Your search

Reconciliation in New Zealand involves recognition, reparations and an apology for past injustices relating to breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1840, Māori and the British Crown signed a treaty that promised a beneficial relationship to both signatories. Almost immediately after the Treaty was signed and continuing through to today, promises inherent in the principles of the Treaty have been breached. However, in 1975, a government-appointed permanent commission of inquiry was established to investigate actions or omissions of the Crown that breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal and the Ministry of Justice provide the institutional mechanisms used in New Zealand to foster reconciliation. This article will discuss how the state has moved iwi from being in Treaty ‘grievance mode’ to one of tino rangatiratanga/Māori self-determination and demonstrates how reconciliation has integrated Treaty settlement iwi into the mainstream New Zealand economy.

This practice-research based article explores the relationship between mana motuhake and white patriarchal sovereignty in Aotearoa New Zealand, focusing on Ngāti Tūwharetoa as a case study. It seeks to find the relevance of Aboriginal academic Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s white possessive doctrine to the Aotearoa New Zealand context. In particular, it highlights the racist nature of the law and planning systems and their inadequacies to provide for hapū and iwi. It provides a key theoretical analysis regarding the nature of white patriarchal sovereignty in Aotearoa and the need of the state to appear virtuous, to continue the legacy that started with the Treaty of Waitangi to maintain this whenua as a white possessive. Lastly, the piece questions the position of Britishness within Aotearoa New Zealand and asks key philosophical questions for all about the need to find common understandings or māramatanga about our collective future as a society.

This commentary reflects upon the major Māori land reforms in te Ture Whenua Māori Bill (2016). The reforms implement more bureaucracy and replace some mechanisms used by the Māori Land Court to protect against Māori land loss. The Waitangi Tribunal, which has dealt with Māori grievances over land loss for over 30 years, issued a critical report in March 2016 along with recommendations about the reforms. That report was largely ignored by the New Zealand Government. This commentary contains a review of the literature on Māori land to date, as it helps to understand the ideas behind the Tribunal's report as well as the reforms. There is also an examination of the main points made by the Waitangi Tribunal, as well as aspects of te Ture Whenua Māori Bill (2016). The overall conclusion is that the Māori people should be very nervous about the reforms for their lands.

VoR - Version of Record

Drawing on the work of Matike Mai Aotearoa: The Independent Iwi Working Group on Constitutional Transformation (the Working Group), this article argues that there is an evolving New Zealand constitutionalism, one that offers a constitutional understanding grounded in the Māori constitutional system. The article opens with a descriptive analysis of the Māori constitutional system, explains the key features of New Zealand’s existing constitution and concludes with an argument that the existing constitution can evolve – and, through the political process, ought to evolve – according to the constitutional models that the Working Group recommends. This article deploys legal research methods, primarily doctrinal research and applied doctrinal research.1

In this article, I outline the existing legislative options available and rationale for M?ori representation in local government. I suggest that the arguments and rationale against M?ori representation have been exacerbated by a lack of clarity around local government?s duties and obligations stemming from the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the second part of this article, I explore more recent arguments by M?ori for representation and involvement in local government decision-making on the basis of being mana whenua, which means to have territorial authority and power associated with the possession and occupation of tribal land. This argument foregrounds specific iwi (tribes) as holding territorial authority and therefore rights to representation and involvement in decision-making sourced in tikanga M?ori (M?ori law), over and above other M?ori who live in that area. I examine in detail the Rotorua District Council?s establishment of the Te Arawa Partnership Board in 2015 and argue that this Board and its first election results provide unique insights into the relationship between Te Arawa people living in and outside the district and has implications for broader conversations about the rights of M?ori living away from their tribal areas.

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.

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)

Indigenous peoples often have a unique and deep connection to the land. However, quantitative research exploring this issue is scarce. The current research investigates cultural variation in environmental regard in New Zealand, where more recent settler groups have questioned the strength of Indigenous environmental regard. Study 1 examined differences in environmental regard held by Indigenous and non-Indigenous ethnic groups in a nationally representative data set, the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 9,269). Māori (the Indigenous group) expressed the highest levels of regard for the environment on average, although there was also considerable variance among Māori as a group. Study 2 adopted an emic perspective to investigate which dimensions of Māori identity are related to higher environmental value specifically among Māori (N = 193). Bayesian regression indicated that sociopolitical consciousness—the extent to which participants recognize the importance of and stand up for Māori political rights—was linked with higher environmental regard. Contrary to predictions, belief in Māori spiritual concepts was not linked with increased environmental regard. These findings suggest that Māori tend to value the natural environment more than non-Indigenous New Zealanders at least in part because high environmental regard is central to Māori political consciousness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

In response to widespread water quality and quantity issues, the New Zealand Government has recently embarked on a number of comprehensive freshwater management reforms, developing a raft of national discussion and policy documents such as "Freshwater Reform 2013 and Beyond" and a National Policy Statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM 2014). Recent resource management reforms and amendments (RMA 2014), based on previous overarching resource management legislation (RMA 1991), set out a new approach and pathway to manage freshwater nationwide. Internationally, there is an increasing trend to engage with indigenous communities for research and collaboration, including indigenous groups as active participants in resource management decision making. What is driving this change toward more engagement and collaboration with indigenous communities is different for each country, and we document the progress and innovation made in this area in New Zealand. The indigenous rights of Māori in New Zealand are stated in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and in many forms of New Zealand's legislation. Local and central governments are eager to include local indigenous Māori groups (iwi/hapū) in freshwater management planning processes through meaningful engagement and collaboration. Key to the success of collaborative planning processes for Māori are enduring relationships between local government and Māori, along with adequate resourcing for all partners contributing to the collaborative process. A large number of shared governance and management models for natural resource management have emerged in New Zealand over the past 20 years, and some recent examples are reviewed. We provide some discussion to improve understanding and use of the terms used in these management models such as cogovernance, comanagement, and coplanning, and describe some of the more important frameworks and tools being developed with Māori groups (e.g., iwi/hapū), to strengthen Māori capacity in freshwater management and to support good collaborative process and planning.

This article examines why and how scholars should acknowledge and name each of the diverse political actors and institutions that typically are objectified as ‘indigenous peoples’ on the global stage, or ‘Māori’ in New Zealand. For instance, rather than suggesting a political relationship or conflict exists between ‘Māori and the Crown’, political scientists and theorists should name the political actors and political institutions for which Māori is a shorthand, for example, ‘Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (the corporate entity of the Ngai Tahu whanui) and the Committee of Tuahiwi Marae disagreed with the Crown’. A variety of reasons are discussed as to why this objectification of Māori (and any other indigenous population) as a single political actor has occurred, the problems are pointed out, and a range of examples are given. Not every use of the terms ‘Māori’, ‘indigenous peoples’ or similar descriptors in political science stands in for a specific political actor (e.g. sometimes, it is suggesting a cleavage or a group at whom a policy is directed), but where scholars are describing or suggesting political action, they should be careful in their use of ethnic labels. I suggest that it would be more productive to study the specific contexts, intentions and actions of individuals and institutions that might consider indigeneity as being part of their identity.

The current model of ethical governance in research involving humans in the social sciences and humanities relies on prospective ethics review in ensuring that research in conducted ethically. One of its key features is distrust to researchers and their initiatives regardless of the subject matter, discipline, research methodology or settings, sources of funding, or researcher's experience. This article discusses the New Brunswick Declaration on Research Ethics adopted by the participants of the Ethics Rupture: Alternatives to Research-Ethics Review Summit in 2013. In particular, it provides background for the regulatory capture of the social sciences by the biomedical institutions of ethics review. It concludes by examining the limitations of the Declaration, and offers a set of principles for the development of the New Brunswick Declaration following its discussion at the Ethics in Practice: Tensions around Ethics Review and Maori Consultation Conference at the University of Otago in Dunedin in May 2015.

In 2007, the UN General Assembly endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In the following years, there has been a strong call from a range United Nations agencies and spokespersons for countries to act to improve their statistics relating to Indigenous peoples as part of their response to the Declaration. These calls have emphasised the need for a holistic approach, describing strengths and resilience of Indigenous peoples and not just a focus on gaps and disadvantage. National responses have been mixed and overall statistics remain inadequate. Significantly, there has been no international statistical effort through the United Nations statistical structures to respond to the Declaration and the increasing array of calls for improved statistics. The United Nations Statistical Commission in particular has an array of mechanisms to study statistical needs and develop solutions across a broad international statistical agenda. It is time for countries to make a concerted effort to improve their own statistics on Indigenous peoples, and to insist that the Statistical Commission work in partnership with the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and other stakeholders to lead a major international drive to improve statistics on and for Indigenous peoples.

Maori tribal authorities have sought to measure the wellbeing of their people as a baseline for determining the extent to which their economic, social, and cultural goals are being achieved. In recent years, data from government-administered social surveys and/or censuses have become a significant source of information. Using the tribal authority of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (TRONT) as a case study, this paper explores and compares data concerning Ngai Tahu wellbeing contained in two recently completed TRONT reports: the Ngai Tahu State of the Nation 2015 report (a quantitative study derived from government-administered survey data); and, the preliminary findings from the Ngai Tahu Whenua Project (a qualitative study undertaken by TRONT). Both studies present similar results regarding levels of tribal economic wellbeing, however, they show different results in regards to levels of cultural wellbeing. The qualitative study reveals reasonably high levels of cultural engagement among participants. Conversely, the quantitative study demonstrates reasonably low levels of cultural engagement. The difference is explained in each study's approach to understanding culture. The quantitative study viewed culture as engagement in 'static' cultural practices, whereas the qualitative study viewed Maori culture as a 'lived' set of deep networks and connections between individuals, their whanau (extended family), and places of symbolic cultural importance (particularly land and water). It is argued that measuring 'lived' culture would provide a better means of ascertaining cultural wellbeing. It is suggested that a useful means of measuring Maori lived culture would be to determine the quality and depth of relational networks.