Your search

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.

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.

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.

Similar to experiences of Indigenous peoples globally, Māori in the nation-state known as New Zealand (NZ) have been subjected to mass incarceration by the colonial state. Places of detention are dangerous environments for the spread of COVID-19. We are deeply concerned about the potential for disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on Māori and other Indigenous peoples within these environments as many have health conditions and/or multiple comorbidities compounding the risks of severe illness and death from COVID-19. We call for the NZ government to honour te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and uphold Indigenous rights contained within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international rights instruments. A whole-of-government commitment to an equitable public health approach is required to: 1) rapidly reduce the numbers of Māori in sites of detention; 2) implement effective, timely, evidenced informed measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19, in line with World Health Organization recommendations; 3) prevent the torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detained Māori during COVID-19; and, 4) eliminate double-celling. Although focused on NZ, the themes we highlight are likely of relevance for Indigenous peoples across the globe in our collective resistance to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This book examines how Indigenous Peoples around the world are demanding greater data sovereignty, and challenging the ways in which governments have historically used Indigenous data to develop policies and programs. In the digital age, governments are increasingly dependent on data and data analytics to inform their policies and decision-making. However, Indigenous Peoples have often been the unwilling targets of policy interventions and have had little say over the collection, use and application of data about them, their lands and cultures. At the heart of Indigenous Peoples’ demands for change are the enduring aspirations of self-determination over their institutions, resources, knowledge and information systems. With contributors from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, North and South America and Europe, this book offers a rich account of the potential for Indigenous data sovereignty to support human flourishing and to protect against the ever-growing threats of data-related risks and harms.

Addressing Indigenous rights and interests in genetic resources has become increasingly challenging in an open science environment that promotes unrestricted access to genomic data. Although Indigenous experiences with genetic research have been shaped by a series of negative interactions, there is increasing recognition that equitable benefits can only be realized through greater participation of Indigenous communities. Issues of trust, accountability and equity underpin Indigenous critiques of genetic research and the sharing of genomic data. This Perspectives article highlights identified issues for Indigenous communities around the sharing of genomic data and suggests principles and actions that genomic researchers can adopt to recognize community rights and interests in data.