Your search

Reset search

Publication year

Between 2000 and 2026
- Between 2000 and 2009

Results 141 resources

Page 2 of 8

Abstracts

Bargh, M. (2007). Campaigning in the Maori Seats: Talking to Ourselves and Past Each Other. In S. I. Levine & N. S. Roberts, The baubles of office : the New Zealand general election of 2005. Victoria University Press.
Jones, S. (2007). Towards a United and Proud Aotearoa. In S. I. Levine & N. S. Roberts, The baubles of office : the New Zealand general election of 2005. Victoria University Press.
Pihama, L. (2001). Tīhei mauri ora: honouring our voices: mana wahine as a kaupapa Māori: theoretical framework. University of Auckland.
Rangiheuea, T. (2002). Ngā Kāmiti wahine: theorising the politicisation of Māori women in the late nineteenth century.
McIntosh, T. (2005). Intersections of race, gender and social policy in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Waihi I te toipoto, kaua I te toiroa. In Racism and public policy (pp. 271–294). Springer.
Jackson, M. (2007). It’s quite simple really. Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, 10, 32–40.
Bargh, E. M. (2002). Re-colonisation and indigenous resistance: neoliberalism in the Pacific [Australian National University]. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/7368

View on hdl.handle.net
Mikaere, A. (2007). Tikanga as the first law of Aotearoa. Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, 10, 24–31.
Mikaere, A. (2005). Cultural invasion continued: The ongoing colonisation of Tikanga Maori. Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, 8(2), 134–172.
Kawharu, M. (2001). Local Maori development and government policies. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 1–16.
Sullivan, A., & Margaritis, D. (2000). Public sector reform and indigenous entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(5), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010357639

This paper considers the implications of the liberalization of the New Zealand economy for entrepreneurial development by indigenous New Zealand Maori tribal organizations. Since 1984 the economic objective of the State has been to create a modern market economy free of price distortions, bureaucratic management and government protectionism. One of the State’s responses to enabling tribal organizations to provide for increased self‐determination and to lessen Maori State dependency was to seriously address the issue of compensation to Maori of resources that had been expropriated or confiscated during the past 150 years. While there have been difficulties in reaching agreement on appropriate or adequate allocations of Crown‐owned resources or compensation, the transferal of resources to private (but collective) Maori ownership is now providing a substantial economic base to build corporate and other entrepreneurial activities. It is argued that such willingness and commitment to transfer resources from the State back to the original owners was a manifest outcome of government’s adoption of liberal economic policies.

Read document
Sullivan, A. (2008). The Maori Party and the Media: Representations in Mainstream Print Leading to the 2005 Election. Pacific Journalism Review, 14(1), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.171361157684696

This article investigates the 2005 pre-election print media coverage of the Maori Party and its candidates. It shows that while the reporters and journalists generally represented the Maori Party in a fair and unbiased manner, at times their reporting was undermined by unbalanced or biased editing or subediting.

View on search.informit.org
O’Sullivan, D. (2007). Maori Public Policy: Needs rights and the Politics of Indigeneity. APSA, 1–12.

In 2004 the appointment of a Coordinating Minister Race Relations, signalled a shift in elite Maori policy thinking from a long-standing cautious bipartisan acceptance of self-determination 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 Maori participation in public affairs. This paper therefore asks: are Maori 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 Maori 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' Maori 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.
O’Sullivan, D. (2005). Māori Self-Determination: In the Modern Political Context. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 1(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718010500100104

Read document
O’Sullivan, D. (2004). The Politics of Indigeneity and contemporary challenges to Maori self-determination. Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, 1–23. https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/files/9675273/APSA_20_2004.pdf

Read document
O’Sullivan, D. (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Maori-Crown Relations in the Twenty First Century: Biculturalism or Self-Determination. In R. Smith (Ed.), Australasian Political Studies Association Conference (pp. 1–14). APSA.

This paper demonstrates that the philosophical premises underlying biculturalism and self-determination lead to different conclusions about where power properly resides with respect to Crown/Maori relations in New Zealand. It is argued that biculturalism is not the panacea for the realisation of legitimate Maori aspirations that has been assumed by both Maori and Pakeha policy elites over the past twenty years because it makes assumptions about power relationships which limit greater degrees of Maori autonomy ' one step towards self-determination is permitted, but the next prevented. Biculturalism can not realise greater autonomy because it is concerned primarily with relationships among people in institutional settings and within and among bureaucratic institutions. Therefore it is less likely to meet Maori aspirations than self-determination which is concerned with creating, to the greatest extent possible, independence and autonomy for groups, not necessarily in isolation from wider society, but certainly apart from controls and regulations imposed from outside the would be self-determining community. Self-determination locates power, at least to some extent, within traditional Maori social units, while biculturalism, although assuming a sharing of power, inevitably gives Maori the status of junior partner in a project designed to modify state institutions to make them more responsive to Maori interests. While in itself this is advantageous to Maori, biculturalism is not a substitute for the affirmation of traditional social structures as the central point in a Maori quest for greater independence from an historically intrusive state.
Hook, G. R., & Raumati, L. P. (2008). Does the New Zealand Government owe Māori an apology? Mai Review, 3(1).
Smith, L. T. T. R. (2000). Kaupapa maori research. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision (pp. 225–247). University of British Columbia Press.
Jackson, M. (2008). Restoring the Nation: Removing the Constancy of Terror. TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE CONFERENCE 2008 TE TATAU POUNAMU: THE GREENSTONE DOOR, 27–34.
Te Aho, L. (2009). Negotiating co-management of the Waikato River. Resource Management Journal, 14–18.

Page 2 of 8

Custom feed

Last update from database: 8/17/26, 4:11 AM (UTC)

Your search

Results 141 resources

Explore

Topic

Resource type

Publication year