Your search

The history of educational policy-making in Aotearoa New Zealand is also a history in myth-making. Myths about Māori in education are deeply embedded in educational and social thought, because they have their origins in the first political interactions between Māori and Pākeha. These interactions were motivated by contradicting forces—Māori determination to participate in the changing economic and technological landscape, contrasted against British perceptions of their own cultural superiority and inherent right to rule indigenous populations. British superiority was enshrined in aggressive and racist laws that disenfranchised and dispossessed Māori of lands, resources, economies, and attempted to de-culturalise Māori. Laws were in turn translated to policy and practice that reinforced deep seeded myths that have negatively positioned Māori socially, politically and educationally. As Aotearoa New Zealand education progresses toward a commitment to teach our dual and difficult histories, it is necessary to also expose and analyse the ways negative positioning of Māori has been purposefully built into our education system. Understanding how political histories have influenced our education system may better equip education professionals to identify and question their own conscious and unconscious biases, and to challenge and change a system that has its origins racist philosophy, reinforced by policy. Education professionals who are able to deconstruct carefully fortified, damaging myth-making about Māori will be well positioned to lead authentic movement toward a shared future.

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.

In 1840, some of the sovereign nations of Maori signed te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Maori language version of the Treaty of Waitangi) with the British Crown. Hone Heke was the first Maori leader of the northern nation of Ngdpuhi to sign, but by 1844 he was leading a significant revolt against British colonialism in Aotearoa New Zealand by chopping down British flagpoles erected on his lands. While Maori may have initially welcomed the intent of te Tiriti as a means for seeking British help to protect their international borders, the British prioritised the English version of the Treaty which recorded the transfer of sovereignty from Maori to the British. As the British transposed their dominant legal traditions of governance, including bringing to the fore their doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, Maori have been seeking their survival ever since. We extend this by focusing on why the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty needs to adapt to the Treaty's promise of bicultural power sharing.

Background Te Tiriti o Waitangi was negotiated between the British Crown and Indigenous Māori leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand in 1840. Māori understood the agreement as an affirmation of political authority and a guarantee of British protection of their lands and resources. The Crown understood it as a cession of sovereignty. The tension remains, though legal and political developments in the last 35 years, have established that the agreement places a mandatory obligation on the Crown to protect and promote Māori health. It also requires that Māori may exercise rangatiratanga, or responsibility and authority, in relation to health policy development and implementation. Methods Te Tiriti is, then, an instrument against which health policy is justly and efficaciously evaluated. This paper introduces critical Tiriti analysis as such an evaluative method. Critical Tiriti analysis involves reviewing policy documents against the Preamble and the Articles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. The review process has five defined phases: (i) orientation; (ii) close reading; (iii) determination; (iv) strengthening practice and (v) Māori final word. Results We present a working example of critical Tiriti analysis using the New Zealand Government’s Primary Health Care Strategy published in 2001. This policy analysis found poor alignment with te Tiriti overall and the indicators of its implementation that we propose. Conclusion This paper provides direction to policy makers wanting to improve Māori health outcomes and ensure Māori engagement, leadership and substantive authority in the policy process. It offers an approach to analysing policy that is simple to use and, inherently, a tool for advancing social justice.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a treaty negotiated between Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) and the British Crown, affirmed Māori sovereignty and guaranteed the protection of hauora (health). The Waitangi Tribunal, established in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the agreement, released a major report in 2019 (registered as WAI 2575) about breaches of te Tiriti within the health sector in relation to primary care, legislation, and health policy. This article explores the implications of this report for the New Zealand health sector and the decolonial transformation of health systems. The tribunal found that the Crown has systematically contravened obligations under te Tiriti across the health sector. We complement the tribunal’s findings, through critical analysis, to make five substantive recommendations: (1) the adoption of Tiriti-compliant legislation and policy; (2) recognition of extant Māori political authority (tino rangatiratanga); (3) strengthening of accountability mechanisms; (4) investment in Māori health; and (5) embedding equity and anti-racism within the health sector. These recommendations are critical for upholding te Tiriti obligations. We see these requirements as making significant contributions to decolonizing health systems and policy in Aotearoa and thereby contributing to aspirations for health equity as a transformative concept.

Worldwide, large amounts of administrative data are collected within official statistics systems on Indigenous Peoples. These data are primarily used for government and state policy purposes as opposed to by Indigenous Peoples to support Indigenous agendas (Taylor & Kukutai, 2017). In Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu New Zealand, Māori need high quality data to develop evidence-based policies and programs and to monitor government policies that impact on Māori. In this methodological paper, we describe uses of administrative data for Māori and current barriers to its use. We outline the development of a novel administrative data infrastructure and future longitudinal study. By explicating our Indigenous initiated, designed and controlled data project, we make a methodological contribution to Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Kaupapa Māori (Māori worldview) epidemiology.

Many studies have documented the effect that colonisation has had on takatāpui, that is, Māori (the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) with diverse gender identities, sex characteristics and sexualities. In this paper, we explore whether current Aotearoa New Zealand (hereafter Aotearoa) mental health policies meet the needs of takatāpui. We identified five mental health policy needs, informed by the literature. We then explored policy documents from government ministries, district health boards and non-government organisations to see the extent to which policy met these needs. Four themes were present in the literature analysed: an overall lack of acknowledgment of takatāpui and intersectionality; promising engagement with the needs of takatāpui by NGOs; symbolic commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and some limited engagement with Māori health models. The findings show promise in some areas but demonstrate a lack of engagement by policy to meet the needs of takatāpui.

This article analyses the protections the New Zealand intellectual property framework provides for the haka and matauranga Maori. Part II of this article defines the key terms of" misappropriation"," traditional knowledge" and" matauranga Maori" in order for the reader to fully understand these concepts in an indigenous, and specifically Maori, context. Part III of this article discusses the importance and signficance of haka in Maori culture, particularly looking at the history and significance of Ka Mate, the most well-known haka in New Zealand and the world. Examples of different companies, both New Zealand and internationally-owned, using the haka for commercial benefit are analysed to establish whether or not their use of the haka is misappropriation, and if so, the harm this misappropriation has caused Maori. Part IV discusses the current legal protections New Zealand provides for matauranga Maori and whether they sufficiently protect the haka and matauranga Maori generally. It will assess the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act 2014 as a case study. Part V outlines the limitations of the intellectual framework. Part VI of this article looks to what legal protections would be sufficient to protect against the misappropriation of the haka and matauranga Maori generally.

This article explores ways to decolonise aspects of the intellectual property system in Aotearoa New Zealand, primarily in respect of trade marks. It considers the seminal Wai 262 report of the Waitangi Tribunal and builds upon its findings and recommendations, while also offering new ideas of legal reform for protecting matauranga Maori (Maori knowledge and expertise) from undue exploitation. This article also measures those ideas against the objectives and principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), as well as other internationally recognised rights. Essentially, this article maintains that for any mechanism to be effective in recognising and upholding the tino rangatiratanga (unqualified self-determination) of Maori over their own matauranga, that mechanism must be founded upon the principles of tikanga Maori (Maori laws and customs), which is a notion crystallised within the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It must also find its own meaningful place in the law of New Zealand that surrounds us today. It is only in this way that the extractive and thereby oppressive binds of the western intellectual property regime can be unpicked and put aside and the tapu (high status and associated sanctity) of matauranga can be upheld. These words are also an honouring of those who spent countless hours on the Wai 262 report. It is hoped this article gives new and much needed life to the issue of protecting matauranga Maori, which is still as relevant today as it was then. Kei aku rangatira, kei aku tapaeru, kei aku whakaruakaka, tenei e ngakau whakaiti nei (an acknowledgement of all those who took part in Wai 262).

Māori in Aotearoa have higher incidence, prevalence and mortality from chronic disease. The dominant narrative in Aotearoa about the reasons for Māori ill health neglects to acknowledge the history of colonisation and failures of the health system, alongside the holistic view of health taken by Māori focusing on collective, whānau-based outcomes. In this article, we review health interventions for chronic disease that have a kaupapa Māori philosophical basis. Our findings demonstrate that there is no clear process in health service design, delivery, research and funding that values and understands mātauranga Māori. Western knowledge systems are inadequate for collecting and presenting Māori knowledge. Overall, we highlight that the tension between acknowledging that a by Māori, for Māori approach is best, and the difficulty in defining appropriate evidence collection methodology and outcome measures when funders and policy makers continue to require Western-centric interventions is an obstacle to improving Māori health outcomes.

Co-designed research is gaining prominence within the health care space. Community engagement is a key premise of co-design and is also particularly vital when carrying out kaupapa Māori research. Kaupapa Māori describes a “by Māori, for Māori” approach to research in Aotearoa/New Zealand. This article discusses the research process of Hā Ora: a co-design project underpinned by a kaupapa Māori approach. The objective was to explore the barriers to early presentation and diagnosis of lung cancer, barriers identified by Māori. The team worked with four rural Māori communities, with whom we aimed to co-design local interventions that would promote earlier diagnosis of lung cancer. This article highlights and unpacks the complexities of carrying out community- engaged co-design with Māori who live in rural communities. In particular, we draw attention to the importance of flexibility and adaptability in the research process. We highlight issues pertaining to timelines and budgets, and also the intricacies of involving co-governance and advisory groups. Overall, through this article, we argue that health researchers need to prioritise working with and for participants, rather than on them, especially when working with Māori 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.

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.

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.