Search results

In this chapter, we draw upon our experiences as members of Victoria University of Wellington’s Human Ethics Committee (VUW-HEC) to discuss some of the issues that arise when researchers are asked to discuss the Treaty of Waitangi¹ in ethics applications. Victoria University of Wellington (VUW)’s Human Ethics Policy states that researchers have a responsibility to ensure that research conforms to the University’s Treaty of Waitangi Statute. This statute outlines the principle-based framework VUW has adopted to meet its obligations to the Treaty derived from the Education Act 1989 and other non-statutory sources. Accompanying the Human Ethics Policy is a Human Ethics Guidelines document providing researchers at VUW with information about how they can align their research with Treaty principles, such as those of partnership, protection, and participation. Researchers are encouraged to read these documents before completing the ethics application, which contains a mandatory question asking them to explain how their research conforms to the University’s Treaty of Waitangi Statute. During our time on VUW-HEC, we have observed that this question can be difficult for researchers to engage with in a meaningful way. In this chapter, we do not discuss the specifics of applications or VUW-HEC meetings; instead, we draw on our collective experiences to consider how well our university’s ethics application process creates space for researchers to engage with ‘that Treaty question’.

In February 1840, Māori co-signed the Treaty of Waitangi with the British Crown. Partnership, protection, and participation are the fundamental principles provided in the Treaty. In April 2010, the New Zealand government endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These two instruments provide indigenous peoples with the right to participate fully in decision-making that will affect their legal, social, economic, cultural, and political rights. Having endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the New Zealand government is morally obliged to comply with the intent of the Declaration. The focus of this chapter is on the right of Māori to participate and be represented on the governing councils of local government. It will be demonstrated that the refusal by the New Zealand government in 2010 to provide dedicated Māori wards on the Auckland Council is contrary to the intent of the Declaration. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi require the government to act with integrity toward the indigenous people of New Zealand. It will be argued that the failure of local government to utilize electoral options that will enhance Māori representation in local government breach obligations inherent in both the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Treaty of Waitangi.

The rise of aesthetics within organizational studies has been met with enthusiasm by a growing coterie of scholars. Aesthetics, it is claimed, offers a dimension that has been missing in a discipline that has been dominated by instrumental approaches. It is not surprising, then, that Pierre Guillet de Monthoux, one of the field's champions, asserts that “if the German artist Joseph Beuys … was right in claiming that art is tomorrow's capital, it seems reasonable to consider aesthetics its new organization theory” (Guillet de Monthoux, 2000, p. 35).

Māori are the indigenous population of New Zealand, although even the name ‘Māori’ is not ever used by them to describe all the inhabitants of those shores at the time of colonisation. Rather, reference is made to the iwi (tribe), hapū (sub-tribe or clan) and whānau (family), one is inherently part of, based firmly on whakapapa (genealogy). Colonisation of New Zealand began in the late 1700s and proceeded in a similar manner to other colonised places around the world, resulting in the sublimation of indigenous peoples and their culture. Māori had societal structures, culture and tikanga (customs) determined by whakapapa. Māori had and continue to have their own way of looking at the world. The legitimation of a Māori world view within a large organisation relies on a vision, a strategy and an overwhelming enthusiasm among key influencers to drive it. Numerous Māori leaders and scholars through the ages have held the same vision for Māori, that is, to be an equal partner in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The Office of Māori Development at the University of Otago supports this vision – to embed aspects of Te Ao Māori within the fabric of the institution. The University’s Māori Strategic Framework (MSF) grew out of two significant documents: a Treaty of Waitangi Audit conducted by Dr Ranginui Walker (University of Otago, 1998) and a Treaty of Waitangi Stocktake undertaken by Janine Kapa (University of Otago, 2005). The Stocktake findings were subsequently tested with a number of key stakeholders from within the University, as well as local mana whenua ¹ and other interest groups. This consultation formed the foundation of the University’s MSF. This chapter begins by outlining the historical context in which the relationship between the University and Māori progressed, leading ultimately to its partnership with Ngāi Tahu. ² A contemporary response to realising indigenous imperatives is then examined, by looking at the formation of the MSF, the importance of the consultative process undertaken with key stakeholders, and further, the role it has played in transforming the University of Otago.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to consider the (re-)emergence of the sport waka ama (outrigger canoe) in light of the broader historical, social, political, cultural and economic landscape of ‘post-colonial’ Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter draws upon a micro-ethnography of the 2011 Waka ama national competition to elucidate the ways in which the sport serves as an important site for sharing Māori identities and culture. The empirical aspects of the chapter utilise observations and semi-structured interviews with key gatekeepers of waka ama in Aotearoa/New Zealand and participants in the sport.

Findings – The key findings of the study offer new insights into the relationship between the (re-)emergence of waka ama and the wider context of ‘post-colonial’ Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Research limitations/implications – The restricted timeframe that the research took place within could be viewed as a limitation to the research project.

Originality/value – The chapter provides an alternative reading of the sport waka ama within ‘post-colonial’ Aotearoa/New Zealand. To date there has been little research conducted on the role sport has played within the process of colonisation in Aotearoa/New Zealand. There has also been limited research that illustrates the role of waka ama, as a uniquely indigenous sport, as a vehicle of social change within indigenous communities. The authors highlight the unique nature of waka ama and provide an alternative commentary on the colonial/neocolonial forces that have impacted waka ama in its emergence.

Within the tertiary Institution where I am employed there is a real and concerted effort to engage meaningfully as a Treaty ¹ partner with the local Iwi (tribe) ² through a formal arrangement. ³ However the institution often inadvertently finds itself crossing the ‘cultural boundary’ of what or how Indigenous and local Iwi knowledge systems and practices fit within its tertiary systems. This chapter explores some of the challenges that have arisen between Iwi and the Institution. In particular it examines the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the Institute has with the four Arai-Te-Uru Rūnaka (tribal councils) that saw the creation of a Kaitohutohu ⁴ position at Senior Management level. From this came the establishment of a Kōmiti Kawanataka (Treaty of Waitangi Committee) and the writing of the Māori Strategic Framework (MSF). All staff are required under the MoU to action the MSF within their teaching and learning as well as in their service provision. The Institute has established internal training to assist staff with how they can implement the MSF. Training is offered at zero cost and staff have a two-year window of opportunity to enrol in and complete it.

Negotiating the ‘middle-ground’ (Lear, 2006) between New Zealand universities and Maori whare wananga is the issue discussed in this chapter. It is suggested that the Maori institution of the marae, used as a ‘mediating structure’ (Berger, 1979) is ideally placed as the negotiating space to enhance the learning and scholarship of all students who seek a sense of belonging as well as the opportunity to increase their potential as global citizens. It is argued that choosing to make a contribution to the betterment of all New Zealanders is the prior intellectual and cultural engagement.

Purpose − In the 1990s, the New Zealand government began returning land and other natural resources to Maori ownership in compensation for their dispossession in the nineteenth century. This chapter examines the impact of the settlement of the Waikato-Tainui claim on the socioeconomic development of the tribe since the compensation agreement was signed in 1995.Design/methodology/approach − The ethnographic analysis is focused on the tribal debate that seeks to balance the corporate demand to maximize profits of commercial investments and the increasing demand of tribal beneficiaries for social services. This debate is situated within the broader discussion about the balance between ownership and (re)distribution, and between historical justice and social justice.Findings − The analysis demonstrates that the restoration of land to Maori ownership does not automatically result in an improvement of socioeconomic conditions for most Maori. Instead, it seems to facilitate a gradual transformation of tribal hierarchies into class distinctions.Research limitations/implications − Further research is required as this chapter shows that the settlement of Maori grievances does not immediately resolve all socioeconomic problems as was originally expected.Practical implications − The settlement of colonial grievances is inherently complex since each solution seems to create new problems, also because the sociopolitical organization of indigenous societies has changed fundamentally since the beginning of colonization.Social implications − It will be necessary to continue to negotiate historical and social justice in postcolonial societies.Originality/value − Ownership of natural resources does not automatically entail socioeconomic developments or improvements. Additional policy strategies are required to obtain the socioeconomic outcomes that people desire from their engagements with capitalism.

Peter Adds is Associate Professor and the current Head of School for Te Kawa a Māui (the School of Māori Studies), Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He has worked in Māori Studies at Victoria since 1984 following on from attaining a Master's degree in anthropology and archaeology, and he teaches Māori and Polynesian history and Māori customary concepts. He is on the executive committee of the Māori Association of Social Science. He is of Te Atiawa ki Taranaki descent and is in their Claim Negotiation team, having led the Waitangi Tribunal research for the Taranaki land claim. He is currently engaged in negotiations with the Crown seeking a Treaty settlement for his tribe. A former Ministerial appointment to the Board of the NZ Historic Places Trust and a member of the Maori Heritage Council, Peter has a strong background in heritage issues and was the keynote speaker at the NZ Archaeological Conference in 2010. He is an internationally recognized researcher and scholar and has extensive consultancy and training experience in areas relating to the Treaty of Waitangi.