THE ANALOGOUS BOUNDARIES OF NGAATI MAHUTA, WAIKATO-TAINUI AND KIINGITANGA MARAMA MURU-LANNING University of Auckland Ko Taupiri te Maunga, Ko Waikato te Awa, Ko Pootatau te Tangata Taupiri is the Mountain, Waikato is the River, Pootatau is the Man. (Note: In this article I indicate vowel length, following local Waikato usage, by doubling the vowel, instead of using the macron, as in Pootatau above.) I grew up at Tuurangawaewae Marae on the banks of the Waikato River. I knew about its flooding, fogs, currents, high and low water lines, about the safe places for swimming and the less dangerous places to jump into it from bridges. I collected köura ‘crayfish’ and tuna ‘eels’. I listened to the oral traditions about local taniwha ‘river guardians’. The river was just part of the way we lived, not something to be controlled or owned. Yet, the Waikato River has a long history of people making claims to it, including Treaty of Waitangi claims by Mäori for ownership and guardianship rights. The claiming process has most recently culminated in Waikato-Tainui and the Crown signing a 2009 Deed of Settlement for the river. This deed established a new co-governance structure for the river with equal Mäori and Crown representation. But what has also transpired from the agreement is the emergence of a new guard of Mäori decision-makers who have challenged and displaced the traditional Kiingitanga leaders as the main power-brokers of the river. A key observation of the situation is that the Waikato River lies at the heart of Waikato Mäori tribal identity and chiefly power and is, therefore, a key focus of the ongoing local struggles for prestige and mana. My primary purpose in this article is to explore the process of claiming property and rights through descent group identities. In particular I examine the way that the State, through the Treaty claims process, has reconfigured Mäori group identities and political structures, elevating the corporate iwi above hapü and whänau groups. I also explain how Kiingitanga leader Robert Mahuta successfully advanced Waikato Mäori claims to land and the Waikato River by effectively representing Waikato-Tainui as an enduring and important super-iwi. 9 10 Ngaati Mahuta, Waikato-Tainui and Kiingitanga CLAIMING ON BEHALF OF WHOM: THE POLITICS OF IWI IDENTITY Mäori assert their rights in lands and resources through their descent group identities, their memberships in these groups being based on genealogy (Ballara 1998: 200, Belgrave 2005: 20). While in the past Mäori asserted and defended their rights to property through their hapü identities, since the implementation of the Treaty of Waitangi claims process, many Mäori have opted to use corporate iwi identities to make claims. Indeed, these groups that are often discussed and perceived as enduring social units are, in reality, fluid and highly adaptable group formations (van Meijl 2006: 172). In this article I draw upon the words and acts of Mäori located in the northern third of the Waikato River, from Lake Karapiro to Port Waikato, and examine why they make claims to lands and resources using descent group identities rather than other Mäori identities that they possess. An important intention of this article is to show that regional and tribal diversities must be taken into account when examining descent groups. The descent groups I am concerned with are iwi, hapü and whänau. These terms are translated in English with the following meanings: iwi ‘tribe’, hapü ‘sub-tribe’ and whänau ‘extended family’. However, in the Waikato River region there are two other Mäori group identities that hold sway with people. These are marae, which are Mäori communities made up of clusters of whänau, and the Kiingitanga, a long- standing socio-political grouping that was established in 1858 to resist Mäori land appropriations. These two groups are also analysed in this article. When Kiingitanga leader Robert Mahuta filed Waikato Mäori’s comprehensive compensation claim on 16 March 1987 for confiscated Waikato lands, coal and minerals in and around Huntly, the Waikato River and the West Coast Harbours, he did so not on behalf of the Kiingitanga or the various hapü whose lands had been confiscated in the 1860s, but on behalf of himself, the Tainui Maaori Trust Board (henceforth TMTB),1 Ngaa Marae Toopu2 and the iwi he called Waikato-Tainui, although, some five years before the claim was lodged, no such iwi known as Waikato-Tainui existed. It was a category brought into existence by Robert Mahuta in the early 1980s that effectively subsumed the various hapü along the river. But what has seldom been recognised is that Waikato-Tainui maps precisely onto the configuration of the Kiingitanga (Hopa 1999: 109). Thus, Robert Mahuta’s claim on behalf of the iwi was a claim for the Kiingitanga in all but name. When Robert Mahuta lodged the claim it would seem that his approach to the Treaty settlements process was pragmatic. This is because in dealing with the Crown over Treaty claims, Mäori groups are obliged to negotiate as larger entities, that is, as either iwi or large hapü. It is also incumbent on claimants to demonstrate an enduring and unbroken association with the land and resources they are claiming. As anthropologist Robert Layton (1997: Marama Muru-Lanning 11 123) has pointed out: “Maori …must demonstrate that they belong to local descent groups, show the location of the sites on the land for which such groups are responsible, and demonstrate that they have continued to perform their responsibilities despite the depredations of colonialism”. In this respect, an iwi heritage with genealogical links to the canoes and crews of the “great migration”3 has far more legitimacy than a resistance movement founded in the 1850s (see Hanson 1997: 197-99). As contests over ownership are also struggles for status, it is important to recognise that support for or hostility against a claim is often contingent upon the mana or status of a claimant. This is highlighted in the case of Robert Mahuta’s later claim for the Waikato River. Although not all Waikato Mäori agreed with Robert Mahuta’s claim for the whole river, his chiefly status as a rangatira was undeniable. The unwavering support that he received from Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu was a key factor securing this rangatira status. When Robert Mahuta claimed the whole of the Waikato River his mana ensured that there was little internal opposition from Waikato tribal members who affiliated to the Kiingitanga. Additionally, that the river and the claimants had the same name strengthened his position to make the claim. His controversial claim was, however, contested by members from other iwi who also had interests in the river, as Matangi Hepi from Ngäti Tüwharetoa and Ngäti Raukawa said: “Well I think Waikato people are entitled to their part of the river [meaning the section of the river from Karapiro to Port Waikato]. But now other iwi and even some hapü have claims on the river and they have the right to do that” (pers. comm. November 1999). The recent history of Mäori claims illustrates that setting Mäori tribal groups up against one another produces suspicion and resentment between them (Poata-Smith 2004: 178-79). On 27 May 2006 The New Zealand Herald ran an article by Jon Stokes titled “Competing Claim for Waikato River”. The article reported that representatives of Ngäti Tahu-Ngäti Whaoa, an iwi-like hapü 4 with interests at the southern end of the Waikato River, were distressed by the private discussions between Waikato-Tainui tribal negotiators and the Crown. The representatives were apparently concerned that Waikato-Tainui were trying to obtain rights to a section of the Waikato River historically associated with, and used by, them. When Robert Mahuta died in 2001, Waikato-Tainui’s river negotiating role was taken over by his wife Raiha Mahuta, and Te Arataura Chairperson Tukoroirangi Morgan. However, as the new negotiators did not have the same standing in the tribe as Robert Mahuta, it was not long before some Waikato members began to challenge their handling of the claim. Whiti Te Ra Kaihau of Tahuna Marae publicly voiced his concerns about the river claim at the Waahi poukai 5 gathering in October 2005. Waikato members 12 Ngaati Mahuta, Waikato-Tainui and Kiingitanga who supported the river negotiators rebuked Whiti Te Ra Kaihau’s criticism of the claim’s progress. Yet he was not the only person from Waikato iwi to question the course of action being used by the negotiators. A male elder from Horahora Marae at Rangiriri explained: “There is a need for more consultation between the river negotiators and Horahora members. We have no idea what is going on and they are supposed to be representing us” (pers. comm. March 2006). Similarly, a woman from Ngäti Haua, an iwi included in Waikato-Tainui’s modern tribal configuration, said she was upset because basic respect was not being paid by the people in charge of the claim. She said: “My tuupuna, they lived on this land [land at Hopuhopu]. This land right here by the Waikato River but you never hear that. You don’t hear about what we went through in the history. It’s not like I’m anti or anything but it hurts that my tuupuna don’t get recognised” (pers. comm. February 2005). In spite of the criticisms, some supported the negotiators in their efforts to advance the claim. Hukiterangi Muru from Tuurangawaewae Marae put it this way: “I think we’ve [Waikato iwi] got to have a go eh, because the river is us” (pers. comm. June 2007). Why was there disquiet and dissent among some local Mäori? Why were there accusations that the negotiators were handling the claim poorly? There are three key reasons.