DOCSLIB.ORG

The Analogous Boundaries of Ngaati Mahuta, Waikato-Tainui and Kiingitanga

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Analogous Boundaries of Ngaati Mahuta, Waikato-Tainui and Kiingitanga 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry I Te Kōti Matua O Aotearoa Tāmaki Makaurau Rohe Civ-2019-404-2672 [2020] Nz
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2019-404-2672 [2020] NZHC 2768 UNDER Resource Management Act 1991. IN THE MATTER of an appeal under section 299 of the Resource Management Act 1991 against a decision of the Environment Court. BETWEEN NGĀTI MARU TRUST Appellant AND NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI WHAIA MAIA LIMITED Respondent (Continued next page) Hearing: 18 June 2020 Auckland Council submissions received 26 June 2020 Respondent submissions received 1 July 2020 Appellants’ submissions received 26 June and 6 July 2020 Counsel: A Warren and K Ketu for Appellants L Fraser and N M de Wit for Respondent R S Abraham for Panuku Development Auckland S F Quinn for Auckland Council Judgment: 21 October 2020 JUDGMENT OF WHATA J This judgment was delivered by me on 21 October 2020 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: …………………………. Solicitors: McCaw Lewis, Hamilton Simpson Grierson, Auckland DLA Piper, Auckland Chapman Tripp, Auckland NGĀTI MARU TRUST v NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI WHAIA MAIA LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2768 [21 October 2020] CIV-2019-404-2673 BETWEEN TE ĀKITA O WAIOHUA WAKA TAUA INCORPORATED SOCIETY Appellant AND NGĀTI WHĀTUA NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI WHAIA MAIA LIMITED Respondent CIV-2019-404-2676 BETWEEN TE PATUKIRIKIRI TRUST Appellant AND NGĀTI WHĀTUA NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI WHAIA MAIA LIMITED Respondent [1] The Environment Court was asked to answer the following question (the Agreed Question): Does the Environment Court have jurisdiction to determine whether any tribe holds primary mana whenua over an area the subject of a resource consent application: (a) generally; or (b) where relevant to claimed cultural effects of the application and the wording of resource consent conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 General Assembly
    United Nations A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 General Assembly Distr.: General 31 May 2011 Original: English Human Rights Council Eighteenth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya Addendum The situation of Maori people in New Zealand∗ Summary In the present report, which has been updated since the advance unedited version was made public on 17 February 2011, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples examines the situation of Maori people in New Zealand on the basis of information received during his visit to the country from 18-23 July 2010 and independent research. The visit was carried out in follow-up to the 2005 visit of the previous Special Rapporteur, Rodolfo Stavenhagen. The principal focus of the report is an examination of the process for settling historical and contemporary claims based on the Treaty of Waitangi, although other key issues are also addressed. Especially in recent years, New Zealand has made significant strides to advance the rights of Maori people and to address concerns raised by the former Special Rapporteur. These include New Zealand’s expression of support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, its steps to repeal and reform the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act, and its efforts to carry out a constitutional review process with respect to issues related to Maori people. Further efforts to advance Maori rights should be consolidated and strengthened, and the Special Rapporteur will continue to monitor developments in this regard.
    [Show full text]
  • He Puna Reo He Puna Oranga Whānau
    TE PUNA REO O NGĀ KĀKANO HE PUNA REO HE PUNA ORANGA WHĀNAU Impact of an urban puna reo on the health and wellbeing of tamariki and their whānau June 2018 First published in 2018 by Te Puna Reo o Ngā Kākano Charitable Trust 251 Queens Drive Wellington 6022 ISBN 978-0-473-43960-6 Copyright © Te Puna Reo o Ngā Kākano Charitable Trust All images © Te Puna Reo o Ngā Kākano Report design: Kaaterina Kerekere of KE Design, www.kedesign.co.nz This report is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior permission of the publisher. A catalogue record for this book is available from the National Library of New Zealand. Abstract e Puna Reo o Ngā Kākano provides a kaupapa Māori early childhood Tlearning experience where tamariki aged from under one year to six years are exposed to mātauranga Māori on a daily basis with the aim of supporting them to flourish and become culturally confident. In an urban location, whānau are challenged with fostering connections to their tūrangawaewae and maintaining their cultural identity. Through a Māori world view, the concept of health and wellbeing is commonly understood to be alignment of one’s taha wairua, taha hinengaro, taha tinana and taha whānau. The absence of cultural identity can have an adverse effect on health and wellbeing. This research, funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, considers the impact that Te Puna Reo o Ngā Kākano has had on the health and wellbeing of tamariki and their whānau, and it identifies aspects of the experience at Te Puna Reo o Ngā Kākano that are fundamental to facilitating health and wellbeing within a kaupapa Māori early childhood environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Shallow Seismic Sources in the Hamilton Basin Project 16/717 5 July 2017
    Final Report on EQC Potential shallow seismic sources in the Hamilton Basin Project 16/717 5 July 2017 Vicki Moon & Willem de Lange School of Science University of Waikato 1. Introduction Following the exposure of a fault within a cutting in a new sub-division development in NE Hamilton, an initial investigation suggested the presence of 4 fault zones within the Hamilton Basin (Figure 1) that represented a potential hazard to infrastructure within the Basin. Hence, the overall aim of the proposal put to EQC was to refine the locations of four potentially active faults within the Hamilton Basin. To achieve this aim, two main phases of geophysical surveying were planned: 1. A seismic reflection survey along the Waikato River channel; and 2. Resistivity surveying to examine the sub- surface structure of identified fault zones. Additional MSc student projects, funded by Waikato Regional Council, were proposed to map the surface geology and geomorphology, and assess the liquefaction potential within the Hamilton Basin. During the course of the project, the initial earthworks Figure 1: Map of the four fault zones that were initially identified from geomorphology for the Hamilton Section of the Waikato Expressway and surface fault exposures, as presented in provided exposures of faults, which resulted in some the original proposal. modification of the project. 2. Methods The two main methodological approaches planned for this project were: 1. A high resolution CHIRP seismic reflection survey along the Waikato River within the Hamilton Basin. A previous study examining the stability of the river banks in response to fluctuating water levels (Wood, 2006) had obtained detailed data on the morphology of the river bed using multi-beam and single-beam echo sounders (MBES and SBES respectively), and side scan sonar.
    [Show full text]
  • Mauri Monitoring Framework. Pilot Study on the Papanui Stream
    Te Hā o Te Wai Māreparepa “The Breath of the Rippling Waters” Mauri Monitoring Framework Pilot Study on the Papanui Stream Report Prepared for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Research Team Members Brian Gregory Dr Benita Wakefield Garth Harmsworth Marge Hape HBRC Report No. SD 15-03 Joanne Heperi HBRC Plan No. 4729 2 March 2015 (i) Ngā Mihi Toi tü te Marae a Tane, toi tü te Marae a Tangaroa, toi tü te iwi If you preserve the integrity of the land (the realm of Tane), and the sea (the realm of Tangaroa), you will preserve the people as well Ka mihi rā ki ngā marae, ki ngā hapū o Tamatea whānui, e manaaki ana i a Papatūānuku, e tiaki ana i ngā taonga a ō tātau hapu, ō tātau iwi. Ka mihi rā ki ngā mate huhua i roro i te pō. Kei ngā tūpuna, moe mai rā, moe mai rā, moe mai rā. Ki te hunga, nā rātau tēnei rīpoata. Ki ngā kairangahau, ka mihi rā ki a koutou eū mārika nei ki tēnei kaupapa. Tena koutou. Ko te tūmanako, ka ora nei, ka whai kaha ngāwhakatipuranga kei te heke mai, ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawata o kui o koro mā,arā, ka tū rātau hei rangatira mō tēnei whenua. Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa Thanks to the many Marae, hapū, from the district of Tamatea for their involvement and concerns about the environment and taonga that is very precious to their iwi and hapū. Also acknowledge those tūpuna that have gone before us.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2 S.42A Hearings Report - Historic Heritage and Notable Trees 28 July 2020
    Appendix 2 S.42a Hearings Report - Historic Heritage and Notable Trees 28 July 2020 SCHEDULE 30.1 Historic Heritage Items Delete the notified version of Schedule 30.1 and insert the following: Schedule 30.1 Historic Heritage Items1 Assessment of Historic Buildings and Structures Heritage Assessment Criteria The heritage significance and the value of the historic heritage has been assessed based on evaluation against the following heritage qualities: Archaeological Significance: • The potential of the building, structure and setting to define or expand the knowledge of earlier human occupation, activities or events • The potential for the building, structure and setting to provide evidence to address archaeological research • The building, structure and setting is registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, or recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Site Recording Scheme Architectural Significance • The style of the building or structure is representative of a significant development period in the Waikato District and associated with a significant activity (e.g. institutional, industrial, commercial or transportation) • The building or structure has distinctive or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature (e.g. materials, detailing, functional layout, landmark status or symbolic value) • The building or structure uses unique or uncommon building materials or demonstrates an innovative method of construction, or is an early example of the use of particular building technique. • The building or structure’s architect, designer, engineer or builder as a notable practitioner or made a significant contribution to Waikato District. Cultural Significance • The building, structure and setting is important as a focus of spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiment • The building, structure and setting is a context for community identity or sense of place and provides evidence of cultural or historical continuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Ngāiterangi Treaty Negotiations: a Personal Perspective
    NGĀITERANGI TREATY NEGOTIATIONS: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE Matiu Dickson1 Treaty settlements pursuant to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi can never result in a fair deal for Māori who seek justice against the Crown for the wrongs committed against them. As noble the intention to settle grievances might be, at least from the Crown’s point of view, my experience as an Iwi negotiator is that we will never receive what we are entitled to using the present process. Negotiations require an equal and honest contribution by each party but the current Treaty settlements process is flawed in that the Crown calls the shots. To our credit, our pragmatic nature means that we accept this and move on. At the end of long and sometimes acrimonious settlement negotiations, most settlements are offered with the caveat that as far as the Crown is concerned, these cash and land compensations are all that the Crown can afford so their attitude is “take it or leave it”. If Māori do not accept what is on offer, then they have to go to the back of the queue. The process is also highly politicised so that successive Governments are not above using the contentious nature of settlements for their political gain, particularly around election time. To this end, Governments have indicated that settlements are to be concluded in haste, they should be full and final and that funds for settlements are capped. These are hardly indicators of equal bargaining power and good faith, which are the basic principles of negotiation. As mentioned, the ‘negotiations’ are not what one might consider a normal process in that, normally, parties are equals in the discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Impact Assessment Report Te Awa Lakes Development
    Cultural Impact Assessment Report Te Awa Lakes Development 9 October 2017 Document Quality Assurance Bibliographic reference for citation: Boffa Miskell Limited 2017. Cultural Impact Assessment Report: Te Awa Lakes Development. Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Perry Group Limited. Prepared by: Norm Hill Kaiarataki - Te Hihiri / Strategic Advisor Boffa Miskell Limited Status: [Status] Revision / version: [1] Issue date: 9 October 2017 Use and Reliance This report has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Boffa Miskell does not accept any liability or responsibility in relation to the use of this report contrary to the above, or to any person other than the Client. Any use or reliance by a third party is at that party's own risk. Where information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate, without independent verification, unless otherwise indicated. No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or any external source. Template revision: 20171010 0000 File ref: H17023_Te_Awa_Lakes_Cultural_Impact_.docx Protection of Sensitive Information The Tangata Whenua Working Group acknowledges and supports s42 of the Resource Management Act 1991, which effectively protects intellectual property and sensitive information. As a result, the Tangata Whenua Working Group may request that evidence provided at a subsequent hearing be held in confidence by the Council.
    [Show full text]
  • The Waikato-Tainui Settlement Act: a New High-Water Mark for Natural Resources Co-Management
    Notes & Comments The Waikato-Tainui Settlement Act: A New High-Water Mark for Natural Resources Co-management Jeremy Baker “[I]f we care for the River, the River will continue to sustain the people.” —The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 165 II. THE EMERGENCE OF ADAPTIVE CO-MANAGEMENT ......................... 166 A. Co-management .................................................................... 166 B. Adaptive Management .......................................................... 168 C. Fusion: Adaptive Co-management ....................................... 169 D. Some Criticisms and Challenges Associated with Adaptive Co-management .................................................... 170 III. NEW ZEALAND’S WAIKATO-TAINUI SETTLEMENT ACT 2010—HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...................................... 174 A. Maori Worldview and Environmental Ethics ....................... 175 B. British Colonization of Aotearoa New Zealand and Maori Interests in Natural Resources ............................ 176 C. The Waikato River and Its People ........................................ 182 D. The Waikato River Settlement Act 2010 .............................. 185 Jeremy Baker is a 2013 J.D. candidate at the University of Colorado Law School. 164 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y [Vol. 24:1 IV. THE WAIKATO-TAINUI SETTLEMENT ACT AS ADAPTIVE CO-MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Proposal Template A
    Project Proposal Template A. TITLE OF PROJECT Tūhonohono: Tikanga Māori me te Ture Pākehā ki Takutai Moana (“Tūhonohono”) B. IDENTIFICATION Project Leader: Dr Robert Joseph (Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Kahungunu, Rangitāne, Ngāi Tahu), Te Mata Hautū Taketake – the Māori and Indigenous Governance Centre (“MIGC”), Te Piringa-Faculty of Law, University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton 3240 [email protected] (07) 838 4466 extn 8796; Cell (022) 070 3275 Co-researchers, Professor Jacinta Ruru (Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Ranginui), Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga (“Ngā Pae”); Associate Professor Sandy Morrison (Ngāti Rarua, Ngāti Maniapoto, Te Arawa) and Professor Linda Smith (Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Porou), Te Pua Wānanga ki te Ao, Ms Valmaine Toki (Ngāti Wai) and Ms Mylene Rakena (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngapuhi) MIGC, Waikato University. Co-production of research with Frank Hippolite and others, Tiakina te Taiao Ltd (“Tiakina”), representing Ngāti Rarua Iwi Trust, Ngāti Koata Trust, Ngāti Rarua-Te Atiawa Trust Board, Wakatu Inc., Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu and Te Atiawa o te Waka-A-Maui. Investigators: PhD students - Ms Adrienne Paul (Ngāti Awa) MIGC, Waikato University and Paul Meredith (Ngāti Maniapoto) University of Victoria, Wellington. Student researchers - Mr Hemi Arthur (Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Koata, Te Atiawa) and Apirana Daymond (Ngāti Mutunga (Chatham Islands) and Ngāti Porou). Advisory Assistance MIGC, University of Waikato (UOW) Advisory assistance – Professor Barry Barton, Professor Al Gillespie, Associate Professor Linda Te Aho, Professor Pou Temara, Tom Roa and Trevor Daya- Winterbottom. C. ABSTRACT Prior to European contact, Māori had effective legal systems based on mātauranga and tikanga Māori – Māori laws and institutions - which were very effective for social control and for maintaining law and order, and which developed into a considerable body of knowledge and practices over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Evidence of Ngarimu Alan Huiroa Blair on Behalf of the Plaintiff
    In the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry I Te Kōti Matua O Aotearoa Tāmaki Makaurau Rohe CIV-2015-404-2033 under: the Judicature Amendment Act 1972, and Part 30 of the High Court Rules between: Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust Plaintiff and: Attorney-General First Defendant and: Marutūāhu Rōpū Limited Partnership Second Defendant and: Te Ara Rangatū O Te Iwi O Ngāti Te Ata Waiōhua Incorporated Third Defendant Statement of evidence of Ngarimu Alan Huiroa Blair on behalf of the plaintiff Dated: 2 June 2021 Next Event Date: For trial, 9 February 2021 REFERENCE: J W J Graham ([email protected])/L L Fraser ([email protected]) R M A Jones ([email protected]) COUNSEL: J E Hodder QC ([email protected]) 1 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF NGARIMU ALAN HUIROA BLAIR ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Table of contents INTRODUCTION 3 I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF NGĀTI WHĀTUA ŌRĀKEI AND ITS ROHE 5 Background 5 Take raupatu 7 Whakapapa 11 Ahi kā 12 Working the land and sea – ahi kā 13 Other iwi within the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei rohe 15 Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei at 1840 17 The 1840 Transfer Land tuku 20 II. THE TREATY SETTLEMENT PROCESS 23 The Ōrākei Block (Vesting and Use) Act 1978 23 The 1987 Ōrākei Report (WAI 9) and the Ōrākei Act 1991 23 The Surplus Railway Land 25 Towards a comprehensive Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei settlement 26 Negotiations begin in 2003 27 Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and cross-claimants 33 Negotiating history 35 Concluding an Agreement in Principle 36 Cross-claimants’ challenge in the Waitangi Tribunal 43 The Crown reviews the Red Book 50 Treaty settlements in Auckland restarted 52 The Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Act 2012 55 The “Tāmaki Collective” 59 Formation of the Tāmaki Collective 59 Function of the Tāmaki Collective 62 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Taupiricommunity Plan
    TaupiriCommunity Plan 2008 - 2018 The Taupiri Area This is the catchment for Taupiri Community Board electoral boundary Taupiri Vision To enhance Taupiri as a village that: Is a safe and friendly place to live Has pride in its surrounding environment Recognises the importance of youth for the future Is vibrant Is proud of its history and heritage Recognises the importance of the Waikato River Identifies the cultural significance and iconic status of Taupiri Mountain Community Plan 2008 - 2018 Key Statistics These figures are based on Census 2006 data held by Statistics New Zealand. Waikato New Taupiri District Zealand Population 441 43,959 4,027,947 Percentage aged 20.8% 25.50% 21.54% under 15 ys Percentage aged 11.2% 10.00% 12.30% over 65 ys Private Dwellings 168 15,090 1,471,746 Ethnicity - 32.4% 25.85% 14.65% Percentage of Maori Post School 54 44.80% 46.18% Qualifications Unemployment Rate 3.7% 3.54% 3.37% Median Income $ 22,500 $25,700 $24,400 Population Estimates 2008 – 2018 These figures are based on Waikato University figures adjusted to local known conditions 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 449 453 457 461 465 469 473 477 481 485 489 Growth over the next 10 years is expected to be 9% in total or 0.9% per annum Taupiri A Community Snapshot During the sixteenth century Tainui tribes settled throughout the Waikato. In the following hundred years, settlements became established in the Taupiri District – Te Uapoto, Komakorau and Kaitotehe, which was opposite Taupiri Mountain.
    [Show full text]