Your search

This paper explores the implications of prevailing political thought for the extent to which Māori (native to New Zealand) are able to pursue self-determination, which, although theoretically legitimate, is constrained by elite political pragmatism. While the long-fashionable bicultural paradigm offers some opportunity for self-determination, its utility for meeting Māori aspiration was further limited by the change in political climate following the National Party Leader Don Brash's Nationhood speech in 2004 and by the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004. These events encouraged and legitimised a renewed public suspicion of Māori aspiration so that the political space available for the pursuit of self-determination was reduced.

This paper demonstrates that the philosophical premises underlying biculturalism and self-determination lead to different conclusions about where power properly resides with respect to Crown/Maori relations in New Zealand. It is argued that biculturalism is not the panacea for the realisation of legitimate Maori aspirations that has been assumed by both Maori and Pakeha policy elites over the past twenty years because it makes assumptions about power relationships which limit greater degrees of Maori autonomy ' one step towards self-determination is permitted, but the next prevented. Biculturalism can not realise greater autonomy because it is concerned primarily with relationships among people in institutional settings and within and among bureaucratic institutions. Therefore it is less likely to meet Maori aspirations than self-determination which is concerned with creating, to the greatest extent possible, independence and autonomy for groups, not necessarily in isolation from wider society, but certainly apart from controls and regulations imposed from outside the would be self-determining community. Self-determination locates power, at least to some extent, within traditional Maori social units, while biculturalism, although assuming a sharing of power, inevitably gives Maori the status of junior partner in a project designed to modify state institutions to make them more responsive to Maori interests. While in itself this is advantageous to Maori, biculturalism is not a substitute for the affirmation of traditional social structures as the central point in a Maori quest for greater independence from an historically intrusive state.

The British relied on the legal fiction known as the Doctrine of Discovery to dispossess Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand and the Indigenous Peoples of Canada, the United States and Australia and to violently take over their territories. British colonisation continues to severely disadvantage these Indigenous Peoples who have never given up their fight to recover their lands, resources, and power. This chapter draws on the work of Indigenous scholars to provide a very brief overview of just some of the methods adopted by the British to dispossess the Indigenous Peoples of Canada, the United States and Australia and the struggles in those countries to achieve land restitution. It then considers the situation for Māori in more detail. It provides an overview of the schemes the British dreamt up to steal Māori land and the steps Māori have taken as we tried to achieve land and resource restitution over the past century.

This article explores some of the key features of co-governance, or shared decision making, between Māori and the Crown. Co-governance models create the conditions for making better decisions by sharing decision making with Māori where Māori communities have a distinctive interest. Such models are able to draw on the distinctive experiences, knowledge and expertise that Māori communities can bring. Shared decision making enhances the legitimacy and durability of decisions by giving effect to rights under te Tiriti o Waitangi. The article also identifies some key principles of effective co-governance and provides some brief examples where shared decision making is being implemented to illustrate the range of situations in which such models are applicable.

New Zealand is a peaceful nation, but ongoing political tensions and inequities between Māori (the indigenous peoples of New Zealand) and Pākehā (the majority group of Europeans) persist as a result of its colonial history. Identifying ways to redress the enduring legacy of colonialism are therefore of critical importance. Accordingly, this paper examines data from 7017 Māori, as well as 37,233 Pākehā, to examine the impact of regional-level Pākehā warmth towards Māori on Māori support for progressive collective action. Results reveal that Pākehā warmth towards Māori varies markedly across 257 regional wards (regional units created for New Zealand electoral purposes). Moreover, multilevel modelling demonstrates that Pākehā warmth towards Māori at the region-level correlates positively with Māori identity and political efficacy at the individual level which, in turn, both correlate positively with collective action support. Collectively, these results demonstrate the impact of the broader social climate on social change, while identifying a previously-unknown facilitator of collective action support (namely, a broader context of warmth towards structurally disadvantaged groups).

Recently, the Australian government apologised to the “stolen generation” for past abuses. The apology had been long awaited and when delivered was well received by the indigenous people of Australia and the world in general. The question was then raised in the New Zealand parliament as to why Māori had not yet received a similar apology from the New Zealand government. The abuse of Māori by past governments is well documented involving not only land theft and illegal confiscations but numerous human rights abuses including racial discrimination, murder, armed aggression, and illegal incarceration. If reconciliation between Māori and Pākehā is an important part of nation building then an apology would seem to be in order. The concept of trans-generational justice is as valid as trans-generational resource transfer and trans-generational obligations. The argument supporting trans-generational justice is based on the authority of government residing not with individuals but with the office of government itself. Without an apology the marginalization of Māori will be difficult to overcome. This essay examines reasons why Māori should or should not receive an apology from the New Zealand government.

Obesity among Māori is of growing concern in New Zealand with rates for Māori being one-and-a-half times that of the total population. The New Zealand government's Healthy Eating Healthy Action: Oranga Kai Oranga Pumau (HEHA) Strategy has, in the past seven years, been a significant policy mechanism through which the health sector has been able to address the increasing prevalence of obesity and associated chronic diseases.

This paper presents an analysis of the qualitative data collected for a study investigating the effect of the Working for Families policy on Māori families’ self-reported whānau ora (family wellbeing). Data are drawn from a discrete set of 30 qualitative interviews undertaken with Māori whānau involved in the Te Hoe Nuku Roa Longitudinal Study. Whānau perceptions about how the Working for Families policy has impacted on their lives and the contribution the policy has made towards their family's wellbeing is presented. The paper discusses how the Working for Families policy appears to have become an integral component of household income for many low-to-middle-income whānau and reflects on how this policy, conceived and designed (amongst other things) to alleviate and redress child poverty, is contributing towards supporting family wellbeing or ‘whānau ora’.

When analysing Indigenous public policy, crisis is best seen as the moral crisis of an enduring idea rather than the crisis of sporadic and unconnected instances of policy failure. In Australia and New Zealand, states use manufactured crises of Indigenous personal deficiencies to justify colonial authority. A justification which may be countered by positioning colonialism itself as the point of crisis. From this perspective, the crisis in Indigenous public policy is not resolved by the state becoming better at policy-making or more attentive to the egalitarian distribution of public resources. Instead, it is in the non-colonial possibilities of Indigenous self-determination that paths beyond crisis may lie. In practical terms, by ensuring spaces of independent Indigenous authority alongside spaces of distinctive culturally framed participation in the public life of the state. The potential for such arrangements in Australia is discussed with reference to a proposed First Nations’ Voice to Parliament and possible treaties between First Nations and the state. For New Zealand, their potential is discussed with reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi’s affirmation of independent Māori authority (rangatiratanga) and substantive state citizenship.

This is a collection of papers by senior Maori academics who are experts and have considerable mana in their chosen fields. The ten contributing authors, who are academics at Massey University, discuss the Maori language, marae, religion, the Treaty of Waitangi, the State and Maori, citizenship education, mental health, the health workforce, kaitiakitanga and horticulture. The book discusses Maori development and contemporary issues concerning Maori, both from the authors' perspectives and across different disciplines.

This is a collection of papers by senior Maori academics who are experts and have considerable mana in their chosen fields. The ten contributing authors, who are academics at Massey University, discuss the Maori language, marae, religion, the Treaty of Waitangi, the State and Maori, citizenship education, mental health, the health workforce, kaitiakitanga and horticulture. The book discusses Maori development and contemporary issues concerning Maori, both from the authors' perspectives and across different disciplines.

Māori customary rights to natural resources are a contentious issue between Māori and the New Zealand government and between Maori and non-Māori. The values and principles inherent in a treaty signed in 1840 between Māori and the British Crown have been undermined by the government’s refusal to allow Māori the right to go to the courts to determine proprietary rights to the foreshore, seabed and fresh water. Discriminatory Crown actions highlight the argument that when an injustice occurs then reparations should be made. The United Nations has chided the New Zealand government for its discriminatory behaviour and failure to provide guaranteed redress but it has had little effect.

"Provides an historical, comparative and contextual analysis of various legal and policy issues affecting indigenous peoples. It focuses on the common law jurisdictions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as relevant international law developments."