scholarly journals Safeguarding seeds and Maori intellectual property through partnership

2016 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Sue Scheele
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Cultural Knowledge ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Biological Resources ◽  
Knowledge Culture ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
The Government ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
Waitangi Tribunal

The Nagoya Protocol is a recent binding international instrument that articulates the need to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples regarding their biological resources and cultural knowledge and strengthens the mechanisms to do so. New Zealand has not signed this protocol because of the overriding importance of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s domestic affairs, and the need to ensure that government options are not limited concerning the development of domestic policy on access to biological resources. In particular, policy makers and legislators are waiting for the government response to a 2011 Waitangi Tribunal report (Ko Aotearoa Tēnei) on a far-reaching and complex claim (WAI 262) concerning the place of Māori traditional knowledge, culture and identity in contemporary New Zealand law and government policies and practice. Especially pertinent to this paper is the report’s section on Māori rights relating to biological and genetic resources. In accordance with the recommendation within Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, the principle of partnership, built on the explicit Treaty premise of Crown and Māori as formal equals, is presented here as the overarching framework and mechanism by which government agencies and Māori can work together to safeguard such resources. Core concepts and values are elucidated that underpin the Māori relationship to indigenous flora and fauna and are integral to the protection of cultural knowledge of seeds and plants. Examples are given of plant species regarded as taonga (treasures) and how they are conserved, and a case study is presented of institutional stewardship of harakeke (New Zealand flax) weaving varieties. Seed bank facilities are also evaluated regarding their incorporation of Māori values and rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.

scholarly journals The Treaty Claims Settlement Process in New Zealand and its Impact on Māori

Land ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mutu
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
Treaty Monitoring ◽  
Settlement Policy ◽  
The Government ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Waitangi Tribunal ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Colonisation Process

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.

scholarly journals "A Collusive Suit to ""Confound the Rights of Property Through the Length and Breadth of the Colony""?: Busby v White (1859) "

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 563
Author(s):  
Ned Fletcher ◽  
Dame Sian Elias
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
New South ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Native Title ◽  
South Wales ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
The Government ◽  
Set Up

In Busby v White, James Busby sought to challenge the validity of the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 which treated his pre-Treaty of Waitangi land purchases as "null and void". He had campaigned against the New South Wales statute which preceded the Ordinance, and throughout the 1840s continued to argue against the legislation through political channels, while maintaining his claim to hold the lands under his "native title". By the 1850s holding by "native title" was increasingly precarious as the Government moved to acquire Busby's lands for the purposes of settlement. Busby was forced to law. His aim was to set up the validity of the legislation as a question of law which could be taken to the Privy Council for authoritative resolution. Busby v White was the second attempt to establish a platform for appeal. As in his earlier claim, Busby v McKenzie, the Supreme Court avoided a determination on the merits, thus thwarting Busby's strategy of appealing to London. Although no substantive decision was delivered, the extensive argument was fully reported in The Southern Cross newspaper, from which the Lost Cases Project has recovered it. Its interest today is in arguments which question the course set by R v Symonds (1847) on the nature of native property in New Zealand and the subsequent relegation of the Treaty of Waitangi to legal limbo in Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877).

Contextualising social enterprise in New Zealand

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Grant
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Enterprise ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Cultural Norms ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Neoliberal Reforms ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
Initial Framework

PurposeSocial enterprise in New Zealand is still in its infancy, with no recognised framework to inform knowledge of current or future developments. In this exploratory paper, the aim is to consider four influences which are shaping the development of social enterprise in New Zealand.Design/methodology/approachA critical‐appreciative lens utilising Habermas' concepts of the lifeworld and system informs the consideration of these influences.FindingsFour distinct cultural and historical influences are proposed as contributing to the scope and “flavour” of social enterprise developing in New Zealand: socio‐cultural norms, e.g. “Kiwi ingenuity”; the neoliberal reforms initiated by successive governments during the 1980s; Crown settlements in relation to breaches of the principles of 1840 Treaty of Waitangi; New Zealanders' as international citizens.Originality/valueThe paper shows how feedback and dialogue across the sectors, at local, national and international levels, is now required to determine how other scholars, practitioners and policy makers perceive this proposed initial framework.

scholarly journals Multi-textualism, 'Treaty Hegemony' and the Waitangi Tribunal: Making Sense of 19th Century Crown-Māori Negotiations in Te Urewera

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 263
Author(s):  
Hannah Blumhardt
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
Waitangi Tribunal

Between 1894 and 1896 the Crown conducted negotiations with Tūhoe which culminated in the 1895 Urewera Agreement and the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896. This article considers the constitutional implications of these negotiations and the resulting agreement and legislation. Adopting a 'multi-textual' conception of New Zealand legal history, and paying heed to the fact that Tūhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi, the article argues that the Crown-Tūhoe relationship should be grounded predominantly in the 1895–1896 Agreement rather than the Treaty of Waitangi. In making this argument the article critiques the Waitangi Tribunal’s approach to these particular points in the first two pre-publications of its Te Urewera Report. The article argues that in finding that the Crown-Tūhoe negotiations and agreement signalled the beginning of a relationship based upon the Treaty of Waitangi, the Waitangi Tribunal erred in its approach.

scholarly journals The Honour of the Crown: Giving Effect to the True Purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Erin Matariki Carr
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Legal System ◽  
World View ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Aotearoa New Zealand ◽  
True Purpose ◽  
Treaty Of Waitangi ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy ◽  
Waitangi Tribunal

<p>The Treaty was a constitutional agreement entered into by Maori, then sovereign of New Zealand, and the British Crown. The purpose of intention of this agreement was to enable both parties – Maori and the Crown – to share public power over Aotearoa, New Zealand. This paper refers to this purpose as the kawanatanga-tino rangatiratanga relationship, or dual sovereignty. This purpose has been derived from the Maori version of the Treaty, according to the Maori legal system which governed New Zealand at the time.  This purpose has not been given effect to, instead our constitution holds the Crown as the sovereign, and Maori are mere subjects of the Crown. This arrangement allowed the Crown to introduce their colonial legal system that enabled them to attain Maori land through war, confiscation and other means throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. This in turn has created a “cycle of grievance” among our Maori community which keep Maori oppressed, claiming rights from the Crown which can be given, but are often taken away again or breached, depending on the political leanings of the day. The only way we can end this cycle of grievance, and restore legitimacy to our constitution, and restore Maori to their intended constitutional position of sovereign Treaty partner, alongside the Crown.  While this proposal may seem very radical, it is argued that New Zealand has been heading towards dual sovereignty through an “organic” revolution known as the Maori Renaissance that began in the 1970s. This paper will trace this “organic” revolution pointing to three specific institutions as examples of movement towards dual sovereignty: the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty Settlements process and the Treaty Principles. It is argued that while these institutions have made some incredible advances for Maori rights, they remain confined by our current constitutional arrangements that recognise the Crown as the only sovereign. This paper argues that what is needed as the next step in this organic revolution, is to step outside of our current constitutional arrangements and give effect to the true intention of the Treaty. This paper thus reflects on the historical context in and the Maori legal system in which the Treaty was signed. This paper then explains how we might be able to achieve this through the courts by invoking the doctrine of the honour of the Crown and adopting Dr Carwyn Jones’ theory of a ‘constitutional korero’. The honour of the Crown is a common-law doctrine that requires the Crown to honour its constitutional obligations. It recognises colonial governments as part of a special nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples and can therefore give effect to the indigenous legal system and world-view that our current institutions cannot do. In this way it can perform as a limit on the Crown and its Parliamentary Supremacy. It is argued that realistically the courts may invoke this doctrine to enforce obligations made by the Crown to iwi through the recent Treaty Claims Settlements legislation. It is argued, however, that in keeping with this organic revolution, an eventual court may one day invoke the doctrine to enforce Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi itself and dual sovereignty may be achieved.</p>

Exploring the implications of a fixed budget for new medicines: a study of reimbursement of new medicines in Australia and New Zealand

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colman Taylor ◽  
Michael Wonder
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Access To Medicines ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Independent Entity ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Health Expenditure ◽  
Good Policy ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Published Research

Objective Spending on medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) represents the ninth largest expense to the Federal Government. A recent report by the Commission of Audit to the Federal Government suggested spending on the PBS is unsustainable and a capped budget, similar to New Zealand’s PHARMAC model, may be required to contain costs. The objective of the present study was to compare listing outcomes between Australia and New Zealand, thereby exploring the opportunity cost of a capped budget for new medicines. Methods Listing outcomes in Australia and New Zealand were compared through published research and an updated search of listing outcomes from publicly available information. Results Previous research has demonstrated that New Zealand listed less than half of the new medicines listed in Australia over a 10-year period (2000–09). Our research shows that most of the new medicines not listed in New Zealand during this period remain unlisted today. In the previous 12 months, Australia listed 17 new medicines on the PBS, whereas New Zealand listed only one new medicine that was not already listed in Australia. Conclusion The discrepancy in the number of new medicines listed in New Zealand compared with Australia raises questions regarding the consequences of implementing a capped budget for new medicines. However, further research is needed to understand the relationship between listing outcomes, access to medicines and health benefits for the community. What is known about this topic? Due to factors such as an aging population and longer life expectancy, total government health expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to rise. Consequently, many commentators have suggested current expenditure patterns are unsustainable. The PBS represents a significant expense to the government and recent reports suggest the PBS should be reformed to align with New Zealand’s PHARMAC model, where an independent entity manages access to subsidised medicines under a capped budget. However, little information exists regarding access indices for new medicines in New Zealand compared with Australia. What does this paper add? This paper builds on previously published research comparing listing outcomes for new medicines in Australia and New Zealand. The results highlight a discrepancy in listing new medicines in New Zealand compared with Australia that has not improved in recent years. Consequently, the results question the notion that a capped budget for new medicines is a good policy choice for Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper reviews the current reimbursement system in Australia and compares it with New Zealand’s PHARMAC model. In addition, this paper compares listing outcomes for new medicines in Australia and New Zealand. In doing so, the results of this paper have implications for practitioners who are concerned about continued subsidised access to new medicines via the PBS, and for policy makers in relation to proposed PBS reforms. Further, our paper provides insights into PBS policy reform that may assist practitioners who are interested in commenting on any proposed reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document