I examine four New Zealand Supreme Court (NZSC) decisions dealing with Maori legal issues from a critical, comparative and international legal perspective: Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal & Ors, Takamore v Clarke, NZMC v Attorney General, and Paki v Attorney General (Paki 2). I conclude that, from these three perspectives, the NZSC’s decisions are a mixed bag for the recognition and protection of Maori rights. There is some significant success in principle, if not yet translated into practice, although perhaps not to the extent demanded by critical tribal theorists or international law. First, from a critical perspective, there appears to be some NZSC sensitivity with respect to overcoming the consequences of problematic precedent. Second, if Canada sets a benchmark for the protection of Indigenous rights, some NZSC decisions, or parts thereof, seem to meet or even exceed that benchmark.
