Indigenous Sovereignty and Colonial Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia

Indigenous Sovereignty and Colonial Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia

Indigenous resistance to colonial frameworks in settler-colonial states like Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia reveals an enduring tension between the desire for self-determination and the constraints of colonial structures. Key Indigenous Members of Parliament like Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke in Aotearoa and Senator Lidia Thorpe in Australia serve as vocal symbols of this resistance, inspiring future generations to question and challenge the systems of governance that have historically marginalized them.¹ This paper explores their actions, critiques the Voice to Parliament in Australia comparatively, and examines Indigenous parliamentary representation in Aotearoa, analysing how colonialism continues to shape Indigenous engagement with state structures.²

The Doctrine of Discovery and Its Legacy

The Doctrine of Discovery was a legal and philosophical principle used by European colonial powers in the 15th century to justify the domination and dehumanization of non-European lands and peoples.³ Its application remains deeply embedded in contemporary legal systems in both Aotearoa and Australia, where Indigenous peoples continue to navigate state-sanctioned structures that undermine their sovereignty.⁴ In Aotearoa, Crown sovereignty asserted through the Treaty of Waitangi (English version) has often marginalized Māori self-determination, as seen in cases like Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877). In Australia, the doctrine underpinned terra nullius for over 200 years, and later challenged by Mabo v Queensland (1992)⁵ (hereafter Mabo), which recognized Native Title but upheld Crown sovereignty.

Both Native Title and the Voice to Parliament demonstrate how colonial legacies (from the Doctrine) persist in modern frameworks, granting limited recognition but withholding true sovereignty. For example:

a. Native Title in Australia

The Mabo decision (1992) provided a legal basis for Native Title by recognizing the pre-existing land rights of Indigenous peoples. However, this recognition is limited, as it operates within the colonial framework that insists on the Crown’s sovereignty.⁶ The doctrine’s continued influence on land rights laws reinforces Indigenous peoples’ status as subjects under settler rule, rather than as independent sovereign entities.⁷

b. Voice to Parliament

The Voice to Parliament proposal in Australia represents another example of colonial logic. Its purpose - to provide Indigenous people with an advisory role - frames Indigenous voices as subordinate to the existing colonial state.⁸ Critics, including Lidia Thorpe, argue that such measures perpetuate colonial inferior thinking, offering inclusion but no meaningful sovereignty. Instead of empowering self-determination, the Voice risks becoming a token gesture that reinforces the power of the Crown and the Australian Constitution, which were both shaped by colonial doctrines.⁹

State systems founded on colonial doctrines prioritize Western legal frameworks over Indigenous laws, limiting self-determination.¹⁰ Calls for change focus on recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, integrating Indigenous governance, and dismantling colonial structures. Indigenous peoples continue to face significant challenges as they engage with legal, political, and social systems that were historically designed to entrench colonial dominance.¹¹ These systems often perpetuate unequal power dynamics by prioritizing the interests of the state and settler populations while simultaneously denying Indigenous communities meaningful self-determination, decision-making authority, and control over their lands, cultures, and futures. This dynamic forces Indigenous peoples to operate within frameworks that inherently limit their autonomy and reinforce systemic inequalities.

Maipi-Clarke’s Protest: The Limits of Working Within Colonial Systems

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s protest in Aotearoa is a vivid expression of the limitationsIndigenous peoples face when attempting to engage with colonial frameworks.¹² As the youngest member of Aotearoa’s Parliament, Maipi-Clarke symbolized hope for Māori political representation. Yet her powerful response, tearing up the Treaty Principles Bill and performing the haka (with others), was a rejection of a legislative proposal that, in her view, continued to undermine Māori sovereignty.¹³

The Treaty of Waitangi, originally intended as a covenant between Māori and the Crown, has been consistently undermined by the Crown’s actions.¹⁴ Despite its promises of partnership and respect for Māori autonomy, the Treaty has been manipulated to justify colonial control over Māori land, culture, and governance.¹⁵ Maipi-Clarke’s protest was not just a response to the specific bill but a broader critique of the entire colonial system that Māori continue to be subjected to within Aotearoa’s political structures. Her actions echo the resistance of Indigenous people globally, who also protest against agreements that ostensibly recognize their rights while maintaining systemic inequalities that favour dominant colonial powers.

Lidia Thorpe’s Protest: Rejecting Colonial Sovereignty

Lidia Thorpe’s protest against King Charles III during his visit to Australia in 2024 serves as a powerful symbolic act of resistance.¹⁶ Thorpe, a prominent advocate for the Blak Sovereign Movement, yelled at the King, declaring, “You are not our sovereign, it is not your land”, amongst other demands.¹⁷  This undaunting statement directly challenges the colonial authority of the British Crown, which remains a symbol of continued colonial domination in Australia.¹⁸

Thorpe’s actions underscore her rejection of the Voice to Parliament, which she sees as another form of colonial control.¹⁹ In her view, the Voice does not offer Indigenous peoples true self-determination; rather, it provides a platform for consultation without the power to enact change. Thorpe’s critique of the Voice, like the broader Indigenous push for sovereignty, reflects a demand for equality and autonomy that challenges colonial systems designed to maintain dominance.²⁰

Indigenous Parliamentary Representation: Aotearoa’s (New Zealand) Reserved Seats vs. Australia’s Voice

A significant point of comparison between Aotearoa and Australia lies in the political structures that represent Indigenous peoples. Aotearoa has long allowed Māori representation in Parliament through reserved Māori seats, which were first established in 1867.²¹ These seats provide Māori MPs with the full powers of parliamentary representation, including the ability to vote on and shape legislation. While the seats remain part of a colonial framework, they offer a tangible form of political power within the system, allowing Māori to directly influence laws that affect them.²²

In contrast, the Voice to Parliament in Australia offers Indigenous peoples an advisory role but no legislative power.²³  The proposal reflects a colonial mindset that views Indigenous peoples as subjects of consultation rather than as full participants in governance.²⁴ Both situations illustrate how systems of governance built on colonial frameworks perpetuate inequality by denying Indigenous people’s full sovereignty and political agency.

Indigenous Sovereignty

Both Maipi-Clarke’s protest and Thorpe’s rejection of the Voice and denouncing of the King, reflect a broader movement calling for Indigenous sovereignty, the right of Indigenous peoples to govern themselves according to their own laws, traditions, and practices, free from colonial domination.²⁵ Sovereignty is not just a path to self-determination; it is also a demand for sovereign recognition, challenging systems that grant symbolic recognition while maintaining structural inequalities.

These actions highlight the ongoing resistance to the Doctrine of Discovery, which remains a cornerstone of colonial legal and political frameworks.²⁶ True decolonization requires dismantling these structures and embracing Indigenous governance systems that respect and uphold Indigenous worldviews.²⁷ By calling for sovereignty, leaders like Maipi-Clarke and Thorpe inspire future generations of Indigenous youth, to assert their rights and resist colonial power.

The protests by Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and Lidia Thorpe offer critical insights into the limitations of working within colonial frameworks. Both leaders challenge the idea that true justice for Indigenous peoples can be achieved by merely participating in or being consulted by colonial systems. Instead, they advocate for a complete rethinking of governance that centres Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. The Voice to Parliament, like Native Title, offers inclusion without power, and as such, it risks perpetuating colonial dominance. By rejecting these systems, Maipi-Clarke and Thorpe call for a future where Indigenous peoples - and all those resisting colonial oppression - are free to govern their own lands and lives.

Bibliography

• Alfred, T. (2009). Peace, power, righteousness: An Indigenous manifesto (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

• Bargh, M. (2023). Aotearoa and Indigenous politics: Challenges and possibilities. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

• Briskman, L., & McDonald, C. (2019). Colonial continuities: Indigenous governance and the limits of reconciliation. Social Alternatives, 38(1), 29-34.

• Cocks, K. (2020). The enduring shadow of the Doctrine of Discovery in Australian law and politics. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 12(1), 15-19.

• Fitzmaurice, A. (2010). Sovereignty, property, and empire, 1500–2000. Cambridge University Press.

• McIvor, B. (2020). Stories of Indigenous sovereignty: Law, politics, and resistance. Vancouver: UBC Press.

• Moreton-Robinson, A. (2021). The white possessive: Property, power, and Indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press.

• Newcomb, Steven T, (2008), Pagan in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, Fulcrum Publishing.

• Newcomb, Steven T (Sept 2018) Indigenous sovereignty and Political Subordination of our Nations, at https://ictnews.org/archive/white-supremacy-ascendancy-basis-us-federal-indian-law

• Reynolds, H. (2021). Truth-telling: History, sovereignty, and the Uluru Statement. New South Publishing.

• Shaw, J. (2023). Treaty justice: Māori resistance and the future of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland University Press.

• Thorpe, L. (2023). Black sovereignty: A manifesto for change. Melbourne: Black Books Press.

• Thorpe, L. (2024). Public protest during King Charles III’s visit to Australia. The Guardian Australia. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com

• Tully, J. (2007). Public philosophy in a new key: Democracy and civic freedom. Cambridge University Press.

• Watson, Irene (2015) Aboriginal Peoples, Colonialism, and International Law: Raw Law, Routledge.

• Ward, A. (2012). A show of justice: Racial ‘amalgamation’ in nineteenth century New Zealand. Auckland University Press.

• Webb, Jill (2002) Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Self-determination, Journal of Indigenous Policy – Issue 13 at https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlIndigP/2012/7.pdf

---

Works Cited

1. Tully, 2007. ↩

2. Alfred, 2009; McIvor, 2020. ↩

3. Newcomb 2008; Fitzmaurice, 2010. ↩

4. Cocks, 2020. ↩

5. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1. ↩

6. Reynolds, 2021. ↩

7. Watson 2015: Briskman & McDonald, 2019. ↩

8. Thorpe, 2023. ↩

9. Moreton-Robinson, 2021; Alfred, 2009. ↩

10. Webb 2002. ↩

11. Newcombe 2018. ↩

12. Bargh, 2023. ↩

13. Shaw, 2023. ↩

14. Ward, 2012. ↩

15. Shaw, 2023. ↩

16. Thorpe, 2024. ↩

17. Thorpe, 2024. ↩

18. Alfred, 2009. ↩

19. Moreton-Robinson, 2021. ↩

20. Thorpe, 2023. ↩

21. Ward, 2012. ↩

22. Shaw, 2023. ↩

23. Briskman & McDonald, 2019. ↩

24. Moreton-Robinson, 2021. ↩

25. Alfred, 2009; McIvor, 2020. ↩

26. Fitzmaurice, 2010. ↩

27. Alfred, 2009. ↩