Your search

The article argues that Maori political participation in New Zealand constitutes a positive example of how the current international standards on indigenous political participation can be implemented at the national level. Notwithstanding the weaknesses of the system and the challenges laying ahead, the combination of the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system, dedicated Maori seats and the establishment of the Maori Party have ensured a Maori voice in Parliament and have broadened the possibilities of effective indigenous participation in the political life of the state. Such state practice that implements the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples firmly confirms the position of the Declaration within current international law.

Explores the background to Māori representation in Parliament before tracing the development of Labour's acquisition of the Māori vote up until 1...

This paper argues that self-determination to the greatest extent possible is a legitimate aspiration for Maori people. It is argued that in education this requires a philosophical and policy response more focused on Maori autonomy than can be provided within the bicultural framework that has lately informed Maori relationships with other actors in the education arena. The paper considers the place of kohanga reo, kura kaupapa Maori and wananga in relation to broader Maori aspirations for self-determination and discusses proposals that these aspirations be furthered through the establishment of a Maori Education Authority. It is also argued that opportunities for self-determination in New Zealand are compromised by the government's unwillingness to alter a tightly controlled centralised education market to provide genuine Māori autonomy over what type of education might be available and to what end.

In 2004 the appointment of a Coordinating Minister Race Relations, signalled a shift in elite Māori policy thinking from a long-standing cautious bipartisan acceptance of selfdetermination towards a re-emergent assimilationist ‘one law’ for all discourse. The question simplistically posed by the Leader of the Opposition was should welfare entitlements be granted on the basis of need or race (Brash 2004)? Beneath this question lies an ideological assumption which privileges assimilation over indigeneity as the basis of Māori participation in public affairs. This paper therefore asks: are Māori peoples with rights, or individuals with needs? Is there a deeper politics of indigeneity providing a legitimate foundation for rights which are not necessarily superior to the rights of citizenship, but are important and distinguishable adjuncts? These questions transcend the issue of welfare entitlements to wider questions about the nature and terms of Māori belonging to the liberal polity. The paper highlights the political tension between government attempts to remove indigeneity from the public agenda in response to populist pressure and a pragmatic acceptance that New Zealand ‘needs’ Māori to increase their contribution to the national economy and that the realisation of this goal may in fact depend on the fuller citizenship imagined by the politics of indigeneity.

This paper identifies three discourses that are prominent in contemporary Treaty of Waitangi policy debate, each with significantly different implications for Maori political status within the modern nation-state. At one extreme the Treaty's significance is exaggerated by overemphasis on partnership as an implicit Treaty principle. At another extreme the Treaty's significance is understated by an assimilationist position that denies the Treaty's relevance to Indigenous rights which, in turn, imposes serious constraint on the extent to which partnership can actually develop into comprehensive policy practice. An alternative position is one that sees the Treaty, which is supported in international law, as affirming a twofold conception of citizenship as the basis of both individual and collective Maori rights.

This paper examines contemporary debates in Maori politics by responding to the argument of the former leader of the opposition National party, Don Brash, that Maori public policy is most properly based on "need" alone because indigenous status offers no "rights" beyond those of common national citizenship. The paper's alternative argument is that the politics of indigeneity and associated theories of self-determination provide a way of avoiding a general belief that addressing need is all that is required to include Maori fairly in the national polity. It is argued that Maori ought to enjoy rights of indigeneity as the basis of an inclusive, cohesive and fair society. /// Cette étude examine certains débats dans le domaine de la politique maorie en répondant aux propos de l'ancien chef du parti National, Don Brash, selon qui la politique publique maorie se baserait le plus aptement sur la notion du seul 'besoin', le statut de peuple indigène ne conférant aucun 'droit' au-delà de ceux qu'accorde la citoyennenté nationale régulière. Nous proposons par contre que la politique de l'indigénéité et les théories de l'auto-détermination qui y sont associées constituent un moyen de parer à une croyance généralisée qu'il suffirait de suppléer au besoin pour inclure avec justice les Maoris dans la politique nationale. Nous démontrerons que dans une société inclusive, cohésive et juste, les Maoris devraient jouir des droits accordés par l'indigénéité.

Reconciliation brings together Christological and anthropological dimensions of human thought to illustrate the nexus between religious principles and political means. For the state reconciliation is concerned with social cohesion and political stability. For the church, it extends the sacramental notion of reconciliation between God and penitent to public relationships. This article examines Roman Catholic contributions to secular reconciliation debates. It shows how religious precepts create moral imperatives to engagement with secular discourses as a necessary element of Christian mission. It also argues that the church’s role in the disruption of indigenous societies creates an additional moral imperative to engage in reconciliation as mission and to articulate a Christian vision of indigenous rights.

Indigenous peoples inevitably associate globalization with imperial expansion and the colonization of their territories. One associated scholarly view is that globalization's focus on capital accumulation sets aside indigenous cultural priorities to undermine self-determining authority over lands and resources (Fenelon and Hall, 2008; Friedman, 1999; Kelsey, 2005a, 2005b; Stewart-Harawira, 2005). Alternatively, globalization is an ambiguous paradox also providing significant benefits to indigenous peoples. In two very different Pacific countries, Fiji and New Zealand, the globalization of political and jurisprudential thought on the rights of indigeneity provides a significant counter to state assertions of absolute sovereignty. Globalization creates economic opportunities to reduce indigenous dependence on the state and in its contemporary expression is less significant than domestic factors in inhibiting indigenous aspirations. Inevitablemente, la población indígena asocia a la globalización con la expansión imperial y la colonización de sus territorios. Una visión académica asociada es que el enfoque de la globalización en la acumulación de capital, desestima las prioridades culturales indígenas para entorpecer la autoridad autodeterminante sobre la tierra y los recursos. (Fenelon and Hall, 2008; Friedman, 1999; Kelsey, 2005a; 2005b; Stewart-Harawira, 2005). Por otro lado, la globalización es una paradoja ambigua que también provee beneficios a las poblaciones indígenas. En dos países diferentes del Pacífico, Fiyi y Nueva Zelanda, la globalización del pensamiento político o jurisprudencial sobre los derechos del indigenismo, provee una lucha importante contra las afirmaciones estatales de una soberanía absoluta. La globalización crea oportunidades económicas para reducir la dependencia indígena del estado y su expresión contemporánea es menos importante que los factores domésticos que inhiben las aspiraciones indígenas. 伴随着帝国的扩张和其领土的被殖民化，土著居民无可避免地被卷入全球化中。一种相关学术观点认为，全球化对资本积累的关注不顾土著民的文化优先权，损害了土著民对土地和资源的自决权力。（Fenelon 和 Hall, 2008; Friedman, 1999; Kelsey, 2005a; 2005b; Stewart-Harawira, 2005）另一种观点认为，全球化是一种不确定的悖论, 也为土著民带来了巨大利益。在两个截然不同的太平洋国家———斐济和新西兰，关于土著民权利的政治和法律思考的全球化对国家声称的绝对主权提出了挑战。全球化为土著民减少对国家的依赖创造了经济机遇；而且在抑制土著民的权利主张方面，其当今表现作用不及国内因素显著。 원주민들은 불가피하게 세계화를 제국주의적 팽창과 영토의 식민화와 연계시킨다. 관련된 학술적 견해는 자본축적에 초점을 맞춘 세계화가 토지와 자원에 대해서 자결 권위를 약화시키 위하여 원주민들이 문화적으로 우선시 하는 사항을 제켜 놓는다는 것이다 (Fenelon and Hall, 2008; Friedman, 1999; Kelsey, 2005a; 2005b; Stewart-Harawira, 2005). 대안적으로 세계화는 원주민들에게 상당한 이익을 가져다 주는 애모보호한 패러독스이다. 서로 다른 두 태평양 국가인 피지와 뉴질란드에서 원주민의 권리에 대한 정치적, 법률적 사유의 세계화는 절대적 주권을 주장하는 것에 대한 중요한 반론을 제공한다. 세계화는 국가에 의존하는 원주민들의 종속성을 약화시키는 경제적인 기회를 만들고 또한 현대적인 표현으로 내생적인 갈망을 금지시키는데 국내적인 요인들보다 덜 중요하다.

Abstract Christian public theology extends reconciliation beyond its principal sacramental concern for relationships between God and penitent to the construction of ‘socially just’ public relationships for the settlement of intra-national conflict. In theological terms, reconciliation brings public relationships into what Hally calls ‘the Christ narrative of passion, death and resurrection’ in which the perpetrators of injustice repent and seek forgiveness. This article introduces the conflicts that these discourses aim to resolve in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand and explains and contrasts reconciliation’s relative importance in each of these jurisdictions. Moreover, the article’s cross-jurisdictional comparison shows reconciliation’s limits and possibilities as public theology, and argues that in Australia and New Zealand it has helped to create political environments willing to admit indigenous perspectives on a range of policy issues. On the contrary, however, the article also shows that the Fijian churches have distorted the concept of reconciliation to support political imperatives that are difficult to rationalize theologically, even though they are presented by the churches as being concerned with religious goals.

This article will aim to determine the form and place of te ao Māori in the New Zealand Parliament. The article will analyse the maiden speeches of 12 Māori Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum and from different Parliaments since the adoption of Mixed Member Proportional Electoral System in 1996, and will investigate their commitment to te ao Māori based on deductive and inductive discourse analysis. It seeks to determine the presence of Māori identity indicators, as well as to determine themes unique to the Māori political context. The election of the 51st New Zealand Parliament was noted as having the greatest representation of Māori of any parliament in New Zealand history. Of the 121 Members of Parliament, 26 identify as Māori or as having Māori heritage. However, while the number of Māori Members of Parliament has increased, this does not provide the full picture of Māori representation in Parliament. This article will ask ‘How do Māori Members of Parliament best represent te ao Māori in the New Zealand Parliament?’. The research considers how Māori Members of Parliament ‘represent’ Māori in the debating chamber in Parliament, specifically, to what extent these Members of Parliament represent te ao Māori. This research also asks whether substantive representation of te ao Māori varies across the electorate types, Māori, general and list seats. The research seeks to provide qualitative analysis of the presence of te ao Māori in Parliament and which Members of Parliament most often represent a Māori worldview. Both descriptive and substantive representation provide the means for a minority perspective to be present within a parliament.

That Maori are more often criminalised for cannabis use is often used as another good argument for decriminalisation. But Hirini Kaa argues things are more complex and that, as many Maori probably know, decriminalisation won't be the panacea proposed so often by privileged pakeha.

Following the annexation of Aotearoa/New Zealand by the British in 1840, Māori, as the Indigenous people of that country, experienced loss of sovereignty through the imposition of and application of new and transformative policies, including the law and unfamiliar legal and social codes. This paper considers the state and the influential legacy of an imposed, Settler-state social welfare and criminal justice system on Māori. An explicit, insider narrative will highlight how suppression, disconnection and abandonment, made manifest through particular and abusive state policies, has informed and constructed the life pathway of a member of a culturally and socially-submerged population, the Mongrel Mob gang.

This article draws on the personal experiences and state documentation of Stan Coster (Ngāti Kahungungu) whose life has been characterised by different forms of state confinement, including over 25 years in prison serving both short and long lags. Through the use of the Official Information Act, Stan recovered state documentation on himself spanning over 40 years. Stan is not a research participant, but a full research collaborator and is engaged in all elements of this paper, so while not a writer he is both auteur and author of this piece. Stan’s story is his own and yet many of its features speak to a much broader collective experience. His prison identity and gang identity can be seen as being both informed and generated by state sponsored activity. By traversing the issues that pertain to the crisis of mass imprisonment, Māori disproportionality in the prison system, the contribution of the state to prison, and gang identity, we look at the possibilities of drawing on knowledge acquired under conditions of state constraint.  

The ways in which we understand bodies and fatness are complex. While coloniality unduly influences and shapes normative meanings of the body in everyday contexts, Maori conceptualisations of the b...

Māori are the indigenous peoples of New Zealand and are culturally and ethnically diverse. Previous research suggests that Māori who identify jointly as European (New Zealand's dominant group) may have improved employment outcomes, income and levels of education relative to those who identify solely as Māori. However, research exploring the broader constellation of factors linked to multiple versus sole-ethnic affiliation for Māori remains scarce. We examine differences in outcomes for Māori depending upon their single versus multiple ethnic affiliation as Māori, Māori/European, or European (but with Māori ancestry) in a national probability sample (N=1416). Results indicated that people who identified jointly at Māori/European expressed political attitudes more aligned with Europeans. However, while Māori/Europeans may be more aligned with other Europeans in terms of support for mainstream political parties and intergroup attitudes, they remained lower on various indicators of social and economic status. In this latter regard, Māori/Europeans reported outcomes more similar to their sole-Māori counterparts.

Objectives: The aim of the current research is to test predictions derived from the rejection-identification model and research on collective action using cross-sectional (Study 1) and longitudinal (Study 2) methods. Specifically, an integration of these 2 literatures suggests that recognition of discrimination can have simultaneous positive relationships with well-being and engagement in collective action via the formation of a strong ingroup identity. Method: We test these predictions in 2 studies using data from a large national probability sample of Māori (the indigenous peoples of New Zealand), collected as part of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (Ns for Study 1 and 2 were 1,981 and 1,373, respectively). Results: Consistent with the extant research, Study 1 showed that perceived discrimination was directly linked with decreased life satisfaction, but indirectly linked with increased life satisfaction through higher levels of ethnic identification. Perceived discrimination was also directly linked with increased support for Māori rights and indirectly linked with increased support for Māori rights through higher levels of ethnic identification. Study 2 replicated these findings using longitudinal data and identified multiple bidirectional paths between perceived discrimination, ethnic identity, well-being, and support for collective action. Conclusion: These findings replicate and extend the rejection-identification model in a novel cultural context by demonstrating via cross-sectional (Study 1) and longitudinal (Study 2) analyses that the recognition of discrimination can both motivate support for political rights and increase well-being by strengthening ingroup identity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)