A Patchwork Approach: the Repatriation of Kōiwi Tangata in Aotearoa New Zealand
By Emily James, For ARTHIST 230 Art Crime, Semester One, 2020. Grade: A
The repatriation of human remains to indigenous communities marks an important step in the ongoing process of decolonisation. Repatriation recognises the rights of indigenous people to their cultural heritage and is an opportunity for institutions holding remains to re-evaluate the purpose of their collections. This essay will examine the legislative framework in Aotearoa New Zealand for the repatriation of kōiwi tangata (human remains) from overseas institutions to Māori and Moriori. The process of repatriation in Aotearoa has been described as one of “co-operation, respect and consensus.”[1] However, Aotearoa’s commitment to repatriation is not articulated in a single legislative source. Rather, the process relies on a formal Government policy which draws upon multiple legislative instruments of both domestic and international origin. Furthermore, given the spread of kōiwi tangata around the globe, any examination of Aotearoa’s legislation must coincide with an examination of the legislation of the other nation involved. The repatriation of toi moko (tattooed preserved head) from the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Rouen and the Kawhia mummies from the Völkerkunde Museum demonstrates the strengths of Aotearoa’s process, but also make light of its limitations.
Image 1: Unknown, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, photograph, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, 24 May 2020, https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/our-building.
The discussion of repatriation in Aotearoa must begin with the Treaty of Waitangi 1840. In particular, article 2 of the Māori text states that Māori retain rangatiratanga over their taonga.[2] The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 gave statutory recognition to the Treaty as a founding legal document. The Act outlined the obligations of Māori and the Crown, including the Crown's obligation to “actively protect Māori Treaty rights.”[3] In regards to repatriation, the Government mandated the Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (image 1) to pursue and negotiate the repatriation of kōiwi tangata on behalf of Aotearoa.[4] However, for Treaty principles to be enforceable, they must be incorporated into statute. The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act 1992 does not refer to the Treaty. Te Papa claim their organizational model is guided by “the Treaty of Waitangi partnership,” but there are no legislative obligations on Te Papa outside of its mandate.[5] Therefore, while the repatriation of kōiwi tangata ought to be considered in this context of fulfilling Treaty obligations, repatriation by the programme is the product of policy, not specific legislation.[6]
The repatriation of the toi moko from the Rouen Muséum highlights the troubling history of kōiwi tangata in international institutions. In 1875, a Parisian named Drouet donated the toi moko to the Muséum.[7] The donor’s full name and profession are unknown.[8] Consequently, little is known about the toi moko itself with the Muséum’s accession notes simply recording the toi moko as that of a Māori Warrior.[9] One way toi moko were obtained was through trade. Māori traded the kōiwi of their enemies who no longer possessed mana in exchange for goods.[10] In no circumstances did Māori trade the heads of their tūpuna (ancestors) or rangatira (chief).[11] Although, as ‘legitimate’ channels of trade became limited across the 19th century, tūpuna became the subject of thefts.[12] Regardless of precisely how this toi moko was obtained, for the next 120 years, it was situated among the ‘prehistoric’ displays at the Muséum.[13] Corinne David-Ives describes this context as one of “scientific racism” where in the age of Darwinism hierarchies were established between cultures.[14] However, despite previous and current claims towards the scientific value of such collections, the toi moko was not subjected to scientific analysis at the Muséum.[15]
The attempted repatriation of the toi moko demonstrates the vulnerability of Aotearoa's process to other country’s legal, political and social frameworks. In 2006, Sébastien Minchin, the new director of the Muséum, came across the toi moko in storage.[16] Minchin, belonging to the new generation of curators concerned with the ethical implications of human remains, refused to exhibit the toi moko.[17] Instead, Minchin contacted the New Zealand Embassy in Paris about repatriation.[18] On 8 October 2007, the Rouen Council approved the repatriation based on article 16-1 of the Civil Code which states that the human body is inviolable and incapable of property rights.[19] The decision was incredibly controversial. The most hostile response was from the French Minister of Culture, Christine Albanel, who sought an injunction to prevent repatriation on the ground that the toi moko was foremost a work of art and therefore “inalienable” under French law.[20] Albanel argued that for the process to be legal, the question of repatriation required examination by a scientific commission to preserve “the integrity of French national heritage.”[21] Such an approach fails to consider the integrity of other cultures. As Te Papa’s kaihautū (leader) Dr Arapata Hakiwai states, “the connection to the tūpuna is continuous, despite time and location and it is our duty to bring them back to their home.”[22] Nevertheless, Aotearoa’s legal and cultural position on ownership of kōiwi tangata proved irrelevant in the French context which would first be dictated by French law.
Any prospect of successfully repatriating the toi moko required a change in French law. The attempted repatriation sparked arguments over the ownership of human remains in France. Importantly, France was a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People passed on 13 September 2007.[23] Article 12 states that indigenous communities have the right to repatriation of their human remains. Therefore, the risk in deciding not to change French law was to flagrantly disrespect this international instrument.[24] Furthermore, the French image was at stake. If France decided not to change its law, France would appear as “a staunch defender of old-time colonialism.”[25] On 5 May 2010, the French Senate chose change when it passed the bill to permit repatriation championed by Rouen Senator Catherine Morin-Desailly. On 9 May 2011, the toi moko was repatriated to Aotearoa. A further 15 kōiwi tangata from museums around France were also repatriated.[26] However, throughout this process, critics of Aotearoa’s Government suggested more should have been done to encourage international repatriation.[27] Paul Myburg even argues that Government reluctance to exert political pressure stems from concerns it may “trigger” claims for the repatriation of cultural objects held in collections in Aotearoa.[28] Regardless of what more Aotearoa could have done, this case study clearly articulates the fact that Aotearoa’s framework for successful repatriation relies more on the legislation of other nations than its own. Such reliance is problematic because, without the co-operation of other nations, international repatriation is simply impossible.
Domestic repatriation to the iwi of origin completes the repatriation process of kōiwi tangata. Te Papa receives the kōiwi tangata from international institutions and has an obligation to care for the kōiwi tangata until they are repatriated to their iwi.[29] However, the toi moko from France is unprovenanced. There is no legislation guiding Te Papa’s holding of unprovenanced kōiwi tangata. Discussions during the National Repatriation Wānanga in 2004, 2005 and 2006 contemplated possible final resting places for unprovenanced kōiwi tangata.[30] However, none of the proposed options have been implemented. Te Papa’s Wāhi Tapu (ancestral remains vault) serves as a temporary solution until another space is formed. Therefore, the toi moko currently resides at Te Papa and will do so for the foreseeable future.
The Kawhia mummies also represent the complexities of Aotearoa’s repatriation process. Many collections of kōiwi tangata were motivated by profit.[31] The value of such collections was driven by misguided scientific ideas of a ‘dying race.’[32] As the Austrian taxidermist Andreas Reischek explains, obtaining kōiwi tangata was perceived as a “rescue operation for science.”[33] Reischek resided in Aotearoa between 1877-1889, during which he made nine collecting expeditions. Despite the awareness amongst collectors that any disturbance of urupā was a great offence, Reischek was among those who “plundered systematically” for kōiwi tangata.[34] Reischek’s diary records that he enlisted two local men, John Ormsby and Tommy Green alongside an unidentified Māori chief for the most infamous of his thefts.[35] At the request of his patron Ferdinand von Hochstetter to obtain the kōiwi tangata for the Museum in Vienna, Reischek stole the Kawhia mummies from a cave in King Country in 1881.[36] Brian Hole identifies the kōiwi tangata are likely those of the Ngāti Te Wehi hapu which would include the 17th-century chief Tupahau.[37] Reischek was well aware of the significance of his theft, commenting in a diary entry that it “might have cost me my life.”[38] Evidently, such consequences provided little deterrence and Reischek's collection has since resided at the Völkerkunde Museum.
The Kawhia mummies affirm the vulnerability of Aotearoa’s repatriation effort to the co-operation of other nations. One of the Kawhia mummies was returned to Aotearoa in 1985 through the efforts of the late Maori Queen Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu.[39] However, it was not until 2015, that the other Kawhia mummy and the remainder of the kōiwi tangata in the Museum were repatriated to Aotearoa. The repatriation was the product of a formal request by Te Papa to the Museum in 2013.[40] However, like the experience of the toi moko from the Rouen Muséum, repatriation was heavily dependent on co-operation with Austria. In a Q&A on the kōiwi tangata, Te Papa described the return as a “gracious gesture” of the Museum and the Austrian Government.[41] Although kōiwi tangata were stolen from iwi, the reality is that kōiwi tangata are subject to the laws of the country they reside in which are the product of social and political attitudes. Therefore, repatriation requires international co-operation to be effective. Fortunately, as Dr Arapata Hakiwai comments, Austria is among those with a “genuine commitment to the repatriation of indigenous remains.”[42] While this case study affirms the vulnerability of Aotearoa’s repatriation process to other countries sharing similar policies, it also signifies there is global support of the repatriation effort.
The Kawhia mummies demonstrate the long and arduous process currently at play for repatriation in Aotearoa. Even after their return from Austria in 2015, repatriation of the kōiwi tangata was not complete. The kōiwi tangata arrived at Te Papa for a pōwhiri (ceremonial welcome) held by local iwi. After which, the kōiwi tangata remained at Te Papa to “undergo a period of quarantine, conservation and research before being returned to their whānau.”[43] Te Papa claims that research is conducted to “reconnect these ancestors with their place of origin.”[44] However, unlike the toi moko from Rouen, a large amount of information was readily available on these kōiwi tangata through Reischek’s documentation. Te Papa claims that this period is key for verifying museum accession information and historical documentation of Māori and collectors.[45] While there is value in this research, Te Papa has still not domestically repatriated the kōiwi tangata to Waikato and there is no information publicly available on when they will.[46] As Te Papa itself acknowledges, this final part of the process often takes years to complete.[47] These delays are another shortfall of Aotearoa’s repatriation process. While domestic repatriation is within the Government’s ability to change, they have failed to implement a legislative framework.
Domestic repatriation of kōiwi tangata like the Kawhia mummies draws out the issues of Aotearoa’s policy approach. Hole is particularly critical of Te Papa’s domestic repatriations and attributes Te Papa’s difficulties to its approach to a bicultural strategy.[48] Te Ati Awa is tangata whenua for the Wellington region. However, there is no legislative requirement to accommodate tangata whenua in Te Papa’s repatriation programme. As such, Hole suggests that visiting iwi may feel uncomfortable dealing with Māori staff who do not represent tangata whenua.[49] Furthermore, Te Papa’s marae has no attachment to Te Ati Awa. The marae was purpose-built for the museum and exists in a “kind of customary non-space.”[50] Given that marae are the site where tangata whenua and visiting iwi interact, this failure to connect with Te Ati Awa is alienating and adds to the feeling amongst visiting iwi of the disrespect towards Te Ati Awa as tangata whenua.[51] Hole identifies these shortfalls as the key reason Te Papa has been limited in its ability to reach the ultimate repatriation goal of returning kōiwi tangata to their communities.[52] Domestic repatriation is firmly within the provenance of the Government. Yet, in only providing a formal policy for repatriation rather than clear legislation, the Government has limited the accountability of Te Papa.
In conclusion, Aotearoa’s current framework for the repatriation of kōiwi tangata is a patchwork of formal policy, domestic law and international conventions. Despite the successful international repatriation of 420 kōiwi tangata through Te Papa since 2003, it is estimated that a further 600 still reside overseas.[53] As the case studies demonstrate, international repatriation inevitably relies upon the other nation’s commitment to the repatriation effort. Even if that nation is a party to international conventions that support repatriation, this attitude must translate into domestic legislation for any prospect of success. Furthermore, of the kōiwi tangata returned to Aotearoa, Te Papa have only domestically repatriated 52 kōiwi tangata to iwi.[54] Despite domestic repatriation clearly being within the Government’s domain, Aotearoa’s commitment to repatriation is the product of formal policy rather than targeted legislation. While Aotearoa’s repatriation framework is moving in the right direction, more is required to achieve a system that is truly effective and Treaty compliant.
[1] Hole, “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand,” 5.
[2] Article 2 ensures the “unqualified exercise of their chieftainship” over all of Māori treasures. See Wilson, “The three articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
[3] Te Puni Kōkiri, “He Tirohanga o Kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi: The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as Expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal,” 81.
[4] Herewin, “The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Te Papa) and the Repatriation of Koiwi Tangata (Maori and Moriori skeletal remains) and Toi Moko (Mummified Maori Tattooed Heads),” 405.
[5] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Statement of Intent 2014 – 2018, 17.
[6] The law does not clearly define taonga. Alexandra Edwards identifies the contemporary Māori view is that kōiwi tangata are taonga. For simplicity, this essay adopts Edwards position. See Edwards, “Repatriation in practice: The process of returning human remains in the United States, Norway, and New Zealand,” 84.
[7] Stuff, “Tattooed Maori head returned by France.”
[8] Lily Phillips records the donor as Monsieur Louis Hegéssipe Drouet, although fails to provide a source for this information. See Phillips, “Là où dialoguent les musées: The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa at the Musée du Quai Branly,” 61.
[9] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Repatriation background information April-May 2011, 9.
[10] Hole, “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand,” 8.
[11] Hole, 10.
[12] Hole, 10.
[13] David-Ives, “Maori heads in French museum collections: A recent controversy illuminated by the works of a contemporary Maori artist,” 117.
[14] David-Ives, “Maori heads in French museum collections: A recent controversy illuminated by the works of a contemporary Maori artist,” 117.
[15] David-Ives, 117.
[16] David-Ives, 118.
[17] David-Ives, 118.
[18] David-Ives, 118.
[19] David-Ives, 118.
[20] Paterson, “Taonga Maori Renaissance: Protecting the Cultural Heritage of Aotearoa/New Zealand,” 122.
[21] David-Ives, “Maori heads in French museum collections: A recent controversy illuminated by the works of a contemporary Maori artist,” 118.
[22] Dr Arapata Hakiwai made the statement in reference to the repatriation of 121 kōiwi tangata from Germany and the Netherlands under the Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme. See Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, “Sacred ancestral remains return from Germany and The Netherlands.”
[23] New Zealand initially opposed the Declaration but changed its position on 20 April 2010. See New Zealand Parliament Pāremata Aotearoa, “Ministerial Statements — UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support.”
[24] David-Ives, “Maori heads in French museum collections: A recent controversy illuminated by the works of a contemporary Maori artist,” 119.
[25] David-Ives, 119.
[26] Stuff, “Tattooed Maori head returned by France.”
[27] Myburg, “Tangible Cultural Heritage,”657.
[28] Myburg, 657.
[29] Adds, Bönisch-Brednich, Hill and Whimp, Reconciliation, Representation and Indigeneity: 'Biculturalism' in Aotearoa New Zealand, 173.
[30] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programe Background Document: Unprovenanced Kōiwi Tangata Options Re: Final Resting Place, 8.
[31] Hole, “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand,” 15.
[32] Belich, “European ideas about Māori - The dying Māori and Social Darwinism.”
[33] Hole, “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand,” 7.
[34] Hole, 11.
[35] Hole, 12.
[36] Hole, 12.
[37] Hole, “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand,” 12.
[38] Hole, 12.
[39] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, “Remains of mummified Tainui child to return home after 100 years.”
[40] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.
[41] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Vienna Repatriation Q-A May 2015, 4.
[42] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, “Remains of mummified Tainui child to return home after 100 years.”
[43] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, “Remains of mummified Tainui child to return home after 100 years.”
[44] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Vienna Repatriation Q-A May 2015, 2.
[45] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 2.
[46] Since 2015, Te Papa has only complete two domestic repatriations. See Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, “Domestic repatriation: Te whakahoki tūpuna ki ngā uri.”
[47] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programe Background Document: Unprovenanced Kōiwi Tangata Options Re: Final Resting Place, 7.
[48] Hole, “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand,” 18.
[49] Hole, 19.
[50] Hole, 19.
[51] Hole, “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand,” 19.
[52] Hole, 19.
[53] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, “The repatriation of Māori and Moriori remains.”
[54] Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.
Bibliography:
Adds, Peter, Brigitte Bönisch-Brednich, Richard S. Hill and Graeme Whimp, eds. Reconciliation, Representation and Indigeneity: 'Biculturalism' in Aotearoa New Zealand. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2016.
BBC. “Should Museums return ancestral Human Remains?” Updated June 1, 2003. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03jrts9.
Belich, James. “European ideas about Māori - The dying Māori and Social Darwinism.” Updated 5 May 2011. https://teara.govt.nz/en/european-ideas-about-maori/page-4.
Besterman, Tristram. Report to the Board of Trustees of The British Museum: Request from Te Papa Tongarewa for the return of sixteen Māori kōiwi tangata to New Zealand. Independent Assessment. London: British Museum, 2007.
Clarke, Stephen F. “Repatriation of Historic Human Remains: New Zealand.” Library of Congress. Updated July, 2009. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/repatriation-human-remains/new-zealand.php.
David-Ives, Corinne. “Maori heads in French museum collections: A recent controversy illuminated by the works of a contemporary Maori artist.” Journal of New Zealand & Pacific Studies 1, no. 2 (2013): 115-129.
Edwards, Alexandra E. “Repatriation in practice: The process of returning human remains in the United States, Norway, and New Zealand.” Dissertation Thesis, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2012.
Herewini, Te Herekiekie. “The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Te Papa) and the Repatriation of Köiwi Tangata (Mäori and Moriori skeletal remains) and Toi Moko (Mummified Maori Tattooed Heads).” International Journal of Cultural Property 15, no. 4 (2008): 405-406.
Higgins, Rawinia. “Tā moko – Māori tattooing - Contemporary moko.” Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Updated September 5, 2013. https://teara.govt.nz/en/ta-moko-maori-tattooing/page-5.
Hole, Brian. “Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand.” Public Archaeology 6, no. 1 (2007): 5-27.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. “Domestic repatriation: Te whakahoki tūpuna ki ngā uri.” Accessed April 20, 2020. https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/repatriation/domestic-repatriation.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. “Remains of mummified Tainui child to return home after 100 years.” Updated May, 2015. https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/press-and-media/press-releases/2015-news-and-media-releases/remains-mummified-tainui-child.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Repatriation Background Information April-May 2011. Press Release Information. Wellington: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 2011.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programe Background Document: Unprovenanced Kōiwi Tangata Options Re: Final Resting Place. Background Document. Wellington: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 2011.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. “Sacred ancestral remains return from Germany and The Netherlands.” Updated May 6, 2019. https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/press-and-media/press-releases/2019-media-releases/sacred-ancestral-remains-return-germany-and.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Statement of Intent 2014 – 2018. Statement of Intent. Wellington: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 2014.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. “Te Papa to welcome Māori and Moriori remains from Smithsonian Institution.” Updated May 23, 2016. https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/press-and-media/press-releases/2016-news-and-media-releases/te-papa-welcome-maori-and-moriori.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. “The repatriation of Māori and Moriori remains.” Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/about/repatriation/repatriation-maori-and-moriori-remains.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Vienna Repatriation Q-A May 2015. Questions and Answers. Wellington: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 2015.
Myburg, Paul. “Tangible Cultural Heritage.” In The Impact of Uniform Laws on the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage in the 21st Century, 645-657. Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2010.
New Zealand Parliament Pāremata Aotearoa. “Ministerial Statements — UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support.” Updated April 20, 2010. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/49HansD_20100420_00000071/ministerial-statements-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of.
Paterson, Robert K. “Taonga Maori Renaissance: Protecting the Cultural Heritage of Aotearoa/New Zealand.” In Cultural Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization and Commerce, 107-136. Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2009.
Pes, Javier. “It’s Not Just Art That Indigenous People Are Fighting to Reclaim From Museums. They Want Their Ancestors’ Remains Back, Too.” Artnet. Updated November 29, 2018. https://news.artnet.com/market/its-not-just-art-that-indigenous-peoples-want-back-from-museums-they-want-their-ancestors-human-remains-too-1397737.
Phillips, Lily. “Là où dialoguent les musées: The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa at the Musée du Quai Branly.” Masters Thesis, Victories University of Wellington, 2014.
Roy, Eleanor A. “US returns remains of 54 indigenous people to New Zealand.” The Guardian. Updated May 27, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/27/new-zealand-repatriation-remains-maori-indigenous-people-mummified-heads.
Steel, Patrick. “British Museum criticized for keeping Maori heads.” Museum Journal 6, no. 108 (2008): 7.
Stuff. “Tattooed Maori head returned by France.” Updated May 10, 2011. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/4981390/Tattooed-Maori-head-returned-by-France.
Stumpe, Lynne H. “Restitution or repatriation? The story of some New Zealand Māori human remains.” Journal of Museum Ethnography, no. 17 (2005): 130-140.
Te Puni Kōkiri. “He Tirohanga o Kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi: The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as Expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal.” Wellington: Te Puni Kōkiri, 2001.
The British Museum. “Request for repatriation of human remains to New Zealand.” Accessed April 15, 2020. https://www.britishmuseum.org/our-work/departments/human-remains/policy-and-governance/request-repatriation-human-remains-new-zealand.
Wilson, John. “The three articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Updated September 16, 2016. https://teara.govt.nz/en/document/4216/the-three-articles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi/.
About the Author:
Emily is a BA/LLB(Hons) student majoring in history, art history and law. For her law honours, Emily intends to examine whether, and in what circumstances, it would be appropriate for the law to order the destruction of a work that is derogatory or offensive towards a taonga.
