Your search

This note reviews New Zealand's state practice regarding Indigenous peoples' rights under international law in 2015 and traces key international developments concerning those rights. In 2015 New Zealand demonstrated support for efforts to improve Indigenous participation in the United Nations (UN) and extend the mandate of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) to advance implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). But it indicated that - domestically - the UNDRIP would be implemented within existing legal and constitutional arrangements. There were several noteworthy developments regarding Indigenous peoples' rights during the year. Indigenous peoples and their rights received limited reference in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development agreed by the UN General Assembly (GA) and in the Paris Agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Nationally, draft bills proposing significant changes to the law governing Māori land and te reo Maori (the Maori language) were released, which will contribute to growing jurisprudence in these areas. In November the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was made public, which includes an exception clause on the Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty). The UN Committee against Torture (CAT) and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) commented on the human rights situation of Māori. The GA, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), international human rights treaty monitoring bodies and others also devoted attention to Indigenous peoples' rights in the course of their work.

In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination. ³

In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination.

In February 1840, Maori co-signed the Treaty of Waitangi with the British Crown. Partnership, protection, and participation are the fundamental principles provided in the Treaty. In April 2010, the New Zealand government endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These two instruments provide indigenous peoples with the right to participate fully in decision-making that will affect their legal, social, economic, cultural, and political rights. Having endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the New Zealand government is morally obliged to comply with the intent of the Declaration. The focus of this chapter is on the right of Maori to participate and be represented on the governing councils of local government. It will be demonstrated that the refusal by the New Zealand government in 2010 to provide dedicated Maori wards on the Auckland Council is contrary to the intent of the Declaration. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi require the government to act with integrity toward the indigenous people of New Zealand. It will be argued that the failure of local government to utilize electoral options that will enhance Maori representation in local government breach obligations inherent in both the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Treaty of Waitangi.

This article draws on the politics of indigeneity to distinguish the claims of first occupancy from simple ethnic identity politics, illustrating that relative political marginalization in Australasia is not so much a function of minority status but of indigeneity itself. The politics of indigeneity's aim is to create political space for self-determination and a particular indigenous share in the sovereign authority of the nation-state itself. The Australasian states are compared with Fiji to demonstrate that the significance of historical constraints on political authority transcend the withdrawal of a colonial power and the restoration of collective indigenous majority population status.

In 2010 Indigenous peoples' rights continued to feature in discussions in a variety of international fora. Indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge (TK) associated with genetic resources (GR) were discussed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) and within the World Trade Office (WTO). The United Nations (UN) General Assembly's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Indigenous Peoples' Declaration) featured in debate under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the UN General Assembly's Third Committee; the work of the UN mechanisms with a specific mandate concerning Indigenous peoples; and, in a landmark ruling of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (African Commission), was adopted by the African Union. International human rights monitoring bodies also advanced their jurisprudence on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In this paper I argue that Maori should cite and rely on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their legal and political claims as this process can lead to the internalisation of these norms even when states reject them. The paper draws heavily on the case study of the use of the Declaration in a Waitangi Tribunal claim relating to Maori self-determination.

The UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a deeply significant document. In 2007, then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described its signing as an "historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples reconciled with their painful histories and resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all". This book reflects on the tenth anniversary of the UN General Assembly's adoption of the Declaration and examines its relevance in New Zealand. It shows the strong alignment between the Treaty of Waitangi and the Declaration, and examines how the Declaration assists the interpretation and application of Treaty principles of partnership, protection and participation. Starting from a range of viewpoints and disciplines, the authors agree that in Aotearoa New Zealand the journey to full implementation is now well underway, but warn that greater political leadership, willpower, resources and a stronger government commitment is needed.

Over the past four decades, international indigenous rights have become a prominent aspect of international law and are now enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Yet, while endorsed by Aotearoa New Zealand in 2010, little remains known about how these standards came about, how the international movement that created them was established, and the implications of these standards on national reforms already protecting Māori rights. International Indigenous Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand seeks to answer these questions. This collection of essays places the Declaration in the context of New Zealand rights around such issues as Treaty settlements, mining policy and the status of Māori children. Crucially, it also asks how Māori can hold New Zealand to account against international indigenous rights.

There are increasing numbers of Māori in New Zealand and Aboriginal peoples in Canada involved in the energy sector. In this paper I explore a number of the factors which have been instrumental in Indigenous peoples becoming involved in energy projects. Utilising a ‘weak theory’ approach I provide narratives of three case studies from New Zealand and Canada (Tuaropaki Trust, Hupacasath First Nation, Peavine Métis Settlement). These cases involve renewable and non-renewable energy types – categories which are often used to judge the value of energy projects. I suggest that while these distinctions provide useful analyses, I ask what might happen if we extend the analysis further to consider how the apparent ‘negatives’ and ‘positives’ of each might be being balanced by other activities that the Indigenous companies are involved with.

The predominant forms of foreign policy discussed these days are underpinned by an assumption of Crown sovereignty in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, the first diplomatic relations and foreign policy in this country were conducted by hapū and iwi Māori.1 Prior to the 1800s, Māori had a long history of interaction in the Pacific and with other nations. Such interactions were governed by specific legal and political practices and institutions. A number of the concepts upon which these practices and institutions were based included whakapapa (genealogy), utu (balance), mana (respect) and koha (reciprocity).

Indigenous peoples inevitably associate globalization with imperial expansion and the colonization of their territories. One associated scholarly view is that globalization's focus on capital accumulation sets aside indigenous cultural priorities to undermine self-determining authority over lands and resources (Fenelon and Hall, 2008; Friedman, 1999; Kelsey, 2005a, 2005b; Stewart-Harawira, 2005). Alternatively, globalization is an ambiguous paradox also providing significant benefits to indigenous peoples. In two very different Pacific countries, Fiji and New Zealand, the globalization of political and jurisprudential thought on the rights of indigeneity provides a significant counter to state assertions of absolute sovereignty. Globalization creates economic opportunities to reduce indigenous dependence on the state and in its contemporary expression is less significant than domestic factors in inhibiting indigenous aspirations.