Your search
Results 3 resources
-
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.
-
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.
-
In First World colonised nations such as Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia, population statistics form the evidentiary base for how Indigenous peoples are known and ‘managed’ through state policy approaches. Yet, population statistics are not a neutral counting. Decisions of what and how to count reflect particular assumptions about Indigenous identity, ways of life and wellbeing. More often than not, the requirements and priorities of government take precedence over the informational needs and priorities of Indigenous communities. Whereas National Statistics Offices (NSOs) once rendered Indigenous peoples invisible in official statistics through non-recognition, the more pressing problem in the 21st century is that of misrecognition. In seeking to move beyond statistical misrecognition, we propose a set of guiding principles for bringing government reporting frameworks and Indigenous concepts of identity and wellbeing into closer proximity. We argue that a principled approach to collecting, disseminating and analysing Indigenous data not only avoids misrecognising Indigenous peoples but enhances the functionality of official statistics for Indigenous peoples and NSOs alike.