Your search

Over the past four decades, international indigenous rights have become a prominent aspect of international law and are now enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Yet, while endorsed by Aotearoa New Zealand in 2010, little remains known about how these standards came about, how the international movement that created them was established, and the implications of these standards on national reforms already protecting Māori rights. International Indigenous Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand seeks to answer these questions. This collection of essays places the Declaration in the context of New Zealand rights around such issues as Treaty settlements, mining policy and the status of Māori children. Crucially, it also asks how Māori can hold New Zealand to account against international indigenous rights.

Examines ‘significant’ reforms implemented in NZ over the past 30 years to recognise the rights of Māori as an indigenous people. Overviews the conceptual basis for settlements lodged under the Treaty of Waitangi, legal claims by Māori to natural resources and other reforms. Identifies a lack of measures that recognise Māori political authority, and asserts that successive governments have deliberately discounted the normative value of ‘historical conceptual categories’, instead choosing to emphasise categories that deliver lesser substantive rights.

This article considers the puzzle of the location of tino rangatiratanga in the post-Treaty settlements era in the context of current controversy in New Zealand over recognising Maori self-determination or tino rangatiratanga as guaranteed by Art 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. On one level, the current political and legal struggles reflect a fundamental tension between Maori aspirations for tino rangatiratanga and the state's desire to maintain centralised sovereignty. At a deeper level, the government opposition to co-governance stems from questions about the evolving role of the Treaty - in particular the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga and its ability to apply to a much wider range of Treaty issues (other than natural resources) and Treaty partners; for example, non-tribal Maori collectives serving urban Maori and not bound like tribes by kinship ties. The Waitangi Tribunal, originally established to facilitate Treaty settlements, is now at the centre of this shift in thinking to expand the interpretation of tino rangatiratanga. In a recent series of reports, the Tribunal has recognised the diversity of Maori identity and the legitimacy of non-tribal collectives as Treaty partners, particularly when these organisations are created by and responsive to the socio-economic needs of Maori. The proliferation of Treaty partners thus raises issues of co-ordination and coherence - how do these many partners engage effectively with the Crown and is every Maori organisation a Treaty partner for the purposes of Art 2 tino rangatiratanga? And does provision of social services by these Treaty partners violate the right to equality?

Describes, from the perspective of the advocates for Maori claimants, the substance of submissions to and process followed by the United Nations committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in determining that the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 discriminates against Maori. 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.

"In this era of indigenous peoples' rights recognition, states around the globe are faced with reconciling the pre-existing, inherent rights of indigenous peoples with those held and asserted by the state. This fact was brought into sharp focus in New Zealand by the Court of Appeal decision of Ngati Apa." "This collection of essays does not aim to be an exhaustive treatment of the legal issues raised by Ngati Apa and the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (the FSA). It does, however, address many of the most salient."--BOOK JACKET.

In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination. ³

This article is a response to the recent surge of interest over extractive industry in New Zealand and the opposition to this by many iwi. The New Zealand government has in recent years made offshore exploration and production a high priority. By the extractive industry, we mean the people, companies, and activities involved in removing oil and gas, metals, coal, stone and other useful resources from the ground.

In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination. ³

In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination. ³