Lessons for Australia from New Zealand’s Indigenous rights debate

At her inaugural professorial lecture, University of Auckland law scholar Professor Claire Charters challenged the common belief that New Zealand is a world leader on Indigenous rights.

Charters told her audience she often asks students whether New Zealand, Canada or the United States does better at upholding Indigenous peoples’ rights. “Most hands go up for New Zealand,” she said, “but by the end of the class… there’s been a 180‑degree shift in thinking.”

“From a legal and constitutional perspective, New Zealand stacks up terribly” she said. Charters pointed to parliamentary supremacy and the lack of a written constitution as key problems, noting that Parliament can pass laws even if they breach human rights, international law or Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the courts cannot stop it.

As a result, Te Tiriti is only enforceable when Parliament chooses to reference it in legislation, unlike treaties and Aboriginal rights in Canada and the United States where courts can strike down inconsistent laws. Charters argued that the current government has passed laws that effectively extinguish Māori rights, and that Parliament is “abusing this power almost on a daily basis”.

She outlined options for reform, including a Māori Senate within Parliament, separate Māori parliaments similar to Sámi parliaments in Scandinavia, and shared law‑making authority over traditional lands through treaty settlements.

Charters concluded that constitutional transformation is essential to realise Indigenous self‑determination and improve socio‑economic and cultural outcomes. Her analysis adds to broader global debates on Indigenous rights, closely watched in Australia after the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum and ongoing discussions about treaty processes in states including NSW and Victoria.