To respond to the enduring need for a reckoning with racism in New Zealand through legal scholarship and praxis, this article grapples with the question: how can we adopt a Critical Race Theory (CRT) framework that is located within, and appropriate for, the New Zealand context? Our central thesis is that scholars and activists seeking to apply a CRT framework or conduct a CRT analysis in New Zealand should be mindful of the particular circumstances of the settler-colonising state imposed by the Crown. To assist with this mindfulness, we propose five guiding principles for CRT scholarship and praxis in New Zealand, which are all non-prescriptive and subject to critique and further development. To illustrate the usefulness of this framework, we undertake a critical reappraisal of the 1980 Tifaga v Department of Labour case. As we show, it is important to approach this case against the backdrop of the dawn raids and state-fuelled racism against Pacific peoples.

The global resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in May 2020 led to an unprecedented reckoning with the racism within Aotearoa New Zealand’s police and prison systems. For Pacific peoples, this led to reflections on the racism of the police during the dawn raids of the 1970s and the racist police violence that Pacific peoples and Māori continue to face today. Notably, when the state apologised for the dawn raids in August 2021, it failed to acknowledge, let alone make amends for, this ongoing racist violence. Therefore, as a Pacific abolitionist legal scholar, in this article I argue that Pacific peoples and wider society in Aotearoa New Zealand must hold the state to account for the inherent racism of not only the police, but prisons as well. Specifically, I argue that we must ‘freedom dream’ ( Kelley 2002 , np) of police and prison abolition by supporting calls by Māori and other criminal justice advocates to achieve abolition through constitutional transformation premised on honouring te Tiriti o Waitangi. In making this argument, I draw on Black American abolitionist legal scholar Dorothy Roberts’ concept of ‘abolition constitutionalism’, which challenges abolitionists to grapple with whether abolition can be achieved within existing constitutional frameworks ( Roberts 2019 , 122). Accordingly, I offer a Pacific perspective on Tiriti-based abolition constitutionalism which further develops the case for why abolition cannot be achieved within current constitutional arrangements within which te Tiriti o Waitangi has long been, and will continue to be, undermined by Parliament.

This Article provides a comparative critique of hate speech jurisprudence in New Zealand and the United States by building on insights from Critical Race Theory (CRT) scholars. My main argument is that neither of these liberal democracies protect the right to freedom of expression/ speech as they claim, but in fact dishonestly protect a right to "freedom of expression of racism" or "freedom of racist speech." They do this by telling lies that inflate the value of free expression/speech and diminish and dismiss the harms that hate speech inflicts on marginalized groups. To move towards honest hate speech laws in both jurisdictions, I propose a communications strategy that seeks to reframe hate speech from a free speech issue to a public health issue. This is in order to push for reforms that will enable the courts to better protect people of color from the physical, mental, psychological or spiritual harms of racist hate speech.

This article offers critical reflections regarding legal scholarship on Pacific peoples in Aotearoa from two Pacific early career academics in the legal academy. It explores why very little legal scholarship focusing on the issues facing Pacific peoples in Aotearoa exists by examining and illustrating the systemic barriers that prevent Pacific legal academics from producing such scholarship. It then examines the detrimental impacts this lack of legal scholarship on Pacific peoples in Aotearoa has on both Pacific law students and Pacific communities in Aotearoa. Lastly, it imagines a Pacific jurisprudence for Pacific peoples in Aotearoa located within Pacific communities, committed to fulfilling the obligations that Pacific peoples have to Māori as Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa.