Your search

In this article, I outline the existing legislative options available and rationale for M?ori representation in local government. I suggest that the arguments and rationale against M?ori representation have been exacerbated by a lack of clarity around local government?s duties and obligations stemming from the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the second part of this article, I explore more recent arguments by M?ori for representation and involvement in local government decision-making on the basis of being mana whenua, which means to have territorial authority and power associated with the possession and occupation of tribal land. This argument foregrounds specific iwi (tribes) as holding territorial authority and therefore rights to representation and involvement in decision-making sourced in tikanga M?ori (M?ori law), over and above other M?ori who live in that area. I examine in detail the Rotorua District Council?s establishment of the Te Arawa Partnership Board in 2015 and argue that this Board and its first election results provide unique insights into the relationship between Te Arawa people living in and outside the district and has implications for broader conversations about the rights of M?ori living away from their tribal areas.

This article examines what might be included in a definition of Māori political participation that moves beyond a predominant focus on voting in New Zealand general elections. I suggest that the proliferation of Māori governance organisations in recent years means that Māori participation within these organisations must also be considered as part of wider political participation. In addition, I argue that Māori engagement with local authorities deserves further close examination to explore the multiple ways in which political participation occurs. Using a broader definition of Māori political participation and highlighting its many facets indicate that Māori engage in more varied ways in New Zealand politics than previously recognised

When considering how Maori political rhetoric fits within the New Zealand political landscape it is necessary to ask what makes such rhetoric distinctive and important. In this paper I examine three areas of distinctly Maori political rhetoric; the unique locations of Maori politics, the formalities to be observed by speakers and the use of particular rhetorical devices by Maori speakers, including the use of Maori language and waiata (song). Given the ways that the distinctive nature of Maori political rhetoric is often undervalued, misinterpreted of misrepresented by many non-Maori, the questions which underlie the discussion here must be around what the implications of this situation are for Maori and non-Maori.

New Zealand is at a watershed in its constitutional and political arrangements. There are three events looming in the short term which suggest that the status of Māori in Parliament is in for significant challenge.The first is the impending review of constitutional issues and the Māori seats as part of the National Party–Māori Party ‘Relationship and Confidence and Supply Agreement’.Secondly, the proposed referendum on the future of the mixed member proportional system (MMP) could also have significant implications for Māori.Finally, the longer term question of whether New Zealand should become a republic continues to haunt New Zealand’s political imagination, and would also necessitate lengthy debates about the place of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements in relation to Māori rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.Māori and Parliament provides a comprehensive and enlightening context for understanding both the historical and contemporary relationship between Māori and Parliament and highlights many of the issues which would arise in any discussion of New Zealand constitutional reform.Māori and Parliament is a collection of nineteen presentations and papers from twenty-one academics, political commentators and current and former parliamentarians and is the result of the Māori and Parliament conference held at Parliament in May 2009.Contributors include Georgina Beyer, Hon. Simon Bridges, Damian Edwards, Te Ururoa Flavell, Dr Janine Hayward, Colin James, Shane Jones, Basil Keane, Hon. Sir Douglas Kidd, Professor Steven Levine, Sir Ngatata Love, Hon. Nanaia Mahuta, Sir Tipene O’Regan, Professor Nigel Roberts, Prof. Ann Sullivan, Metiria Turei, Hon. Tariana Turia, Dr Charlotte Williams, Dr John Wilson, Prof. Whatarangi Winiata and Dr Maria Bargh.

The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 caused many New Zealanders grave concern. In this article I suggest that a number of the Government's actions since the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act bring into question several of its central claims for legislating and the subsequent overriding of Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights laws. As a result, I argue that the inadequacy in our constitutional arrangements requires a change of approach—a new game plan: constitutional change. The second part of the article examines the work of the Maori Party. Its actions in encouraging an increasing level of Maori politicisation away from expression outside the State and towards the electoral process, arising out of opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Act, constitute another changing of game plans. The article concludes by emphasising how the Foreshore and Seabed Act has encouraged us to take a longer term vision in order to foster more positive relations, a vision that encompasses the need for genuine constitutional change based on respect for human rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In December 2002 a new Local Government Act was passed into statute. Much of the literature, submissions, articles and commentaries leading up to the passing of the Act indicated that a new Act had to clarify the relationships and obligations between local government, the Crown, Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi. In this paper I argue that the new Act has not adequately clarified these relationships and obligations, and that there are particular reasons and consequences arising from this situation. The reasons surround denials from local government that they are the Crown and central government's vested interest in allowing slippage to continue. If we examine the example of the General Agreement on Trade in Services we can see that a failure to clarify the relationships may have detrimental consequences for Maori to protect their rights.

The Mäori Electoral Option is a period of 4 months, every 5 years, when Mäori electors can choose whether to be on the Mäori or the General Electoral Roll. The outcome of the Mäori Electoral Option is a key factor in determining the number of Mäori seats in the New Zealand Parliament. The Electoral Commission estimates that approximately 6,000 Mäori voters each year request to change electoral roll, but in 2017 over 19,000 voters applied to change. Why were so many more Mäori wanting to change and why did they not know they could only change during the Mäori Electoral Option held every 5 years? The following year, the 2018 Mäori Electoral Option saw the first net increase of Mäori changing to the general roll since 1996. This article uses data gathered from the results of Mäori Electoral Options 1991–2018, an anonymous survey, and evaluations of Mäori Electoral Option campaigns to consider how the shifting trends in roll choices might be explained.

"Collection of 17 essays from Māori scholars which cover customary law, ancestral law, the natural world, Māori urban protest, health, politics, and customary language and expression"--Publisher's information.

The emphasis on strengthening Maori Crown relationships in the Public Service Act 2020 and the establishment of Te Arawhiti signalled a new era in the public service's interactions with tangata whenua. Carl Billington investigates whether this is changing the way public sector agencies approach their interactions with Maori.

Examines two prominent environmental issues – sea level rise and taonga species protection – facing iwi, hapū, Māori and the Crown, exploring the barriers, solutions and positive steps in each area towards a ‘tika transition’ whereby iwi, hapū and Māori (the rangatiratanga sphere) and the Crown (kāwanatanga sphere) exist within distinct and equal political entities, with the rangatiratanga sphere leading and governing tikanga and mātauranga Māori policy and legislation. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.