Eruera Raine discusses the differences between whakapapa and the Western concept of "citizenship" and considers the pathway towards tikanga-based citizenship.

Hei tīmatanga – Introduction

Whakapapa is the base through which all laws grow. It defines our interactions with each other, our ways of life and our sense of belonging. Whakapapa is all-encompassing. It connects tāngata Māori, not only to each other, but to the entirety of our universe. This is in stark contrast to a Western system. Belonging is strictly defined through nationality law, which is exclusive and leads to uprootedness. This article explores the differences between the Western concept of “citizenship” and whakapapa. Through the example of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report, He Tangata, he Whenua: The Citizenship Report (Wai 3513), we can see the inadequacies of state law and how it actively harms the law of whakapapa.

Kōrerorero – Discussion

A brief introduction to He Tangata he Whenua

Under the Citizenship Act 1977 (the Act), New Zealand citizenship by descent can only extend for a single generation.^[1] If Māori move overseas, their grandchildren, who whakapapa Māori, will not be citizens under state law.^[2]

John Ruddock was born in Australia to a Māori mother. He is Ngāpuhi, with whakapapa Māori, including to a signatory of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. John’s children were born in Hawai’i. As they were born of a citizen by descent, his children are not New Zealand citizens.^[3] Ruddock brought a claim to the Tribunal to assess whether state citizenship law was in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal also briefly considered what a tikanga-based nationality law could look like.^[4]

Tikanga of belonging

Whanaungatanga and whakapapa are the tikanga values of being and belonging. They are the ontological framework that uphold te ao Māori. Whakapapa is much more than genealogy. Whakapapa embraces the entire universe and everything in it; whakapapa is a totalising relationship.^[5] People are not mere individuals but are part of a collective that they have reciprocal obligations towards. Whanaungatanga is a fundamental principle of tikanga, which embraces whakapapa.^[6] As rangatira Moana Jackson wrote: “The key values in our law are those of whakapapa, and it is in whakapapa that we find both its jurisprudence and its traditions.”^[7]

Whakapapa connects Māori inextricably to whenua. Māori can trace our genealogy back to Papatūānuku, therefore we not only live on the land, but are of the land.^[8] This is evident in every pepeha. Dr Carwyn Jones has argued that provided there is a whakapapa link to a particular area, tikanga would entitle a whānau to return to that whenua.^[9]

In a citizenship context, to be deprived of your whakapapa connections would mean to be deprived of life within te ao Māori itself. State citizenship law that prevents access to whenua would be a fate worse than death. In a tikanga-based system however, those who whakapapa Māori would be able to unconditionally return to Aotearoa.

State law and citizenship

The concept of “citizenship” is innately Western. It has its origins in the ancient world of Greece and Rome, where citizens were afforded certain social and political rights within the state. Additionally, the concept of “citizenship” was attached to the city. While the ability to own land could be a feature of citizenship, it was a relationship of dominance, not mutual obligations. It is from these ancient origins that Western concepts of citizenship emerged.^[10]

Through colonisation, these concepts were imported to Aotearoa and were the foundations of the Citizenship Act 1977 (the Act).

The Act provides four pathways for New Zealand citizenship. A person is a citizen by birth if they are born within the territory of New Zealand and have a parent who is entitled to remain indefinitely.^[11] This reflects the Western legal principle of jus soli, where nationality of an individual is based on location of birth.^[12] Another pathway is citizenship by descent. A person is a citizen by descent when at least one of their parents is a citizen, unless that parent is a citizen by descent.^[13] This reflects the Western legal principle of jus sanguinis, where nationality of an individual is based on ancestry (literally blood).^[14] However, the requirement that one’s parent is not a citizen by descent means that it can only extend for a single generation.

This inevitably clashes with the tikanga of belonging. On the one hand, as an exclusive mechanism, one can lose citizenship if the requirements of the Act are not fulfilled. On the other hand, within a tikanga framework, it is impossible to lose whakapapa. Therefore, in Aotearoa-New Zealand’s legal systems, there are competing definitions of belonging. It was this clash which was the focus of He Tangata, he Whenua.

The Tribunal’s findings

The Tribunal found that the Act was in breach of a number of Treaty principles. Nevertheless,  due to the age of the Act and the recency of the claim, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as it was an historical matter.

The Tribunal found that the Act is in breach of the principle of tino rangatiratanga. Te Tiriti confirmed  “...tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa”.^[15] Fundamental to tino rangatiratanga is that Māori are able to exercise absolute authority over their lands. It is a necessary corollary of having authority to be able to travel or live in your lands.^[16] Even the narrowest interpretation of tino rangatiratanga as mere property rights supports the idea that all Māori must have at least a right of residency.^[17] How can someone exercise kaitiaki obligations over lands and resources if they cannot live there? The exercise of tino rangatiratanga is inherently connected to whakapapa.

There is an issue of kāwanatanga. Under Te Tiriti, the Crown obtained “hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka…te kawanatanga katoa o ratou whenua.”^[18] But the right of the Crown to govern is not absolute and is limited by tino rangatiratanga. The Tribunal found that since the Crown created and enforced an Act which hinders tino rangatiratanga, its exercise of kāwanatanga is invalid.^[19]

The Crown also breached the principle of active protection. Current pathways for citizenship are passive, placing the burden on applicants. The Act also does not actively protect whakapapa or whenua links and further  “empowers the Crown to determine the legitimacy of someone’s whakapapa.”^[20]

There is a fair argument to be made that state citizenship is a part of kāwanatanga and as such, the kāwanatanga ought to be able to govern its own affairs. At our present constitutional moment, this argument cannot succeed. Matike Mai points to how the kāwanatanga sphere has almost totally enveloped the tino rangatiratanga sphere.^[21] Were there equality in the spheres, such an argument could be possible, but the de facto lack of self determination means that state citizenship (or at the very least, permission of the kāwanatanga) is essential if anyone wishes to live in Aotearoa. Furthermore, Te Tiriti granted to Māori the “same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”^[22]

In pursuit of tikanga-based citizenship

The Tribunal also recommended that the Crown should amend the Act to create a tikanga pathway to citizenship within state law.

However this raises a problem— it would still be within the power of the state to determine citizenship. Historically the state has imposed a blood quantum to assess “Māoriness”. Although times and attitudes have changed (he whakapapa Māori, he Māori ahau) the state remains an unreliable arbiter of “Māoriness”.^[23]

This is seen in one of the other pathways for citizenship: a special grant. This route is touted as a possible solution to the issue of non-citizen Māori. However, non-citizen Māori have been asked about attendance at marae and kapa haka when the state has “assessed their Māoriness”.^[24] This is inherently problematic since the state essentialises te ao Māori according to non-Māori frameworks of cultural performance through a process of otherisation. It is also practically difficult; if you were born and raised abroad, how could you practically attend your marae regularly if you have no right to enter the country. Finally, the evidence the state requires may be problematic. Whakapapa is tapu, and sharing it with a faceless, bureaucratic state seems inappropriate.

It seems that the only acceptable solution is constitutional change. Due to the power of kāwanatanga, the exercise of tino rangatiratanga is limited. This limitation means that the tikanga of belonging cannot be used. Any pathway towards a wider incorporation of whakapapa into state law also seems unacceptable given the risks of state implementation.

Ngā kupu āpiti – Notes

[1] Citizenship Act 1977, s 7.

[2] Waitangi Tribunal He Tangata, he Whenua: The Citizenship Report, Pre-Publication Version (Wai 3513, 2025) at 1.

[3] Steve Kilgallon “The Māori kids with a great grandad All Black, who are in NZ illegally” Stuff (Wellington, 5 July 2025).

[4] Waitangi Tribunal, above n 2, at 77–82.

[5] Lesley Rameka “A Māori perspective of being and belonging” (2018) 19 Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 367 at 368.

[6] Hirini Moko Mead Tikanga Māori — Living By Māori Values (2nd ed, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2016) at 32.

[7] Moana Jackson, “Whakapapa and the Beginning of Law” (Unpublished paper presented to law students, Wānanga o Raukawa, 2002).

[8] Rameka, above n 5, at 370.

[9] Waitangi Tribunal, above n 2, at 15.

[10] Derek Heater A Brief History of Citizenship (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2004) at 1–5.

[11] Section 6.

[12] James Crawford Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019) at 497.

[13] Citizenship Act 1977, s 7(1).

[14] Crawford, above n 12, at 497.

[15] Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840, art 2.

[16] Waitangi Tribunal, above n 2, at 16.

[17] Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown “Understanding the Waitangi Tribunal’s Report on the Treaty Principles Bill” The Spinoff (online ed, Wellington, 2 September 2024).

[18] Treaty of Waitangi 1840, art 1; and Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840, art 1.

[19] Waitangi Tribunal, above n 2 at 60.

[20] At 60.

[21] He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa: The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa — The Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation (2016) at 9.

[22] Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840, art 3.

[23] Khylee Quince “Calls for Māori Covid-19 vaccination targets prompt a question: Who or what are Māori?” Stuff (online ed, Wellington, 30 October 2021).

[24] Waitangi Tribunal, above n 2, at 64.

Author: Guest Author

View all posts by Guest Author