the way to do it and the way not to do it

This is the way to do it. So much history just under the surface and Māori will reveal it when it can be accepted - which it has been in this very effective research and name change.

Stuff

For more than 110 years Hawera-based Matangarara Rd has wrongly been called Matangara Rd and although the slight error was overlooked by just about everyone else, Normanby resident Henare Ngaia was not going to let the issue slide. "Because of the wrong spelling the word meant nothing. But with `ra' added to the end of it a piece of our history can be remembered." The story goes that a woman rejected the man she was betrothed to because of his looks, and the union, perhaps designed to unite two marae, didn't take place. "She called him lizardface: `Mata' means face, `ngarara' means lizard."

He then met with both the Iwi Liaison Committee and the Hawera Community Board with a signed petition and a detailed history. "There was no objection to our proposal. In fact the Iwi Liaison Committee consisted of descendants from both the lady and the lizardface so they all knew the story." Mr Ngaia has now set his sights on roads in Normanby and Manaia.

Yes very good Mr Ngaia - thank you for your hard work in getting these spellings correct and revealing the history within. How many streets and names in this land have hidden history waiting to be revealed? Just about everywhere, just about everywhere.

The ownership of Māori names and intellectual property should be vested with Māori - end of story and the sooner the Wai 262 recommendations are implemented the better - then we won't have shockers like this french effort. I wish they would just leave Māori alone - they embarass themselves and insult all Māori.

historic moments

Sometimes it's good to stop and take stock and I am optimistic at the moment. Mana has been registered and Hone has won Te Tai Tokerau and will be sworn in as the new member for Mana on Thursday 14 July 2011 at 2pm. Historic days indeed. I have been a bit picky with the Wai 262 report from the Waitangi Tribunal but the significance of the report cannot be underestimated - wouldn't it be great if the powers that be said, " yep! okay we will implement all of the recomendations in total". Imagine how great that would be.

NZH

New commission to hear objections to commercial uses of intellectual property such as the haka. Registrar of haka to be established. Resource Management decisions between tangata whenua and local authorities to be compulsory, formal and proactive. Iwi and hapu would not have ownership rights to indigenous species, but reasonable protection would be given to knowledge of flora and fauna. Maori advisory committee to work with Commissioners of Patents and of Plant Variety Rights. Commissioners would have right to refuse patents which interfere with relationships between "kaitiaki [Maori] and taonga". Decisions about any prospecting activity in DoC areas would be made jointly by the department and tangata whenua. New national and regional partnership structures to give Maori an equal voice with the New Zealand Conservation Authority in setting conservation objectives and priorities. Wildlife Act to be amended to give Maori and Crown shared management of protected species. Expand the role of Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo Maori (the Maori Language Commission) to deal with the crisis the Maori language is in. Maori health is in crisis. Urgent action needed. Expand health system to include rongoa (traditional healing) services. Amend Crown strategy for engagement with Maori on international treaties to require engagement over both binding and non-binding instruments.

Dreams are certainly free. Is it possible to realise that you are part of a historic moment? I suppose the berlin wall breakers knew - I wonder if we know. Notwithstanding arguments of what actually is a 'historic moment', we are part of a historic moment in time that really will create change. Mana is a Party that will effect change and we are part of the beginnings. Just like this crowd were part of the beginnings of Oasis. 

A historic moment and we are there.

Wai 262 - kaitiakitanga - some thoughts

Reading the fact sheets associated with the Wai 262 report has been great but also raised some questions for me. It isn't my job to microexamine the report and point out flaws but on the other hand I can't let somehing go when I think it needs said. The term kaitiakitanga is used and given some activation through the recommendations, but how can the role be fulfilled if the power and authority of the role isn’t there. I am taking the report as a starting point for discussion which I think is in the spirit of he report.

Kaitiakitanga is a term that has no equivalent English meaning. It encompasses conservation in the western sense of protection and guardianship but also is measured by the strength of the mauri of the area, demonstrated by the abundance and variety of the resources available.

Kaitiakitanga means interaction and exemplifies the Māori world view where everything is connected because of whakapapa to Rangi and Papa. This holistic view realises that we are part of the environment, we are nature too and this is in contrast to the dominant current worldview where we are the ‘other’, alien and distant from nature.

There is no such concept as ‘own’ in regards to resources – it is ‘right to use’, within the Māori worldview. That ‘right to use’ is tempered with communal thinking and social structure based on tapu and mana, whakapapa and tikanga.

Exercising kaitiakitanga is exercising mana and it reflects the mana of the people and their leaders. Rangatira couldn’t lead without having the people supporting them and they reflected the mana of their people. The traditional attributes of leaders included the ability to fulfil kaitiakitanga responsibilities. These could only be fulfilled with the power and ability of mana derived from the Gods, ancestors, the whenua, the people and personal actions. This is a circular relationship where each part supports and strengthens the other parts.

The key is that there was absolute authority - derived and supported by mana. You cannot fulfil the responsibilities of kaitiakitanga without having the authority and power over those responsibilities.

The Wai 262 report says anumber of things on kaitiakitanga. My views are just my own – others will disagree with me.

The interests of kaitiaki in their taonga are entitled to protection, but that does not mean that kaitiaki are entitled to a veto over uses of IP in taonga works in all cases. Rather, kaitiaki interests must be fairly and transparently balanced alongside other interests, such as (a) the interests of those who own IP rights, such as authors or film-makers whose work may depict taonga works or related knowledge, or business owners whose trade marks are based on taonga works, and (b) the interests of the wider community in the information and artistic and cultural works available in the public domain.

If you do not have the authority and power to enact kaitiaki responsibilities then you cannot fulfil your duties – you don’t have the power to.

‘Taonga species’ is a term the Tribunal has used to refer to species of flora and fauna that are significant to the culture or identity of Māori iwi or hapū. The exercise of kaitiaki responsibilities towards those species is a fundamental aspect of Māori culture, and kaitiaki relationships are important sources of identity.

The Treaty allows the Crown to put in place laws and policies relating to research into and commercialisation of the genetic and biological resources in flora and fauna. This includes IP laws, and laws controlling aspects of the research process such as bioprospecting and genetic modification. But in doing so the Crown must to the greatest extent practicable protect the authority of iwi and hapū in relation to their taonga species, so that they can fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki.

How can it be ‘significant to the culture or identity of Māori’ and ‘kaitiakitanga is a fundamental aspect of being Māori’, and then expect Māori to filfil their obligations when the Crown has control and power over those very things that are considered taonga?

The Treaty entitles kaitiaki relationships with taonga species to a reasonable degree of protection. It also entitles Māori to a reasonable degree of control over traditional knowledge relating to taonga species and how that knowledge is used. But it does not entitle kaitiaki to ownership of taonga species, and nor does it mean that kaitiaki are entitled to a veto over uses of IP in those species in all cases.

Rather, kaitiaki interests must be fairly and transparently balanced alongside other interests. Those include the interests of those who conduct research and hold IP rights, the public interest in research and development, and of course the interests of the species themselves.

Reasonable what the hell is that word! I absolutely disagree with their conclusion – it does entitle Māori ownership and a veto over uses of IP in all cases.

How can this report imply that Māori kaitiakitanga wouldn’t naturally include considerations of all aspects including research and the taonga species.

The Treaty entitles kaitiaki to fulfil their obligations to protect and care for taonga in the environment. But, while Māori interests and kaitiaki relationships are important, this does not mean that iwi and hapū should have a generally applicable veto. In a modern resource management context, other interests should also be considered, including the health of the environment, and the interests of property owners, resource users, those affected by resource use, and the wider community.

I ask again why wouldn’t Māori kaitiakaitanga also include aspects of the health of the environment, owner rights, resource users and the wider community?

Relationships with the environment are fundamental to Māori culture. Every iwi and hapū sees itself as related through whakapapa to the landforms, waterways, flora, fauna and other parts of the environment within their tribal areas. These parts of the environment are taonga, for which iwi and hapū are obliged to act as kaitiaki. They have inherited knowledge relating to these taonga, explaining their whakapapa relationship and their kaitiaki obligations. Kaitiakitanga is a form of law, controlling relationships between people and the environment.

How can this be reconciled, when the power and authority to enact and perform the duties and responsibilities of the kaitiakitanga role, are not there. The role cannot be fulfilled because the Crown has power and authority over the role.

The report is significant because it is setting the agenda for Crown/Māori relationships and their vision is one of partnership. But partnership must be real if it is to have any meaning. I think Māori have had enough of tokenism, we want real change and equality and that means self determination. I am sure that that can be structured to keep everyone relatively happy. It is entirely correct that Māori should be recognised as kaitiaki of their taonga and given rights and protection to enable them to fulfil their duties, based upon the Māori world view.

Wai 262 - it's big

Well the Wai 262 report has been published and it is a wide ranging long document that unfortunately I have not been able to read yet. But I have read the fact sheets and I’m getting my head around what the report is saying. So this is just an initial reaction and I’ll continue to add thoughts and other commentary as it comes along. I don't mean to be too negative with the report as it was needed after such a long wait, but some of the language makes me feel a little uneasy - have I got it wrong and are seeing shadows? 

Waitangi Tribunal

It is time for the Crown–Māori relationship to evolve from one based on historical grievance to an ongoing partnership based on mutual advantage. This partnership must secure the place of mātauranga Māori in New Zealand law, and in government policy and practice. This partnership is what the Treaty of Waitangi envisaged. But it is also necessary for New Zealand’s future – for its prosperity and its sense of nationhood.

This term ‘historical grievance’ is a problem for me – it seeps some sort of blame and is a loaded term. Yes there is a ‘historic’ nature to the claims and relationship but the same exploitation is happening today to Māori. As it always is in the Māori world the past is there, and the future, within the now.

‘Mutual advantage’ is a nothing term  and I just don’t feel very good about the language and tenor of that whole bit.

This lack of a place for Māori culture in contemporary law and policy compounds a wider picture of social disparity, reflected for example in educational performance, employment and incomes, and the current crisis in Māori health. It also continues a national story in which the Crown, either deliberately or through neglect, has largely supported one of New Zealand’s two founding cultures at the expense of the other.

Hang on, ‘one of two founding cultures’ what the hell does that mean? I’m sorry but that is not right IMO. That is diminishing the mana of Māori. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by rangatira and the Crown. There was no settler government or culture. Yes the kiwi culture has developed since then but the Treaty was with the Crown. There is Māori culture, the indigenous native culture of this place and then there is everyone else. All others who have come and made this place home, all those who have been born here and died here, who have loved here and cried here. All have been welcomed, all are welcome to come to this place of Māori.

Yet these concerns mask the underlying good will and respect that characterises the relationship between Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders. This good will is making the settlement of historical injustices possible. And once those injustices are resolved, it can provide a basis for the nation to move forward, for the Crown and Māori to establish a relationship based on mutual benefit, and for New Zealand to develop a new national identity based on the partnership between our founding cultures.

I’ve already talked about the ‘founding cultures’ bit. The ‘goodwill’ is an amazing term considering the whole process from start to finish is designed and managed by the Government to help achieve their aims. Is this term supposed to imply some choice in the matter? The Government offers the settlement and the Iwi says yes or no – that isn’t choice or consultation or discussion or partnership – it is the same old same old.

The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the right to govern and enact laws, but that right was qualified by the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (full authority) for iwi and hapū over their ‘taonga katoa’ (all their treasured things). The courts have characterised this exchange of rights and obligations as a partnership.In this context, tino rangatiratanga means that iwi and hapū are entitled to exercise authority over their mātauranga, and to exercise authority over their relationships with taonga such as cultural works and parts of the environment that are significant to their culture and identity, so that they can fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki.

That is good and I have found while reading the documents that there are many good bits.

Ko Aotearoa Tēnei provides a framework for Treaty partnership in 21st century New Zealand. It makes recommendations for forms of partnership in many areas of Crown activity, including education, science, culture and heritage, conservation, resource management, indigenous flora and fauna, language, and patents.

Another good area but the next bit is not so good in my view.

This framework does not seek to elevate Māori cultural interests inappropriately above the interests of other New Zealanders. In a modern, democratic New Zealand, the ‘full authority’ envisaged by the Treaty will no longer be possible in every case. But the framework does seek to ensure that Māori interests are at least at the table when decisions are made – so they can be fairly and transparently balanced alongside other interests, rather than sidelined as they often are now.

I just don’t understand this language – ‘inappropriately’ WTF are they writing this with Don Brash in mind or what. I’ll goddam ‘transparently balance’ some other interests all right cos at least I’ll be at the table. I thought the Waitangi Tribunal had more grunt than this pacifying stuff – just be quiet or you’ll upset people.

The path that embraces partnership recognises and values Māori culture as one of New Zealand’s founding cultures. In so doing, it provides Maori with a positive platform from which they can address social issues and contribute to national prosperity; it moves the Crown-Māori relationship from one based on grievance and negativity to one based on mutual advantage; and it provides the basis for future in which all New Zealanders can look forward with optimism to a shared future. It is, the Tribunal says, time to perfect that partnership.

What can I say that I haven’t already said – told off I have been, I’m negative and just saturated with grievance, along with many if not most of my brothers and sisters – we just have to get off our arses and give it a go – instead of hitting the bottle, the bong or the kids – then we can have some mutual advantage and we can optimistically look forward to shared future – yay

As usual the Waitangi Tribunal can only recommend and the Government will decide what, if any, to accept and put into practice.

This is just the introduction because the other fact sheets are intriguing too – what do they mean when the say Māori don’t own indigenous fauna and flora? What do they mean by ‘own’? Lots of questions but lest it seem that I am completely down on this report – I’m not, I am pleased it has been released and it covers so many important areas – I thank the authors and researchers and I only wish that it could have been sped up because the time taken has been a disgrace.

Good response from these politicians

NZH

But Maori Party MP Rahui Katene, daughter of one of the original claimants John Hippolite, said the report had been watered down and politicised. "The claim is about tino rangatiratanga or Maori control of things Maori," she said. "The report goes nowhere near dealing with that." The tribunal identified only one breach of the Treaty of Waitangi - the Tohunga Suppression Act, 1907, which banned rongoa (traditional healing). The act was repealed in 1962. But Katene was scathing: "To say there is only one breach is really ignoring the reality of what happened to each of those claimant iwi, and iwi all around New Zealand."

Lawyer Annette Sykes, counsel for one claimant group, said her claimants had asked Mana Party leader Hone Harawira about taking their concerns to Parliament.

  Good stuff also from Joshua and Simon

we have a major malfunction

The Waitangi Tribunal pre-report on the state of the maori language highlights the perilous and fragile position of the language. We should be scared if we care about Te Ao Maori. But fear must be turned into action and I don't have any problem with some people saying maori should take responsibility for their own language - give us the resources and we will. But there is a role for the whole country to be involved in rebuilding Te Reo because the aquisition of this language would open up the world of maori for people and that would add immense benefit to us all. Just imagine how different some of our discussions would be, how rich and subtle and satisfying - we would probably resolve issues much faster than today.

One aspect of the report is the context - we are still waiting for the Wai 262 claim - this has been 20 years now and many kaumatua who set the claim in motion are no longer with us - this pre-report does not address the Wai 262 claim and it is about time something was decided.