Your search

VoR - Version of Record

https://muse-jhu-edu.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/article/646637

Governments in New Zealand have legislated a large number of settlements extinguishing many hundreds of claims taken by Māori against the Crown for breaches of the country’s founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They portray settlements as a great success for Māori and the Crown. Māori disagree. Settlements are government-determined and imposed on Māori using a smoke and mirrors approach that masks successive governments’ true intentions: to claw back Māori legal rights; to extinguish all claims; and to maintain White control over Māori. In short, to uphold the Doctrine of Discovery in further breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Māori claimants and negotiators report being enticed into the process by false promises only to become traumatised and disenchanted. Yet many take a pragmatic stance and sign settlements, making the best they can out of a bad deal that goes nowhere near compensating for their actual loss. They know that despite what legislation may say, the settlements are not full, not fair and not final and that, like all previous settlements, they will be revisited. They also know that unless fundamental changes are made to the constitutional makeup of the country, there is no prospect of justice and reconciliation for Māori.

https://catalogue.library.auckland.ac.nz/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=uoa_alma21140132640002091&context=L&vid=NEWUI&search_scope=Combined_All&tab=combined&lang=en_US

This article considers research conducted on the impact of the Crown’s treaty claims settlement policy on Māori in New Zealand. It provides a brief background to the Treaty of Waitangi and the subsequent British colonisation process that relied on the Doctrine of Discovery in breach of the treaty. It outlines how colonisation dispossessed Māori of 95 percent of their lands and resources, usurped Māori power and authority and left them in a state of poverty, deprivation and marginalisation while procuring considerable wealth, prosperity and privilege for British settlers. The work of the Waitangi Tribunal, the commission of inquiry set up to investigate those breaches, is considered, as is the Crown’s reaction to the 1987 Lands case in developing its treaty claims settlement policy. The Crown unilaterally imposed the policy despite vehement opposition from Māori. Since 1992, it has legislated more than seventy ‘settlements’. The research shows that overall, the process has traumatised claimants, divided their communities, and returned on average less than one percent of their stolen lands. Proposals for constitutional transformation have drawn widespread support from Māori as a solution to British colonisation. United Nations treaty-monitoring bodies have recommended that the government discuss this with Māori

Māori leaders in New Zealand continue the battle to end British colonisation. The aim is to restore the balance between Māori and the Crown guaranteed in the treaty that Māori and the British Crown agreed to in 1840 so that we can live in peace and harmony. Early European visitors subjected our ancestors to numerous atrocities. Relying on the Doctrine of Discovery, they illegitimately usurped our power and dispossessed us, leaving us in a state of poverty, deprivation and marginalisation. They fabricated myths to justify their criminal activities, set up an illegitimate parliament with unfettered powers, passed laws legalising their crimes and then covered it up with amnesia. They established the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 to inquire into breaches of the treaty, not realising that it would dismantle the myths and look beneath the amnesia. Governments then instigated the ‘treaty claims settlement’ process to extinguish all Māori claims, remove Māori rights and entrench colonisation. Research undertaken has shown that Māori loathe this process and do not accept that settlements are full and final. Research on constitutional transformation has identified a possible solution. The first step towards that goal involves implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This article outlines the fraudulent practices of settler traders and land agents who employed alcohol to facilitate the alienation of Maori lands, highlighting the close relationship between Maori, liquor and land loss in 19th century New Zealand. Traders and agents developed a range of strategies, forged in Britain, tempered by colonial experience and wielded with deft precision in New Zealand to defraud Maori of their lands. Government efforts to pre-empt and prevent the worst excesses of settler crime proved ineffectual, self-defeating, paternalistic and ultimately unenforceable. Maori came to regard settler practices, the successive failure of legislation to alleviate the problem, and state connections with the liquor industry to be part of a thinly veiled conspiracy to destabilize their communities and alienate their lands. While this conclusion is highly problematic, it is likely that traders and agents had witnessed or were aware of similar practices in the settler colonies of Australia, Canada and North America, and made good use of them in New Zealand to access Maori lands.

The presence of diverse needs, interests and perspectives in society is a key measure of a healthy representative democracy. Learning about diversity, and how society provides for diversity, is therefore a valuable characteristic of citizenship education (Arthur and Davison, 2000; Berding and Miedema, 1998; Feinberg, Fields and Roberts, 1997). This paper presents the findings of recent research about citizenship education in Aotearoa (New Zealand). In particular, it explores what presence the notion of diversity has in New Zealand’s citizenship education programme (social studies). In New Zealand, the provisions for diversity are under constant political debate. This includes the provisions for indigenous political representation, such as the Maori parliamentary seats. The research utilized critical discourse analysis and content analysis methods. A review of the social studies curriculum revealed a strong focus on identity, culture and heritage in New Zealand, but an absence of material about how diversity is provided for in society. This includes the socio-political provisions for diversity in New Zealand’s democratic arrangements, such as guaranteed indigenous representation. The implications of this absence are discussed in terms of citizens’ understandings of democracy, equality, and the preparation of citizens to discuss these issues further.

This paper presents the findings of research about civics and citizenship education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Aspects of New Zealand's electoral system, such as the Maori representation, have long been the focus of political debate. This paper identifies the civics and citizenship education provided to New Zealand citizens about this debate. In New Zealand, civics and citizenship education is taught through the social studies curriculum. A review of the teaching units for social studies showed a considerable focus in New Zealand on aspects of citizenship such as identity, but an absence of material for civic knowledge such as the make-up of the electoral system. This absence includes a lack of material on the Maori electoral representation. These challenges are considered in context of the multidimensional citizenship model arising from the international Citizenship Education Policy Study (CEPS).

Argues that Māori have been actively engaged in practising tino rangatiratanga in various forms even since before the Declaration of Independence ...

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.