 Is the definition of property future-proof? 149 Exclusion of Māori land from the PRA 153 Chapter 9 - Classifying relationship property and separate property 163 Relationship property, separate property and debts 163
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
5.3J/L - Lesson 6.4 Dividing Fractions & Whole Numbers 10/25 5.3J/L - Lesson 6.6 Dividing Fractions & Whole Numbers 10/26 5.3J/L - Lesson 6.5 Dividing Fractions & Whole Numbers 10/29 5.3I-J/L Dividing and Multiplying Fractions & Whole Numbers Review 10/30 5.3I-J/L Dividing and Multiplying Fractions & Whole Numbers Test 10/31 5.4E/F
This presentation and SAP's strategy and possible future developments are subject to change and may be changed by SAP at any time for any reason without notice. This document is 7 provided without a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a .
The Academic Phrasebank is a general resource for academic writers. It aims to provide the phraseological ‘nuts and bolts’ of academic writing organised according to the main sections of a research paper or dissertation. Other phrases are listed under the more general communicative functions of academic writing.
