Your search

This paper argues that self-determination to the greatest extent possible is a legitimate aspiration for Maori people. It is argued that in education this requires a philosophical and policy response more focused on Maori autonomy than can be provided within the bicultural framework that has lately informed Maori relationships with other actors in the education arena. The paper considers the place of kohanga reo, kura kaupapa Maori and wananga in relation to broader Maori aspirations for self-determination and discusses proposals that these aspirations be furthered through the establishment of a Maori Education Authority. It is also argued that opportunities for self-determination in New Zealand are compromised by the government's unwillingness to alter a tightly controlled centralised education market to provide genuine Māori autonomy over what type of education might be available and to what end.

Whānau Ora is a new state-led, cross sectoral policy approach introduced in 2010. It places whānau outcomes at the very heart of social service delivery, and, in doing so represents a shift away from traditional approaches that delivered services to individuals. Furthermore, by focussing on collective outcomes, the approach is one that is intimately connected to Māori values and practices. This thesis traces the evolution of the Whānau Ora approach to social service delivery. In doing so, it explores the relationship between a philosophy of whānau ora, and the policy of Whānau Ora as it is enacted by various government institutions. Drawing upon data collected from interviews with key informants, the thesis argues that Whānau Ora presents opportunities for a new way of thinking about social service provision but a number of barriers may limit the potential of this approach to achieve wellbeing for Māori. First there is a danger that Māori language and culture are simply co-opted by the state in ways that transform their original meaning, and that Whānau Ora may in fact serve as a vehicle to shift responsibility for core service provision from government to Māori. Second, the differential treatment of Māori service providers by funding bodies illustrates the way in which institutional racism continues to impact on Māori. Finally, Whānau Ora is vulnerable to a political environment in which discourses of Māori privilege can impact on the longevity of policies that are seen to target Māori. As such, Whānau Ora’s contribution to greater self-determination for Māori is limited. The thesis ends by identifying key constitutional and institutional changes that are more likely to provide an environment in which self-determination can be achieved.

The COVID-19 pandemic has inequitably impacted Indigenous communities in the United States. In this emergency state that highlighted existing inadequacies in US government and tribal public health infrastructures, many tribal nations contracted with commercial entities and other organization types to conduct rapid diagnostic and antibody testing, often based on proprietary technologies specific to the novel pathogen. They also partnered with public-private enterprises on clinical trials to further the development of vaccines. Indigenous people contributed biological samples for assessment and, in many cases, broadly consented for indefinite use for future genomics research. A concern is that the need for crisis aid may have placed Indigenous communities in a position to forego critical review of data use agreements by tribal research governances. In effect, tribal nations were placed in the unenviable position of trading short-term public health assistance for long-term, unrestricted access to Indigenous genomes that may disempower future tribal sovereignties over community members' data. Diagnostic testing, specimen collection, and vaccine research is ongoing; thus, our aim is to outline pathways to trust that center current and future equitable relationship-building between tribal entities and public-private interests. These pathways can be utilized to increase Indigenous communities' trust of external partners and share understanding of expectations for and execution of data protections. We discuss how to navigate genomic-based data use agreements in the context of pathogen genomics. While we focus on US tribal nations, Indigenous genomic data sovereignties relate to global Indigenous nations regardless of colonial government recognition.

Indigenous workforces have existed across the world since the creation of Earth. What has changed is the evolution of multicultural societies, governments, and landscapes that have become part of, or sit parallel to, sovereign Indigenous nations and their workforces. An international response to Employee Assistance Programming (EAP) and workplace health will be shared from various Indigenous groups across the globe. These societies include the Maori of New Zealand, First Nations of Canada, American Indian groups from the U.S. mainland, and Native Hawaiians. Guidelines for EAP practice include the discussion of historical trauma, communication skills, confidentiality, and environmental issues. Theoretical underpinnings for health sovereignty are shared through ancient teachings of Indigenous philosophies and their relationships to contemporary EAP development and utilization.

Rongoa Maori is a holistic system of healing that has developed out of Maori cultural traditions. It has a long history of usage and credibility among Maori, and increased interest in its revival and sustainability has prompted calls for its formalisation within the New Zealand public health system. Objective and methods The objectives of the research project were to: - Examine the contribution of rongoa Maori to indigenous wellbeing, and - Identify issues for the ongoing sustainability of traditional Maori healing in New Zealand. The research process was lead by Maori researchers in collaboration with Maori healers and stakeholders. Two literature reviews were undertaken; one to provide understanding of international developments in traditional medicine, and a second to review national policy/literature related to rongoa Maori. Four focus groups and five workshops were held with groups in five communities to explore current rongoa practice and service delivery and drivers/barriers to its ongoing utilisation. The participant groups were healers and their associates, and health and local authority stakeholders.

This article explores the tensions one research team has faced in securing appropriate governance or stewardship (which we refer to as kaitiakitanga) of research data. Whilst ethical and regulatory frameworks exist which provide a minimum standard for researchers to meet when working with Maori, what our experience has highlighted is there is currently a “governance” gap in terms of who should hold stewardship of research data collected from Maori individuals or collectives. In the case of a project undertaken in the traditional healing space, the organisation best placed to fulfil this governance role receives no funding or support to take on such a responsibility; consequently by default, this role is being borne by the research team until such time as capacity can be built and adequate resourcing secured. In addition, we have realised that the tensions played out in this research project have implications for the broader issue of how we protect traditional knowledge in a modern intellectual property law context, and once again how we adequately support those, often community-based organisations, who work at the interface between Indigenous knowledge and the Western world.

Gene editing is arguably the most significant recent addition to the modern biotechnology toolbox, bringing both profoundly challenging and enabling opportunities. From a technical point of view the specificity and relative simplicity of these new tools has broadened the potential applications. However, from an ethical point of view it has re-ignited the debates generated by earlier forms of genetic modification. In New Zealand gene editing is currently considered genetic modification and is subject to approval processes under the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). This process requires decision makers to take into account Māori perspectives. This article outlines previously articulated Māori perspectives on genetic modification and considers the continuing influence of those cultural and ethical arguments within the new context of gene editing. It also explores the range of ways cultural values might be used to analyse the risks and benefits of gene editing in the Aotearoa New Zealand context. Methods used to obtain these perspectives consisted of (a) review of relevant literature regarding lessons learned from the responses of Maori to genetic modification, (b) interviews of selected ‘key Maori informants’ and (c) surveys of self-selected individuals from groups with interests in either genetics or environmental management. The outcomes of this pilot study identified that while Māori informants were not categorically opposed to new and emerging gene editing technologies a priori, they suggest a dynamic approach to regulation is required where specific uses or types of uses are approved on a case by case basis. This study demonstrates how the cultural cues that Māori referenced in the genetic modification debate continue to be relevant in the context of gene editing but that further work is required to characterize the strength of various positions across the broader community.

This chapter tracks the development of Te Mana Raraunga, the Māori Data Sovereignty Network and the influence it has had alongside the Data Iwi Leaders Group in establishing Māori data sovereignty as a legitimate policy discourse within Aotearoa New Zealand. It outlines the key definitions, frameworks and tools that have been developed and are being utilized by agencies and institutions as Māori communities look to increase Māori control of Māori data.

Bauböck’s (2005, 2009) concept of “stakeholdership” provides a theoretical framework for the extension of political rights to “external citizens” who live outside the territorial boundaries of the polity of which they are members. But is this concept useful in developing normative claims for external citizenship rights of indigenous peoples, who are widely recognised as having “citizensplus” status in their nation-state of origin? This article offers an original contribution to political theory by drawing together both the indigenous rights and the external citizenship literatures to analyse the specific case of expatriate Māori living in Australia. It finds that Bauböck’s (2005, 2009) stakeholdership criteria are more useful for framing proposals for an eighth Māori electorate seat than funding for te reo Māori in Australia. But, overall, his concept provides useful insights into what plausible normative claims can be made for external citizenship rights on behalf of Māori living in Australia.

Māori land data produced through colonial systems of dispossession lack interoperability, preventing kin-based communities from tracking their land. Our novel approach to repatriate and harmonise historic land data traces the history of the 45,500 acre Opuatia Block allocated to hapū Ngāti Tiipa in 1866, following the confiscation of 1.2 million acres of Waikato land. Ngāti Tiipa resisted Crown and settler pressures for 30 years, but 80% of Opuatia was alienated within a decade. We discuss the devastation of ‘judicial raupatu’ and the implications of this work for hapū data sovereignty and wider international efforts to achieve Indigenous data sovereignty.

Background and objectives: ‘Race’ and ethnicity data have become increasingly institutionalised within health research about indigenous peoples. While these data are critical to monitoring the differential distribution of risks and benefits in racialised societies, their uncritical and under-theorised use can perpetuate harmful biologically-deterministic and essentialist approaches to indigenous health. Additionally, indigenous rights and interests in data about us are often overlooked, with issues of indigenous data governance unresolved. The workshop objectives are to: Develop skills to critique uncritical use of ‘race’/ethnicity in indigenous health researchProvide examples from Aotearoa/New Zealand of frameworks or principles of indigenous data sovereignty

Lana Simmons-Donaldson speaks to University of Auckland Associate Professor Donna Cormack about the dire state of Maori health inequity and her thoughts on the government's health sector reforms.

Maori tribal authorities have sought to measure the wellbeing of their people as a baseline for determining the extent to which their economic, social, and cultural goals are being achieved. In recent years, data from government-administered social surveys and/or censuses have become a significant source of information. Using the tribal authority of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (TRONT) as a case study, this paper explores and compares data concerning Ngai Tahu wellbeing contained in two recently completed TRONT reports: the Ngai Tahu State of the Nation 2015 report (a quantitative study derived from government-administered survey data); and, the preliminary findings from the Ngai Tahu Whenua Project (a qualitative study undertaken by TRONT). Both studies present similar results regarding levels of tribal economic wellbeing, however, they show different results in regards to levels of cultural wellbeing. The qualitative study reveals reasonably high levels of cultural engagement among participants. Conversely, the quantitative study demonstrates reasonably low levels of cultural engagement. The difference is explained in each study's approach to understanding culture. The quantitative study viewed culture as engagement in 'static' cultural practices, whereas the qualitative study viewed Maori culture as a 'lived' set of deep networks and connections between individuals, their whanau (extended family), and places of symbolic cultural importance (particularly land and water). It is argued that measuring 'lived' culture would provide a better means of ascertaining cultural wellbeing. It is suggested that a useful means of measuring Maori lived culture would be to determine the quality and depth of relational networks.

Colonization has resulted in Maori occupying a vulnerable position in New Zealand society. Comparatively poor health, along with complex social and economic problems, is a reflection of this fundamental insecurity. This article aims to put forward a historical and developmental perspective for understanding some of the current health disparities experienced by Maori, by exploring the concepts of historical trauma, loss of land, and alternative theories of development from post-development theory.

In Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa NZ), Māori (the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) have long been objects of surveillance by state institutions and agents. State representations have centred on constructions of difference and deviance, on understandings of Indigenous peoples as dangerous, and on the management of Indigenous resistance to colonialism. This chapter considers how contemporary state surveillance practices in Aotearoa NZ, enabled by the expanded use of big data and linked government datasets, function to regulate and manage Māori. Through this lens, we explore continuities of current data practices for Indigenous peoples with the racialised logics and social orders set in place as part of global systems of imperialism and colonialism. Recognising that resistance has always been a part of Indigenous responses to colonialism, we also explore how Māori Data Sovereignty (MDSov), as part of broader Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) movements globally, provides opportunities to counter and disrupt prevailing data relations and to imagine alternative futures.