The argument of whether group rights should be recognised essentially comes down to two ideas of what a groups right really is. The first is called Derivative Group Rights. The main point behind this idea this that group rights are just individual rights held by each member of the group, and group membership is the only commonality between the individuals within the group. The second is called fundamental group rights. The main point behind this idea is that there are some cases where a 'group voice' for a right is needed and expressed, and these situations are true group rights. The derivative group rights idea suggests that there aren't really any group rights as such; more that individuals that have the same rights are within a group. The fundamental group rights idea however suggests that this is not the case and there are situations where rights are expressed as a group and not merely individuals that share a common right.
There are many reasons behind the idea of fundamental groups rights that reinforce the belief that groups rights should be recognised. Legally there are laws that apply to groups and not individuals that allow these groups to exercise rights relating to these laws. For example there are laws relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, which give rights to Maori, a group. In able to understand these laws and the rights to be exercised, Maori need to be thought of as having group rights and not many individuals with the same rights. Another reason why group rights should be recognised is that they are often far more influential and effective when exercising a right as opposed to an individual exercising a right. A decision made by a group can be far more influential and hold greater claim to a right. For example the Maoris claim rights to land were not given straight away and had to be fought for. This was achieved far more successfully in a group than it could have been done by individuals, reinforcing the idea that it is far more effective to get rights claims when lobbied by a group.