Your search

Critical policy analysis (CPA) is a technique concerned with how the location of power within the policy system influences social outcomes. CPA shows how and why it is unreasonable to assume that policy making is a politically neutral, objective, and simple technical process. This entry illustrates critical policy analysis through the example of colonial health policy in New Zealand. Institutional racism is often normalised within colonial settings and CPA can respond with a range of tools to privilege Indigenous values and contexts in policy development and implementation. Critical Tiriti Analysis is an emerging CPA method of policy analysis. It emphasises making policy transparently, with substantive Māori (Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) leadership. It is becoming increasingly influential among policy makers in New Zealand with the potential to counter racism as a modifiable determinant of health, for example.

This collection brings together over forty years of thought and comment by Dr Whatarangi Winiata on Māori spirituality, social development, education and political affairs. Each chapter discusses the importance andimpact of Māori management of Māori matters and the ongoing pursuit of tino rangatiratanga in all areas of life. Dr Winiata has worked to achieve Māori development, wellbeing and attainment of aspirations over decades: driving the iwi development programme Whakatupuranga Rua Mano that led to the foundation of the first contemporary wānanga, Te Wānanga o Raukawa; being key in restructuring the working of Te Hāhi Mihingare; galvanising the New Zealand Māori Council to hold the Crown accountable over fisheries, forestry, languageand broadcasting; and co-founding the Māori Party with Dame Tariana Turia and Sir Pita Sharples. Thesepapers, curated by Dr Winiata and Daphne Luke, provide an analysis of recent Māori experience, pursuit ofself-determination and history of Aotearoa.

This collection brings together over forty years of thought and comment by Dr Whatarangi Winiata on Māori spirituality, social development, education and political affairs. Each chapter discusses the importance andimpact of Māori management of Māori matters and the ongoing pursuit of tino rangatiratanga in all areas of life. Dr Winiata has worked to achieve Māori development, wellbeing and attainment of aspirations over decades: driving the iwi development programme Whakatupuranga Rua Mano that led to the foundation of the first contemporary wānanga, Te Wānanga o Raukawa; being key in restructuring the working of Te Hāhi Mihingare; galvanising the New Zealand Māori Council to hold the Crown accountable over fisheries, forestry, languageand broadcasting; and co-founding the Māori Party with Dame Tariana Turia and Sir Pita Sharples. Thesepapers, curated by Dr Winiata and Daphne Luke, provide an analysis of recent Māori experience, pursuit ofself-determination and history of Aotearoa.

Treaty principles have provided the framework for Māori-Crown relationships to advance Treaty settlements and other outcomes since the 1980s. Principles are Crown interpretations of the Treaty’s intent, even if they are widely utilised by Crown and Māori alike. If both language texts of the Treaty/Te Tiriti o Waitangi are considered from a kāinga perspective, we can consider different approaches to its interpretation and implementation. Foundational to a kāinga view is a reciprocal relationship of accountability between Crown kawanatanga (Article 1) and Māori tino rangatiratanga (Article 2). At the heart of this relationship is as a double trusteeship: the protection of rangatiratanga (trusteeship leadership; sovereignty; self-determination), in exchange for kawanatanga (governance) which in the context of Crown-Māori relationships means the Crown has fiduciary-like obligations to protect rangatiratanga. The potential of the double trusteeship is explored through a multi-marae-based venture “Pā to Plate” as an example of a novel food sovereignty system that harnesses economic and cultural wealth generation. While the Crown—in this case the sixth Labour government struggled to engage with the venture, Pā to Plate demonstrates significant potential for rangatiratanga advancement. The double trusteeship can underpin any kāinga-led endeavour that calls on Crown engagement, commitment and support.

The New Zealand state developed from a treaty between the British Crown and hapū (sub-tribes) in 1840. The te Reo (Māori language) text and the English version of the agreement are fundamentally different. Breaches of this treaty and tension over how the political relationship between Māori and the Crown should proceed are ongoing. In 2019, the Cabinet Office issued a Circular instructing bureaucratic advisers of the questions they should address when providing advice to ministers on the agreement’s contemporary application. In this article, we use Critical Tiriti Analysis (CTA) – an analytical framework applied to public policies – to suggest additional and alternative questions to inform bureaucratic advice. The article defines CTA in detail and shows how using it in this way could protect Māori rights to tino rangatiratanga (a sovereignty and authority that is not subservient to others) and substantive engagement, as citizens, in the formation of public policy. This article’s central argument is that the Circular reflects an important evolution in government policy thought. However, in showing how the Circular privileges the English version (the Treaty of Waitangi) over the Māori text (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), the article demonstrates how Māori political authority remains subservient to the Crown in ways that Te Tiriti did not intend. We show through the conceptual illustration of the care and protection of Māori children, despite the significant evolution in government thought that it represents, these rights are not fully protected by the Circular. This is significant because it was Te Tiriti, with its protection of extant Māori authority and sovereignty, that was signed by all but 39 of the more than 500 chiefs who agreed to the British Crown establishing government over their own people, but who did not agree to the colonial relationship which may be read into the English version.

Restrictions on Indigenous peoples’ contributions to policymaking pervade post-settler societies like Australia, Canada and Aotearoa. Such effects are observed in spite of agreements like Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa and the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Te Tiriti, negotiated between the British Crown and Māori (Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa), may have been entered into honourably by both parties, but the Crown has consistently resisted its implementation. Contemporary colonialism is characterised by the entrenched and on-going displacement of Indigenous people’s authority by settler states, rationalised by race as a determinant of human worth. Impacts include land alienation, unsustainable resource exploitation and marginalising Indigenous voices from opportunities to make policy consistent with Indigenous values and preferred ways of living. Colonialism normalises institutional racism so that public policy outcomes are persistently unjust. This article describes Critical Tiriti Analysis (CTA), an original contribution to transforming colonial policy, which retrospectively evaluates whether any specific policy document is consistent with Te Tiriti. Substantial interest in CTA from policymakers, practitioners, and scholars led to the development of the tool as a prospective guide to making policy that is consistent with authoritative interpretations of Te Tiriti, and therefore, more likely effective in producing public policies which eliminate inequities. CTA was initially focused on health policy and built on a series of questions that arise from our interpretations of the text of Te Tiriti, contemporary Tiriti scholarship and jurisprudence, and our observations of the ways in which the method is being used by ourselves and others. Although deeply grounded in Aotearoa, we argue that CTA may be transferable to other colonial contexts, such as the Australian where treaties between First Nations and the state are being contemplated, and Canada which has passed legislation to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In both Australia and New Zealand, Indigenous peoples have called for alternative non-colonial political arrangements. In October 2023, Australians voted in a referendum against distinctive Indigenous participation in public policymaking, which had been proposed as a step toward a more inclusive political system. On the same day, New Zealand elected a new Parliament, leading to the formation of a government comprising three parties that had campaigned against what they saw as excessive Māori political influence. Comparing these developments and the histories of the two countries raises questions about liberal equality, democratic citizenship, and whether all or just some citizens should own the liberal democratic state.

Te Pati Māori (The Māori Party) proposes removing the British monarch as head of state so that Te Tiriti o Waitangi’s (the Māori text of the Treaty of Waitangi) (Te Tiriti) promise of fulfilling partnership may be realized. The ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) Party’s alternative argument is that partnership is among a body of treaty principles that give Māori people (Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) political advantage over others. These alternative perspectives transcend time because neither partnership nor equality as the ACT party presents it meets the possibilities of liberal democratic citizenship that may be read into Te Tiriti. Instead, equality is enhanced by interpreting Te Tiriti as constituting a commonwealth with hapū (sub-tribes) as existing political communities, and kāwanatanga (government) as a new one, with powers and responsibilities grounded in equal tikanga (cultural practices and proper conduct). The powers of government may then be shared, through participatory parity.

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).

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.

Health inequities experienced by kaumātua (older Māori) in Aotearoa, New Zealand, are well documented. Examples of translating and adapting research into practice that identifies ways to help address such inequities are less evident. The study used the He Pikinga Waiora (HPW) implementation framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore promising co-design and implementation practices in translating an evidence-based peer-education programme for older Māori to new communities.

The New Zealand government has introduced a COVID-19 domestic vaccine pass to be used in conjunction with the COVID-19 Protection Framework. The Framework is likely to be activated soon after Cabinet meets on 29 November 2021. The pass will be necessary to access places and events that require proof of vaccination under the Framework. This brief does not argue for or against the introduction of a domestic vaccine pass, but rather discusses key issues that it raises for Māori, and suggests actions to address them. We see four key issues: • the lack of Māori involvement, as a Tiriti partner, on either the design or implementation of the COVID-19 domestic vaccine pass; • disproportionate restriction on Māori mobility due to lower Māori vaccination rates; • privacy and data security concerns; • uneven implementation that could increase discrimination against Māori and other groups considered to pose a risk to others’ safety. To respond to these issues we recommend that the implementation of the pass be designed in partnership with Māori and comply with Māori data sovereignty requirements. As Tiriti partners, Māori should expect that the pass will keep their communities safe, while providing opportunities to enact manaakitanga in the matrix of care, and the mana to manage their own affairs.

In 2010, the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill marked a significant change in prisoner voting rights policies in New Zealand, disenfranchising all prisoners regardless of sentence length. A decade later in 2020, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill re-enfranchised prisoners serving sentences of less than three years. Over this time, a Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry and a number of Māori politicians and public figures highlighted the disproportionate effects of prisoner disenfranchisement for Māori given over-representation of Māori in the prison population. However, less attention has focused on the specific effects of disenfranchisement for wāhine Māori (Māori women) in prison, and what this reflects about the relationship between wāhine Māori and the state. While women make up a significantly smaller percentage of the general prison population than men, wāhine Māori made up 61% of the women’s prison population in 2021 (Office of the Inspectorate, 2021). Additionally, wāhine Māori had a drastically different experience of colonisation to tāne Māori (Māori men). Colonial actions worked to destroy traditional Māori social organisation, which disrupted the balance between men and women and confined wāhine Māori to a social position that falls behind Pākehā men and women and Māori men. This thesis takes a Māori-centred, Mana Wahine lens to draw on the content of interviews with key informants and analysis of parliamentary readings of the 2010 and 2020 bills in order to explore how prisoner disenfranchisement in the 21st century reflects broader patterns regarding the treatment of wāhine Māori by the state. Disenfranchisement is likely to uniquely affect wāhine Māori due to their importance in te ao Māori as nurturers, the managers of households, and their centrality to the intergenerational transfer of knowledge. This not only presents barriers to voting and re-enrolment on the electoral roll post-release from prison, but also serves to practically disenfranchise the whānau and communities that wāhine Māori belong to. The lack of consideration of the needs and experiences of wāhine Māori in state discussions of prisoner voting rights mirrors the ongoing invisibility of wāhine Māori in state policy. The state has framed prisoner voting rights around male and tāne Māori norms, which cannot account for wāhine Māori. Moving forward, if prisoner voting rights policies are revisited in the future, an intersectional approach must be taken that effectively addresses the needs of wāhine Māori.

This chapter examines settler colonial crime control and its impacts on Indigenous women. High rates of victimisation and high levels of over-policing and over-incarceration mark Indigenous people’s experience of settler colonialism. This chapter explores the historical and contemporary conditions of colonialism through a gender lens, exploring in particular the impact of prison on Indigenous women’s lives. The chapter is based on an interview with and subsequent written notes by Professor McIntosh in 2020 discussing women, incarceration and settler colonial control in the Aotearoa New Zealand setting.

Political encounters between settler governments and indigenous communities are freighted with the unresolved issues of indigenous independence asserted under ongoing conditions of colonial domination. Within political science, these encounters have been primarily theorised and analysed as struggles of indigenous communities for political recognition from settler states. Further, the politics of recognition is widely understood as colonising by indigenous scholars, with some arguing for an alternative politics of (indigenous) resurgence and refusal, a ‘turning away’ from the state. In this article, we argue that in the case of Ma¯ori in Aotearoa ‘turning up’ is the ethical and correct practice of politics, a practice stemming from the relational ontology of the Ma¯ori world. Thus ‘turning up’ rather than ‘turning away’ can, for Ma¯ori, itself be a practice of refusal. We outline the centrality of the embodied, face-to-face encounter within Ma¯ori politics, and identify the ongoing presence of the sovereign’s body and embodiment more broadly within the Westminster tradition, as symbolised in the concept of the Crown. Building on these compatibilities within distinct political ontologies, we argue for the potential and productivity of face-to-face political encounters, and call on the New Zealand Crown to also prioritise ‘turning up’ in its engagement with indigenous communities.

This section reviews changes to water management and governance in the past ten years. We open with a summary of Aotearoa New Zealand's historical legislative context in regard to rivers, catchments and freshwater resources. We describe the roles of local government, Maori and central government. We detail the growing recognition of tangata whenua values in water management alongside belated development of national policy direction on water quality and allocation. Drawing on the description of modelling advances, we summarise how models are being used in contemporary water management. Finally, we review the implementation of freshwater policy and the integration of science and water policy. In concluding, we argue that integration and implementation challenges must be addressed as hydrologists look beyond 2021 towards future significant legislative changes affecting water and catchment management nationwide.