The Biosecurity Act 1993 has governed New Zealand’s Biosecurity system for 31 years; during this time, it has only undergone two minor amendments. New Zealand’s Biosecurity system is one of the best in the world due to multi-layered protections enforcing stringent rules and regulations. This reflects the bountiful diversity of New Zealand’s flora and fauna, including many endemic species. However, New Zealand’s unique history and the relationship between the Crown and Māori, through Te Tiriti o Waitangi, presents system requirements that are not widely contemplated in other jurisdictions. Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as a constitutional document, requires that the Government and Māori act towards each other reasonably and in good faith, a partnership. The interaction between the biosecurity system and Māori is a known issue; however, little research has been undertaken to highlight and explore this, especially within the legal context. Therefore, there is a gap in legal resources discussing the biosecurity systems’ decision-making processes, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and how they interact to consider, protect, and facilitate the development of tikanga (customs and traditional values) and mātauranga (body of knowledge originating from Māori ancestors from a Māori world view) decision-making processes1.

This thesis seeks to illuminate the relationship between the Biosecurity Framework and Māori by investigating how the Biosecurity Act 1993 approaches partnership with Māori, compared to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act). By discussing and comparing the overarching biosecurity legislation with a related piece of legislation that approaches partnership with Māori in a very different way, conclusions can be made about how well the overarching legislation approaches Māori and the treaty and what improvements can be made.

This research found that the Biosecurity Act establishes a system that doesn’t facilitate partnerships with Māori and conflicts with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Iwi settlements. The nexus of this issue is the absence of a Treaty clause or many meaningful considerations of Māori concerning both cultural and legal interests in biosecurity within the Act. Further, the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI), the Act’s administering body, lacks a mandate and structures to facilitate partnership with Māori while exercising its functions. In contrast, the HSNO Act demonstrates a more extensive and proactive approach to partnership within its subsection of the greater biosecurity system. This is due to the extensive inclusion and consideration of Māori throughout the Act, including a treaty clause. The HSNO Act administering body, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), a crown agent reporting to the Minister for the Environment, further facilitates Māori partnership through their mandate. This is prevalent throughout the Authority’s establishing legislation but ultimately derived from a Treaty clause, which impacts their approach to exercising their administration of the HSNO Act.

In conclusion, this research considers many aspects of the HSNO Act that could be utilised to improve the Biosecurity Act’s approach to Māori partnership. Firstly, the inclusion of a Treaty clause in the Biosecurity Act is discussed and probes MPI’s position as the administering body of the Biosecurity Act. Followed by the creation of an internally focused committee to provide MPI with an internal foundation to support Māori partnership (cultural capability, development, internal decision-making, and relationship management with external Māori groups). Also, an externally focused committee to advise MPI on policy, processes, and decision-making to ensure compliance with obligations (implied under the Treaty or provided within a Biosecurity Act overhaul). Finally, published internal guidance to formalise and evidence Māori partnership within decision-making processes. Guides detail how decision-makers incorporate Māori perspectives into policy, processes, and decisions.