spinofflive
Image: Getty
Image: Getty

ĀteaJanuary 9, 2018

Blind justice: reimagining a mana wāhine legal system

Image: Getty
Image: Getty

A bold new book sees women rewriting historical judgments and dismantling how our legal framework is seen in indigenous and feminist terms.

We hear much about the growing economic inequality in our society but rarely do we hear about how accepted frameworks, such as the rule of law and the associated legal system, contribute to and reinforce structural inequality. Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand examines our country’s legal framework and demonstrates that it is not the neutral player it is often presumed to be. Indeed, this book demonstrates that for many, particularly women and Māori women, the existing framework does not deliver justice. Feminist Judgments goes much deeper than an examination of existing systems. It queries, reimagines and provides examples of how the legal process in Aotearoa could be different; how it could better reflect the lived experiences of those who find themselves caught up in its processes.

Building on projects undertaken in other parts of the world, mainly the UK, Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland, the book’s editors – Elisabeth McDonald, Rhonda Powell, Māmari Stephens and Rosemary Hunter ­– sought to “provide the reader with a new perspective, or even, new perspectives in the reading of New Zealand law”. Existing legal judgments have been examined and rewritten from feminist and mana wāhine points of view. The result are judgments that serve to close the gap between the lived reality of women, the legislative framework and its interpretation in the courts.

Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand Te Rino: A Two Stranded Rope (Bloomsbury). Edited by Elisabeth McDonald, Rhonda Powell, Māmari Stephens, Rosemary Hunter.

The enthusiasm for this project from the four editors and over fifty contributors is evident in the introductory chapters. This is a book that has been written and researched collaboratively – an approach that aligns with the book’s proposition for an alternative to a combative, adversarial legal system.

The book is divided into two sections. The first few chapters describe the process undertaken in the writing of this book and the international feminist judgments project. They provide an explanation of the nature of the New Zealand legal system, including Māori legal thought and most significantly for our country, provide a framework “from a perspective that upholds mana wahine”. Mana wahine is described as “an approach to an initiative or project that places Māori women and the primary concerns of Māori women at its centre.” A unifying framework for the writing of these mana wahine judgments is given and this framework is one that sets the Aotearoa project apart from its sister projects around the world.

The second and lengthier section, is comprised of the feminist judgments themselves. It is helpfully divided into three more sections – rights, equality and relationality; land and natural resources, and crime. Within each section the judgments are further categorised making it easy for the reader to isolate cases in their area of interest. As these judgments are rewritings of actual judgments from the New Zealand court system, a commentary on the historical context of the time of the writing of the original judgment is provided. Each feminist judgment is followed by its own commentary.

The 25 judgments cover a wide range of situations which will be familiar to those working in areas of inequality and social justice. The courts are rightly seen as an arena to address wrongs, but this book shows us how, frequently, attempts to seek justice are thwarted by inaccessibility; interpretations of the ‘facts’; implicit bias and a failure to not only hear all the voices of those who come before it, but to give undue credence to some over others. The feminist and mana wahine judgments follow a different process, one that centralises the women’s cultural and social context, and listens to their stories.

Feminist concepts are pivotal in this book. Intersectionality is explored and modelled. The writers to do not take a one size fits all approach. While the majority of cases deal with matters in which women have been wronged, an ethic of care philosophy has been used to rewrite a judgment concerning the environment. This, and other themes in the judgments, demonstrate that a feminist approach to the law would be beneficial to a wider range of subjects outside of those covered in this book.

In providing new perspectives, the writers have had to examine a legal system in our country that was imported from England and imposed by this country’s colonising power in the early 19th century. It is a hierarchical, adversarial system with deference to precedent in argument and judgment. It has honoured the legal methods of the coloniser and dismissed the practices that already existed in Aotearoa to address conflict and disagreement. While our system has evolved and changed in minor ways, it still relies on an imposed structure that emerged from a time when women had no legal standing and no right to vote. This book successfully provides an alternative method which seeks to redress the inequalities that have resulted from and are entrenched by, the present legal system.

Audre Lorde’s powerful statement that “the master’s tools will never be used to dismantle the master’s house” immediately came to mind when I received this book. Te Rino Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand reclaims these tools. It is an illuminating contribution to initiatives to adapt the existing framework of the legal system, and particularly the way in which judgments are decided and written, to be fully inclusive and to better reflect the society in which it operates.

Julie Timmins is one of the founders of Child Poverty Action Group and a trustee of Ngā Tangata Microfinance. She has a Masters in Equality Studies from UCD Dublin and is currently heading the Double Standards campaign to bring attention to how beneficiaries (specifically women) are treated in the legal system.

Keep going!
Illustration: Gabrielle Baker
Illustration: Gabrielle Baker

ĀteaJanuary 8, 2018

Summer health series: what comes next for Māori health?

Illustration: Gabrielle Baker
Illustration: Gabrielle Baker

What lies beyond the new Labour government’s ‘first 100 days’ for health policy and outcomes for Māori? In a new series, former Ministry of Health advisor and policy analyst Gabrielle Baker asks Māori health professionals for their recommendations for a more equitable health system.

It could just be me, but these first months of a new government are an exciting time, regardless of how you voted. It is the time when new ministers figure out their priorities and set expectations for themselves and for the departments that advise them. They start to figure out how to action those policy statements they made and reality sinks in a little about what can really happen and when.

The Labour-NZ First-Green government have outlined a 100-day plan. It is ambitious but achievable.

But while there will be a blistering fuss made about progress in this 100-day period, which ends at the very start of February, the big aims they’ve set themselves are longer term, and require considered and probably brave action. And I reckon that central to lots of this is how well the new government can deliver for Māori.

I am struck by a statement in both the Labour-NZ First coalition agreement and the Labour-Greens confidence and supply agreement:

We will reduce inequality and poverty and improve the well-being of all New Zealanders and the environment we live in.

Huge if true.

Inequalities! Poverty! Well-being! The Environment!

Inequalities have been a feature of New Zealand society for decades. By this I mean there has been noted and notable differences in outcomes for different population groups. And it is unacceptable that they exist.

The previous Labour government had explicit statements around reducing inequalities for eight years but while there were changes here and there, in this indicator and that, there wasn’t a lot of shift overall and the population groups that were the worst off were still worst off while privileged groups retained their privilege. And something you can’t ignore is that the most pervasive inequalities exist between Māori and non-Māori across almost any area you can think about – health, employment, education and so on.

There are also other hints at the longer term aspirations of the government. The announcement of a Crown-Māori relationships portfolio, headed by Kelvin Davis, is a big hint, for example. While there aren’t a lot of detailed statements around this, it has to be an indication of a government wanting to work differently with Māori and to do its business, as a government, better. This is a chance to build on the work of iwi and the Crown in Treaty settlements, and even to learn from Waitangi Tribunal’s reports on how to better honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in a way that gives voice to both sides of the Treaty relationship.

My background is as a policy analyst and manager in the public service, particularly in Māori health. And right now I’m hitting pause on that while I explore other interests. But the thing with elections is that they draw you back in. I see potential in shaping the approach to health in line with these longer term aims of the government and delivering better for Māori. Over the past month or so I found myself wanting to talk to people, whose opinions and expertise I value, about what they would tell the new Minister of Health, David Clark, and his colleagues if they had a chance. So I went ahead and set up conversations. And over the summer you’ll see the results.

It is hard to describe what is in store over the coming weeks without giving it all away. But spoiler alert: there are some positive things that happen every day in the health sector. Yet the differences in outcomes between groups mean that we have a way to go before we can say the system is doing its job. There is also something in here about the values that underpin the way that government works to improve outcomes for people. And those I spoke to talked about the different ways that this plays out from what we count (what demographic data do we have? How do we collect ethnicity data? What indicators do we use in health as markers of success?) through to what priority we put on the social and physical environment and, for example, the health impact of climate change.

There is also a sense of cautious hope – particularly that an appetite for reducing inequalities might lead to the more inspirational aim of achieving equity. An unintended consequence of reducing inequalities as an aim is that it can make it okay to get a small shift – for example applauding a change in the difference between regular diabetes testing for Māori compared to non-Māori – without asking bigger questions about where we might better focus to shift the big things like life expectancy. Every time I look at life expectancy figures it staggers me – life expectancy for Māori men is around seven years less than for non-Māori men and around six years less for Māori women than for non-Māori women.

Next week I’ll go into this discussion about equity more. And advice to the Minister which is essentially: “You’ve done a good job identifying and discussing inequalities, now it is time to identify how you’re going to achieve equity.”