Your search

BackgroundTe Tiriti o Waitangi was negotiated between the British Crown and Indigenous Māori leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand in 1840. Māori understood the agreement as an affirmation of political authority and a guarantee of British protection of their lands and resources. The Crown understood it as a cession of sovereignty. The tension remains, though legal and political developments in the last 35 years, have established that the agreement places a mandatory obligation on the Crown to protect and promote Māori health. It also requires that Māori may exercise rangatiratanga, or responsibility and authority, in relation to health policy development and implementation.MethodsTe Tiriti is, then, an instrument against which health policy is justly and efficaciously evaluated. This paper introduces critical Tiriti analysis as such an evaluative method. Critical Tiriti analysis involves reviewing policy documents against the Preamble and the Articles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. The review process has five defined phases: (i) orientation; (ii) close reading; (iii) determination; (iv) strengthening practice and (v) Māori final word.ResultsWe present a working example of critical Tiriti analysis using the New Zealand Government’s Primary Health Care Strategy published in 2001. This policy analysis found poor alignment with te Tiriti overall and the indicators of its implementation that we propose.ConclusionThis paper provides direction to policy makers wanting to improve Māori health outcomes and ensure Māori engagement, leadership and substantive authority in the policy process. It offers an approach to analysing policy that is simple to use and, inherently, a tool for advancing social justice.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a treaty negotiated between Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) and the British Crown, affirmed Māori sovereignty and guaranteed the protection of hauora (health). The Waitangi Tribunal, established in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the agreement, released a major report in 2019 (registered as WAI 2575) about breaches of te Tiriti within the health sector in relation to primary care, legislation, and health policy. This article explores the implications of this report for the New Zealand health sector and the decolonial transformation of health systems. The tribunal found that the Crown has systematically contravened obligations under te Tiriti across the health sector. We complement the tribunal’s findings, through critical analysis, to make five substantive recommendations: (1) the adoption of Tiriti-compliant legislation and policy; (2) recognition of extant Māori political authority (tino rangatiratanga); (3) strengthening of accountability mechanisms; (4) investment in Māori health; and (5) embedding equity and anti-racism within the health sector. These recommendations are critical for upholding te Tiriti obligations. We see these requirements as making significant contributions to decolonizing health systems and policy in Aotearoa and thereby contributing to aspirations for health equity as a transformative concept.

This article explores some of the key features of co-governance, or shared decision making, between Māori and the Crown. Co-governance models create the conditions for making better decisions by sharing decision making with Māori where Māori communities have a distinctive interest. Such models are able to draw on the distinctive experiences, knowledge and expertise that Māori communities can bring. Shared decision making enhances the legitimacy and durability of decisions by giving effect to rights under te Tiriti o Waitangi. The article also identifies some key principles of effective co-governance and provides some brief examples where shared decision making is being implemented to illustrate the range of situations in which such models are applicable.

New Zealand is a peaceful nation, but ongoing political tensions and inequities between Māori (the indigenous peoples of New Zealand) and Pākehā (the majority group of Europeans) persist as a result of its colonial history. Identifying ways to redress the enduring legacy of colonialism are therefore of critical importance. Accordingly, this paper examines data from 7017 Māori, as well as 37,233 Pākehā, to examine the impact of regional-level Pākehā warmth towards Māori on Māori support for progressive collective action. Results reveal that Pākehā warmth towards Māori varies markedly across 257 regional wards (regional units created for New Zealand electoral purposes). Moreover, multilevel modelling demonstrates that Pākehā warmth towards Māori at the region-level correlates positively with Māori identity and political efficacy at the individual level which, in turn, both correlate positively with collective action support. Collectively, these results demonstrate the impact of the broader social climate on social change, while identifying a previously-unknown facilitator of collective action support (namely, a broader context of warmth towards structurally disadvantaged groups).

Kaupapa Maori theory is broadly underpinned by a politics that has strategically promoted forms of cultural essentialism and oppositional political stances/power analyses, which have been useful to the revitalisation of culture and the assertion of rights and recognition. Although they serve Maori struggles, these positions often become less self-consciously strategic, and more often lead to accepted political orthodoxy. At the same time, Kaupapa Maori has asserted the importance of theory developed from indigenous - Maori ways of thinking and acting. In this article I contribute to such a project by reflecting on Maori cultural ethics and what they might offer to theorising social and political relations beyond the oppositional colonised-coloniser binary. With particular reference to the work of Emmanuel Levinas, I argue that Maori orientations suggest an imperative to relationship - not opposition, and to responsibility for others - not simply the assertion of rights claims. A politics informed by Maori cultural ethics glimpses a different, certainly riskier, but ultimately more radical and productive politics.

Different participatory mechanisms for the representation of Indigenous peoples have been proposed across states. Since their creation in 1867, the Māori electorates in the national Parliament have led to dedicated representation for Māori (Indigenous peoples of New Zealand). However, only half of Māori choose to vote on the Māori roll, the remainder choosing to vote on the General roll, illustrating that roll choice is not based simply on group representation. This survey aimed to ask Māori (N = 1,958) in their own words why they made their roll choice. Through a deductive codebook thematic analysis, a range of codes were constructed around the reasoning behind roll choice. Māori on the Māori roll made their choice because they valued Māori representation; as an expression of their identity; to support the electorates; as a strategic choice; or they had been influenced by others or through education. Those on the General roll felt their roll was the default or a more familiar option; the Māori roll had less of an impact; it was a strategic choice, or they appreciated greater candidate variety; or they valued the smaller geographic electorate size. Some felt Māori no longer needed separate representation or felt less connected to their identity as Māori. The results have implications for both Māori and Indigenous representation through dedicated representational mechanisms.

When Jane Mansbridge’s (1999) article was first submitted, more than 80% of the world’s parliaments featured less than 20% women (IPU 2015). Calculating the parliamentary presence of ethnic and cultural minorities and Indigenous peoples has proved more difficult (Protsyk 2010). This is despite the adoption of two United Nations Declarations, on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992) and on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the representation of women and Māori (the Indigenous peoples) was comparatively better than global averages. In 1996, 29% of parliamentarians were women and 14% were Māori. By 2020, these figures had increased to 48% and 21%, respectively, while in the cabinet, women made up 40% of ministers and Māori accounted for 25%. Reported as the country’s historically most diverse parliament and cabinet (Curtin 2020), it appears that both new (proportional representation) and old (reserved seats for Māori) institutional mechanisms had achieved near proportionality, and a heterogeneity of experiences, potentially enhancing opportunities for deliberation.

Worldwide, large amounts of administrative data are collected within official statistics systems on Indigenous Peoples. These data are primarily used for government and state policy purposes as opposed to by Indigenous Peoples to support Indigenous agendas (Taylor & Kukutai, 2017). In Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu New Zealand, Māori need high quality data to develop evidence-based policies and programs and to monitor government policies that impact on Māori. In this methodological paper, we describe uses of administrative data for Māori and current barriers to its use. We outline the development of a novel administrative data infrastructure and future longitudinal study. By explicating our Indigenous initiated, designed and controlled data project, we make a methodological contribution to Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Kaupapa Māori (Māori worldview) epidemiology.

Obesity among M?ori is of growing concern in New Zealand with rates for M?ori being one-and-a-half times that of the total population. The New Zealand government's Healthy Eating?Healthy Action: Oranga Kai?Oranga Pumau (HEHA) Strategy has, in the past seven years, been a significant policy mechanism through which the health sector has been able to address the increasing prevalence of obesity and associated chronic diseases.

General Note: Includes note, references

In Canada and New Zealand, policies support Indigenous participation in the planning and delivery of community-based primary health services. However, these services represent only a fraction of the health services accessed by Indigenous peoples. In New Zealand, legislation enacted in 2000 introduced mechanisms to ensure that Māori have a voice in the decisions made by health boards. In Canada, neither policies nor legislation currently ensure that Aboriginal communities are represented in provincial health systems or regional health boards. The New Zealand experience shows that adding mechanisms of participation to legislation and policies creates opportunities for Māori and health boards to engage in discussions about how to best allocate resources to reduce disparities between Māori and non-Māori health outcomes. In Canada, this dialogue may not occur. Requiring that such mechanisms be created in all Canadian jurisdictions would establish meeting places for dialogue, and assist in closing policy and access gaps that remain.

Whanau Ora, a social policy initiative designed to build the capacity and capability of Maori families, has been variously described as: a 'revolutionary public-sector initiative', an 'Indigenous policy success story' and as having the transformative power to improve health and social outcomes for Maori. Since its launch in April 2010, Whanau Ora has positively impacted the lives of many of our nation's most vulnerable Maori families. Through a kaupapa Maori lens, this article provides a brief overview of the initiative, the key goals of Whanau Ora and the mechanisms by which these goals were to be attained. It is argued that it reflects a 'paradigm shift' by fundamentally reorienting government thinking about how to improve Maori outcomes through policy. The article examines the success of Whanau Ora by highlighting a number of innovative aspects the National-led government introduced which contributed towards the success of the initiative through the period 2008-2017, as well as areas of tension. The article then turns to explore the likelihood of the Whanau Ora initiative continuing in the future, building on its early success embedding its innovative, empowering and sustainable social policy approach to working with Maori whanau, hapu, Iwi and communities.

Many studies have documented the effect that colonisation has had on takatāpui, that is, Māori (the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) with diverse gender identities, sex characteristics and sexualities. In this paper, we explore whether current Aotearoa New Zealand (hereafter Aotearoa) mental health policies meet the needs of takatāpui. We identified five mental health policy needs, informed by the literature. We then explored policy documents from government ministries, district health boards and non-government organisations to see the extent to which policy met these needs. Four themes were present in the literature analysed: an overall lack of acknowledgment of takatāpui and intersectionality; promising engagement with the needs of takatāpui by NGOs; symbolic commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and some limited engagement with Māori health models. The findings show promise in some areas but demonstrate a lack of engagement by policy to meet the needs of takatāpui.

Social and political change is occurring in Aotearoa New Zealand and tikanga, matauranga, te reo Maori (the Maori language) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) are increasingly being recognised in diverse political and legal contexts. This article explores whether the political science discipline in Aotearoa New Zealand is keeping pace with these political changes, whether research and course content is adequately reflecting these new realities, and if students are appropriately equipped to participate. In particular, we examine the state of university politics programs and outline the form and quantity of Maori politics in the teaching and research of these programs. From the assessment of the current state of politics programs, we make some observations about what changes may be required to ensure politics programs, their students and academics are fully equipped to work in the unique political and legal landscape of Aotearoa New Zealand. From the collection of this data, we have found that approximately 1% of political science lecturers are Maori, 1% of content taught can be classified as Maori politics and approximately 1% of publications in the New Zealand Political Science journal can be classified as kaupapa Maori politics. This 1-1-1 crisis provides a bleak picture of the existing arrangements in politics programs in Aotearoa New Zealand and must change

Aotearoa (New Zealand) is undertaking reforms in natural resource management, and there are promising signals that Indigenous perspectives will be included alongside science for decision-making. Any resource management system is underpinned by worldviews, from which values stem and then risk and uncertainty derive. Māori (the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) and Eurocentric notions of risk and uncertainty are fundamentally different because knowledge holders have different worldviews. Eurocentric concepts of risk and uncertainty continue to frame policy, making it challenging for Māori knowledge to shape policy that is relevant for decision-making in Aotearoa. We explore Māori perspectives of risk and uncertainty and literature, identifying common attributes across natural resource management frameworks, and identify issues of risk and uncertainty from the perspective of Māori experts. We conclude that a Māori approach to enhancing natural resources is more aligned to current environmental policy compared with standard approaches for risk assessment and reducing uncertainty.

When analysing Indigenous public policy, crisis is best seen as the moral crisis of an enduring idea rather than the crisis of sporadic and unconnected instances of policy failure. In Australia and New Zealand, states use manufactured crises of Indigenous personal deficiencies to justify colonial authority. A justification which may be countered by positioning colonialism itself as the point of crisis. From this perspective, the crisis in Indigenous public policy is not resolved by the state becoming better at policy-making or more attentive to the egalitarian distribution of public resources. Instead, it is in the non-colonial possibilities of Indigenous self-determination that paths beyond crisis may lie. In practical terms, by ensuring spaces of independent Indigenous authority alongside spaces of distinctive culturally framed participation in the public life of the state. The potential for such arrangements in Australia is discussed with reference to a proposed First Nations’ Voice to Parliament and possible treaties between First Nations and the state. For New Zealand, their potential is discussed with reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi’s affirmation of independent Māori authority (rangatiratanga) and substantive state citizenship.

-