A massive demographic rural-urban shift has taken place within Maori society since the second world war. This demographic shift prompted changes in the structure of some Maori social institutions. Due to a number of factors these new social institutions have not been readily assimilated by Maori cultural practices. Recent battles over the allocation of pre-settlement Treaty assets have brought this issue to the fore, acting as catalysts in the struggle for recognition between evolutionary social change (represented by urban Maori) and the perceived static boundaries of indigenous culture (as represented by modern Iwi). This paper therefore addresses the problems of accommodating social change within 'static' cultural frameworks raised by the issue of asset allocation. The paper outlines the historical factors that have allowed incongruities between social structure and culture to emerge in New Zealand Maori society, and provides a number of options for consideration in the hope of resolving this issue.Maori 1 are no longer a purely tribal people. 2 In modern day New Zealand, the tribe as a social group no longer provides the degree of meaning and interaction that it once did to many Maori individuals. To a large extent this change has been brought by the increased urbanisation of Maori over the last fifty years. Maori have shifted in increasing numbers into the urban environment, and in doing so they have created new forms of social networks and institutions in order to fulfil their new social needs. The difficulty lies in the acceptance of such new Maori institutions as an identity unto themselves, both by Maori and the Crown, as these new forms of social institution have Asia

For many Polynesians migration is still framed within a particular spatial context, although on an enlarged scale – one that we have termed the New Polynesian Triangle. With its apexes in the North American continent to the east, Australia in the west and New Zealand in the south, this New Polynesian Triangle encompasses a particular field through which ongoing Polynesian migration and movement continues to occur. Movement within this New Polynesian Triangle is both multidimensional and multidirectional. While it is the movement of economic resources, particularly remittances, that has captured the interest of many agencies operating in the region, we argue that such economic flows are integrally linked with other flows – of goods, ideas, skills and culture – to form a single dynamic system of movement. Importantly, such flows are not uni‐directional (from ‘rich’ to ‘poor’ countries) as was assumed in times past. In developing ideas on the New Polynesian Triangle, we wish to move away from the dominant Western discourse of the Pacific Ocean as a barrier to development and movement and towards the reclamation of the ocean as a conduit and source of connection and movement for Pacific peoples.

In spite of these numbers, urban Indigenous communities have a difficult time giving effect to the principle of self-determination in urban policyöin absolute terms, but also relatively speaking in comparison with counterpart communities in rural and remote areas (Andersen and Denis, 2003;Barcham, 2000). We use developments in urban social housing in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia as a means for engaging with urban Indigeneity and understanding how the`hegemony of exclusion' (Howitt, 2001) that keeps it outside of the shared urban experience can be overcome. This is an important piece in the overall project of urbanists worldwide to understand and facilitate the decolonisation of our cities, overcome a lingering fear of the`other', and embrace in practical ways a`politics of difference' (Sandercock, 2003).All three countries have a history of social housing initiatives that aimed to even out life-chances for all citizens by ensuring access to adequate and affordable housing. Within those initiatives, in all three countries, are a set of social housing programmes that were created specifically for Indigenous peoples. The extent to which these programmes supported urbanisation trends among Indigenous peoples varies. While each of the three countries has its own body of scholarship on Aboriginal (urban) housing (eg, Read, 2000;Waldegrave et al, 2006;Walker, 2008) ours is the first international comparative work across the three countries. We use an historic comparative examination of Indigenous social housing programmes, from the 1930s to the present, in order to understand how common social citizenship, Indigenous-inclusive citizenship, and the perceived legitimate place for authentic Indigenous cultures have intersected. We argue that the links between Indigenous-inclusive citizenship and common social

Studies of ‘national integrity systems’ are part of the new international concern with corruption and its prevention. Alan Doig and Stephanie McIvor coordinated studies of 18 countries, and reflected on their method in Public Administration and Development (2003). This article compares their conclusions with an overview of a subsequent study of 12 small island states in the South Pacific using the same method. Though the sample was not chosen with scale in mind, smallness might explain some of the similarities between the Pacific Island cases, particularly the risks associated with offshore financial centres, trust funds and investments. Their relative size and weakness has also made them targets for direct intervention by Australian police and officials to rebuild anti‐corruption institutions. The article goes on to show how the evidence from the Pacific Island cases raises questions about some of the standard proposals for anti‐corruption reform: stronger parties, an ICAC, civil society coalitions and greater accountability and transparency. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

As the push for intersection between decolonial and post-colonial Decoloniality, HCI, design, research, manifesto, pluriversality, pathperspectives and technology design and HCI continues to grow, ways the natural challenge of embracing diferent ways of approaching