Māori Purposes Acts: Just "washing-up" or more than meets the eye?

<p>Māori Purposes Bills were commonly described in Parliament’s debating chamber as “washing-up” bills, which suggested they were considered to be of little importance. This research challenges that perspective. The research explores Māori Purposes Acts as a body of law, beginning in 1931. It considers the content of the legislation, the legislative process and the role of Māori Purposes Acts within the legislative framework. The research examines policy provisions and amendments, the petitions process facilitated by the legislation, special governance arrangements, and remedial provisions including settlements with the Crown. The research incorporates quantitative analysis, but due to the variability of the provisions contained in the legislation, a predominantly qualitative approach is used to consider the nature of the Acts. The research operates within an orthodox legal paradigm and Karl Llewellyn’s “law-jobs” theory is used as an analytical framework to identify common themes, draw out the purposes of the legislation and understand its role in New Zealand’s legal system. Critical race and post-colonial theoretical perspectives are acknowledged but are not central to the research. The research also considers whether Māori Purposes Acts delivered justice for Māori prior to the modern Treaty of Waitangi settlements process. The research concludes the washing-up characterisation was often inaccurate. The research found Māori Purposes Acts were used as a mechanism to provide Māori with relief from and remedies for particular problems, which were often raised by petition to Parliament, and remedies gave effect to recommendations of the Māori Affairs Committee and Royal Commissions. Some remedies were expressed as settlements of Māori grievances against the Crown, which preceded modern Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The legislation was used to maintain the legislative framework governing Māori land ownership and Māori communities, to introduce new policies and fill policy gaps, and to create special exceptions to the legislative framework including special governance provisions. The research provides evidence of the poor fit between the restrictive legislative framework governing Māori lives and Māori needs, and it demonstrates the inability of New Zealand’s legal system to deliver justice for Māori. Although many provisions attempted to ameliorate inequities, correct mistakes and resolve disputes, provisions often fell short of meeting the criteria for justice and are best described as taking important steps towards justice.</p>

Māori Purposes Acts: Just "washing-up" or more than meets the eye?

<p>Māori Purposes Bills were commonly described in Parliament’s debating chamber as “washing-up” bills, which suggested they were considered to be of little importance. This research challenges that perspective. The research explores Māori Purposes Acts as a body of law, beginning in 1931. It considers the content of the legislation, the legislative process and the role of Māori Purposes Acts within the legislative framework. The research examines policy provisions and amendments, the petitions process facilitated by the legislation, special governance arrangements, and remedial provisions including settlements with the Crown. The research incorporates quantitative analysis, but due to the variability of the provisions contained in the legislation, a predominantly qualitative approach is used to consider the nature of the Acts. The research operates within an orthodox legal paradigm and Karl Llewellyn’s “law-jobs” theory is used as an analytical framework to identify common themes, draw out the purposes of the legislation and understand its role in New Zealand’s legal system. Critical race and post-colonial theoretical perspectives are acknowledged but are not central to the research. The research also considers whether Māori Purposes Acts delivered justice for Māori prior to the modern Treaty of Waitangi settlements process. The research concludes the washing-up characterisation was often inaccurate. The research found Māori Purposes Acts were used as a mechanism to provide Māori with relief from and remedies for particular problems, which were often raised by petition to Parliament, and remedies gave effect to recommendations of the Māori Affairs Committee and Royal Commissions. Some remedies were expressed as settlements of Māori grievances against the Crown, which preceded modern Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The legislation was used to maintain the legislative framework governing Māori land ownership and Māori communities, to introduce new policies and fill policy gaps, and to create special exceptions to the legislative framework including special governance provisions. The research provides evidence of the poor fit between the restrictive legislative framework governing Māori lives and Māori needs, and it demonstrates the inability of New Zealand’s legal system to deliver justice for Māori. Although many provisions attempted to ameliorate inequities, correct mistakes and resolve disputes, provisions often fell short of meeting the criteria for justice and are best described as taking important steps towards justice.</p>

A critical review of the Cabinet Circular on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi advice to ministers

The New Zealand state developed from a treaty between the British Crown and hapū (sub-tribes) in 1840. The te Reo (Māori language) text and the English version of the agreement are fundamentally different. Breaches of this treaty and tension over how the political relationship between Māori and the Crown should proceed are ongoing. In 2019, the Cabinet Office issued a Circular instructing bureaucratic advisers of the questions they should address when providing advice to ministers on the agreement’s contemporary application. In this article, we use Critical Tiriti Analysis (CTA) – an analytical framework applied to public policies – to suggest additional and alternative questions to inform bureaucratic advice. The article defines CTA in detail and shows how using it in this way could protect Māori rights to tino rangatiratanga (a sovereignty and authority that is not subservient to others) and substantive engagement, as citizens, in the formation of public policy. This article’s central argument is that the Circular reflects an important evolution in government policy thought. However, in showing how the Circular privileges the English version (the Treaty of Waitangi) over the Māori text (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), the article demonstrates how Māori political authority remains subservient to the Crown in ways that Te Tiriti did not intend. We show through the conceptual illustration of the care and protection of Māori children, despite the significant evolution in government thought that it represents, these rights are not fully protected by the Circular. This is significant because it was Te Tiriti, with its protection of extant Māori authority and sovereignty, that was signed by all but 39 of the more than 500 chiefs who agreed to the British Crown establishing government over their own people, but who did not agree to the colonial relationship which may be read into the English version.

Whanganui River and Te Urewera Treaty Settlements: Innovative developments for the practice of rangatiratanga in resource management

<p>This thesis concerns the recent innovative developments in the Whanganui River and Te Urewera Treaty settlements of 2014. The Whanganui River has become the first specific environmental resource to receive the rights and status of a legal person. Te Urewera has been removed from the 1980 National Parks Act to also become its own legal person. Both legal personalities will be co-managed by boards of equal Crown and iwi members. The Te Urewera Board will, however, be rearranged in 2018 to have a Tūhoe majority, another first for Treaty of Waitangi settlements. These new features are considered particularly innovative in this thesis because of the context of Crown indivisible sovereignty and its unequal share of power in negotiating settlements. This thesis considers the ability of these settlements to provide space for iwi to practice rangatiratanga in relation to the resource that is central to their history and identity. If rangatiratanga is considered in this context to be the ability of iwi to practice self-determination and autonomy, then these settlements go further than previously seen because the application of the legal personality and the way it is co-managed is based for the most part on the worldview of the iwi. However, this worldview will continue to be practiced within the wider context of the English political and legal system. Because the improvement of the health and wellbeing of the Whanganui River and Te Urewera will be based on tikanga and mātauranga, Whanganui iwi and Tūhoe have been provided with more space than the Crown has previously conceded to practice rangatiratanga over these resources.</p>

Whanganui River and Te Urewera Treaty Settlements: Innovative developments for the practice of rangatiratanga in resource management

<p>This thesis concerns the recent innovative developments in the Whanganui River and Te Urewera Treaty settlements of 2014. The Whanganui River has become the first specific environmental resource to receive the rights and status of a legal person. Te Urewera has been removed from the 1980 National Parks Act to also become its own legal person. Both legal personalities will be co-managed by boards of equal Crown and iwi members. The Te Urewera Board will, however, be rearranged in 2018 to have a Tūhoe majority, another first for Treaty of Waitangi settlements. These new features are considered particularly innovative in this thesis because of the context of Crown indivisible sovereignty and its unequal share of power in negotiating settlements. This thesis considers the ability of these settlements to provide space for iwi to practice rangatiratanga in relation to the resource that is central to their history and identity. If rangatiratanga is considered in this context to be the ability of iwi to practice self-determination and autonomy, then these settlements go further than previously seen because the application of the legal personality and the way it is co-managed is based for the most part on the worldview of the iwi. However, this worldview will continue to be practiced within the wider context of the English political and legal system. Because the improvement of the health and wellbeing of the Whanganui River and Te Urewera will be based on tikanga and mātauranga, Whanganui iwi and Tūhoe have been provided with more space than the Crown has previously conceded to practice rangatiratanga over these resources.</p>

The Right to Language and its Contemporary Significance for New Zealand

<p>The right of linguistic minorities to speak their own language in community with other members of their group (the right to language) is deserving of specific attention for two reasons. Firstly, language is the currency of communication and one of the key indicia of cultural identity; and secondly, ensuring minorities have a secure place within a State is pivotal to promoting peace and stability within a nation. There are three sources of the right to language in New Zealand : the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the Treaty of Waitangi (for the Maori and Moriori languages). The right to language protects against both direct action by the State to limit linguistic minorities' use of their language. and State neglect of a minority language. This paper explores the right to language in the New Zealand context including the sources and elements of the right to language; the application of the right to the Maori language (and what lessons can be learned from this experience for the Moriori language); and two modes of revitalisation of minority languages: official recognition and television broadcasting. The paper observes that while the steps to improve language acquisition and use of the Maori language are admirable and need to continue to secure a meaningful place for that language in New Zealand, the Moriori language is in serious jeopardy and in need of urgent attention. Finally, the paper examines whether the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi may provide sound guidance for the consideration of the place of minority languages in policy and law making in New Zealand.</p>

The Right to Language and its Contemporary Significance for New Zealand

<p>The right of linguistic minorities to speak their own language in community with other members of their group (the right to language) is deserving of specific attention for two reasons. Firstly, language is the currency of communication and one of the key indicia of cultural identity; and secondly, ensuring minorities have a secure place within a State is pivotal to promoting peace and stability within a nation. There are three sources of the right to language in New Zealand : the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the Treaty of Waitangi (for the Maori and Moriori languages). The right to language protects against both direct action by the State to limit linguistic minorities' use of their language. and State neglect of a minority language. This paper explores the right to language in the New Zealand context including the sources and elements of the right to language; the application of the right to the Maori language (and what lessons can be learned from this experience for the Moriori language); and two modes of revitalisation of minority languages: official recognition and television broadcasting. The paper observes that while the steps to improve language acquisition and use of the Maori language are admirable and need to continue to secure a meaningful place for that language in New Zealand, the Moriori language is in serious jeopardy and in need of urgent attention. Finally, the paper examines whether the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi may provide sound guidance for the consideration of the place of minority languages in policy and law making in New Zealand.</p>

Closing the gap : enhancing Parliament's law-making role in Treaty of Waitangi and customary rights issues

<p>The New Zealand system of government subscribes to the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament. This means that where Parliament have, in legislation, explicitly and clearly stipulated an intention to be arbitrary, unfair or oppressive, the judicial branch of government cannot strike that legislative provision down. Instead, the Courts law-making role is confined to interpreting and developing case law where there is no applicable statutory rule.</p>

Closing the gap : enhancing Parliament's law-making role in Treaty of Waitangi and customary rights issues

<p>The New Zealand system of government subscribes to the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament. This means that where Parliament have, in legislation, explicitly and clearly stipulated an intention to be arbitrary, unfair or oppressive, the judicial branch of government cannot strike that legislative provision down. Instead, the Courts law-making role is confined to interpreting and developing case law where there is no applicable statutory rule.</p>

"Towards a Positive Treaty Partnership in the Post-Settlement Era”: Treaty of Waitangi Settlements and Decolonisation in Aotearoa New Zealand

<p>Settlements of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims present a unique opportunity to provide redress to Māori for the past and ongoing grievances committed by the Crown, and through that redress and the accompanying focus on improved relations, to decolonise the relationship between the two. Despite this opportunity, there is a wide body of literature that suggests the outcomes of these settlements instead will perpetuate colonisation and uphold the political structures which allow for the on-going dispossession of Māori. This thesis argues that existing Treaty settlement policy can be viewed as a continuation of the legacy of colonisation by stealth, entrenching the power of the colonial state while simultaneously offering redress and apologies for past grievances of the colonisation process which do not adequately challenge the underlying structures which give rise to those grievances. It is further argued, through the example of political rhetoric from the 2014 general election, that current political discourses support the implementation of colonising settlement policies and that those discourses reinforce notions of Western settler superiority. This thesis explores a number of perspectives on settlements and decolonisation which support the claim that historical Treaty settlements perpetuate rather than challenge colonisation. I argue that the pressing concern emerging from the thesis is that the Crown can be to seen to be directing the Treaty relationship to a post-settlement world where the negotiated outcomes of Treaty settlements and the parties to them are the end point of colonisation and represent the future dynamic of the Crown-Māori relationship.</p>