title: Barriers to possessing gender-concordant identity documents are associated with transgender and nonbinary people's mental health in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

authors: Tan, Kyle K. H.

subjects: legal gender marker

abstract: Purpose: This study sought to expand on previous scholarship focused on gender-concordant identity documents (IDs) as a social determinant of health. We examined the association between barriers to legal gender recognition and the mental health of transgender and nonbinary people in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Methods: We used data from a 2018 nationwide community-based survey of trans and nonbinary people in Aotearoa (N = 818). Variables of investigation included: gender-concordant IDs, mental health (past-month psychological distress, past-year nonsuicidal self-injury, past-year suicidality) and barriers to changing gender markers on a birth certificate or passport. Associations between gender-concordant IDs and mental health were determined using generalized linear regression models. Results: In total, 34.8% reported the correct name on all of their IDs. The proportion with the correct gender marker on both birth certificates and passports was 16.0%. Participants with gender-concordant IDs were more likely to be older, have higher levels of income and education, and have had genital reconstruction. In addition, 68.7% of participants reported experiencing at least one barrier to changing gender markers on their IDs, and these participants had significantly higher average points of psychological distress scores (b = 2.39) and greater odds of suicidal ideation (odds ratio = 2.02) than those with gender-concordant IDs, after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Conclusion: We present novel findings on higher levels of mental health problems among trans and nonbinary people who faced barriers in trying to obtain gender-concordant IDs compared with those with gender-concordant IDs. Removing barriers to legal gender recognition may be an effective way to improve mental health.

text: Barriers to possessing gender-concordant identity documents are associated with transgender and nonbinary people's mental health in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Purpose: This study sought to expand on previous scholarship focused on gender-concordant identity documents (IDs) as a social determinant of health. We examined the association between barriers to legal gender recognition and the mental health of transgender and nonbinary people in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Methods: We used data from a 2018 nationwide community-based survey of trans and nonbinary people in Aotearoa (N = 818). Variables of investigation included: gender-concordant IDs, mental health (past-month psychological distress, past-year nonsuicidal self-injury, past-year suicidality) and barriers to changing gender markers on a birth certificate or passport. Associations between gender-concordant IDs and mental health were determined using generalized linear regression models. Results: In total, 34.8% reported the correct name on all of their IDs. The proportion with the correct gender marker on both birth certificates and passports was 16.0%. Participants with gender-concordant IDs were more likely to be older, have higher levels of income and education, and have had genital reconstruction. In addition, 68.7% of participants reported experiencing at least one barrier to changing gender markers on their IDs, and these participants had significantly higher average points of psychological distress scores (b = 2.39) and greater odds of suicidal ideation (odds ratio = 2.02) than those with gender-concordant IDs, after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Conclusion: We present novel findings on higher levels of mental health problems among trans and nonbinary people who faced barriers in trying to obtain gender-concordant IDs compared with those with gender-concordant IDs. Removing barriers to legal gender recognition may be an effective way to improve mental health.

year: 2022-05-23

title: Global influences and local environments: Forestry and forest conservation in New Zealand, 1850s-1925.

authors: Beattie, James John

subjects: New Zealand

abstract: This article examines the multiple factors that shaped the establishment of forest conservation and tree-planting in the colony of New Zealand. It presents a new perspective on forest history in New Zealand from the 1850s to the 1920s by examining the interplay of local and global factors in the development of forestry, while also suggesting future research topics in this area. Using the case-study of New Zealand, as an ancillary focus the article presents new interpretations of the exchange and introduction of forestry ideas, suggesting a need to re-examine the importance of locality in the period leading up to the emergence of ‘empire forestry’ in the twentieth century. With this in mind, it takes as one of its perspectives the work of historian of science David Livingstone, who has emphasised the importance of local factors in shaping the spread of scientific ideas. In light of Livingstone’s ideas, we demonstrate that while it makes sense to consider New Zealand forest policy both nationally and internationally, there were also significant local variations in policy according to geography, politics and other factors. These included uneven forest distribution throughout the country, slower growth-rates of indigenous trees and the impact of geography on forest removal and conservation. As well, long-standing political aversion to government interference in society restricted the role of the state in active forest management, giving greater latitude to private tree-planters. Meanwhile, New Zealand’ smaller government and population offered greater power to individuals than perhaps would be open to those living in larger societies with bigger government bureaucracies.

text: Global influences and local environments: Forestry and forest conservation in New Zealand, 1850s-1925. This article examines the multiple factors that shaped the establishment of forest conservation and tree-planting in the colony of New Zealand. It presents a new perspective on forest history in New Zealand from the 1850s to the 1920s by examining the interplay of local and global factors in the development of forestry, while also suggesting future research topics in this area. Using the case-study of New Zealand, as an ancillary focus the article presents new interpretations of the exchange and introduction of forestry ideas, suggesting a need to re-examine the importance of locality in the period leading up to the emergence of ‘empire forestry’ in the twentieth century. With this in mind, it takes as one of its perspectives the work of historian of science David Livingstone, who has emphasised the importance of local factors in shaping the spread of scientific ideas. In light of Livingstone’s ideas, we demonstrate that while it makes sense to consider New Zealand forest policy both nationally and internationally, there were also significant local variations in policy according to geography, politics and other factors. These included uneven forest distribution throughout the country, slower growth-rates of indigenous trees and the impact of geography on forest removal and conservation. As well, long-standing political aversion to government interference in society restricted the role of the state in active forest management, giving greater latitude to private tree-planters. Meanwhile, New Zealand’ smaller government and population offered greater power to individuals than perhaps would be open to those living in larger societies with bigger government bureaucracies.

year: 2010

title: The Application of the "Best Interests" Principle to Maori Children's Collective Cultural Rights: A Conceptual Shift for the New Zealand Family Court?

authors: Macbeth, Steven Alexander

subjects: "collective cultural rights"

abstract: Indigenous Peoples assert their collective rights in a world where Western liberal theory and individual rights dominate. International human rights law, however, increasingly recognises Indigenous Peoples collective rights in addition to their members’ individual rights. In 2007 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which represents the most comprehensive acknowledgement of Indigenous Peoples collective rights within international law. In 2009 the Committee on the Rights of the Child issued under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 11 “Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention”. The Comment references the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as providing important guidance on the rights of indigenous children. The Comment provides authoritative guidance to State Parties that the application of the “best interests” principle to indigenous children under the Convention requires the assessment of indigenous children’s collective cultural rights and their need to exercise such rights collectively with members of their group, in addition to the indigenous children’s individual rights. Only then can the best interests of indigenous children be determined. 
As a State Party, New Zealand is obliged to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child through legislation, judicial determinations and administrative processes. The best interests principle is already the paramount consideration and touchstone for judicial decision-making under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 and Care of Children Act 2004. The Family Court of New Zealand (while making some inroads in the 1980s and 90s) has yet, however, to develop a coherent and robust approach to the assessment of Maori children’s collective cultural rights when applying the best interests principle as it is obliged to do. General Comment No. 11 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples assist by providing authoritative guidance. They augment New Zealand’s family legislation, common law and social policy, which already acknowledge cultural rights and the collective nature of Maori familial relationships.
This paper looks beyond children’s individual rights and the universal application of such rights. It considers the assessment of Maori children’s collective cultural rights in addition to their individual rights under the best interests principle. Further, it analyses the relevant international and domestic authority the Family Court of New Zealand must consider when applying the best interests principle to Maori children, and the practical realities the recognition of Maori children’s collective cultural rights present. A conceptual shift by the Family Court and counsel is required. This paper urges the Family Court to develop the application of the best interests principle under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 to include the assessment of Maori children’s collective cultural rights in addition to their individual rights. In so doing the common law will reflect New Zealand’s unique history and circumstances, and comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If it fails to do so, the Family Court risks being the subject of criticism for breaching the Convention, being out of sync with international human rights law, domestic legislation and social policy, and increasingly losing relevancy.

text: The Application of the "Best Interests" Principle to Maori Children's Collective Cultural Rights: A Conceptual Shift for the New Zealand Family Court? Indigenous Peoples assert their collective rights in a world where Western liberal theory and individual rights dominate. International human rights law, however, increasingly recognises Indigenous Peoples collective rights in addition to their members’ individual rights. In 2007 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which represents the most comprehensive acknowledgement of Indigenous Peoples collective rights within international law. In 2009 the Committee on the Rights of the Child issued under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 11 “Indigenous children and their rights under the Convention”. The Comment references the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as providing important guidance on the rights of indigenous children. The Comment provides authoritative guidance to State Parties that the application of the “best interests” principle to indigenous children under the Convention requires the assessment of indigenous children’s collective cultural rights and their need to exercise such rights collectively with members of their group, in addition to the indigenous children’s individual rights. Only then can the best interests of indigenous children be determined. 
As a State Party, New Zealand is obliged to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child through legislation, judicial determinations and administrative processes. The best interests principle is already the paramount consideration and touchstone for judicial decision-making under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 and Care of Children Act 2004. The Family Court of New Zealand (while making some inroads in the 1980s and 90s) has yet, however, to develop a coherent and robust approach to the assessment of Maori children’s collective cultural rights when applying the best interests principle as it is obliged to do. General Comment No. 11 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples assist by providing authoritative guidance. They augment New Zealand’s family legislation, common law and social policy, which already acknowledge cultural rights and the collective nature of Maori familial relationships.
This paper looks beyond children’s individual rights and the universal application of such rights. It considers the assessment of Maori children’s collective cultural rights in addition to their individual rights under the best interests principle. Further, it analyses the relevant international and domestic authority the Family Court of New Zealand must consider when applying the best interests principle to Maori children, and the practical realities the recognition of Maori children’s collective cultural rights present. A conceptual shift by the Family Court and counsel is required. This paper urges the Family Court to develop the application of the best interests principle under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 to include the assessment of Maori children’s collective cultural rights in addition to their individual rights. In so doing the common law will reflect New Zealand’s unique history and circumstances, and comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If it fails to do so, the Family Court risks being the subject of criticism for breaching the Convention, being out of sync with international human rights law, domestic legislation and social policy, and increasingly losing relevancy.

year: 2015