Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. From Anakoha to New York: The Genesis of the Foreshore and Seabed Claim and the Marginalisation of Ngati Kuia. A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University. P. N. Meihana 2006 i ii Acknowledgements It is both satisfying and humbling that I now write the last page of this thesis. While I am responsible for what follows, it is ultimately the culmination of many people’s work. I would like to thank Karen Falconer, Nikki Hemi, Peter Hemi, Wayne Hemi, Hinekawa Manihera, Shirley MacDonald, William McCready, Fiona McLeod, Waihaere Mason, John Mitchell, Mark Moses, Raymond Smith, Sharon Smith, Lisle Walker, Mary Walker, and Duncan Wilson for setting aside time to sit down and talk with me. I would also like to pay a special thanks to Jim Walker, who unfortunately died before the completion of this thesis, for his interest, encouragement, and humour. The writing of this thesis would have been difficult without the assistance of a number of organisations. I would therefore like to thank the Massey University Library, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Marlborough District Council and Te Runanga o Ngati Kuia. In 2005 I was the recipient of the Massey University Maori Masterate Scholarship which I was extremely grateful to receive. My sincere thanks must also go to my supervisors Geoff Watson and Kerry Taylor. Their guidance during the writing of this thesis was exceptional. The professionalism with which they approached the task made my job both exciting and fulfilling. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge those at the ‘coal face’ of my research: my four year old son Louis, whose vocabulary now includes ‘foreshore’ and ‘seabed’, and the many whanau members who shared in childcare duties. P. N. Meihana iii Contents Map i Acknowledgements ii Contents iii Glossary iv Introduction 1 Chapter One: Ngati Kuia me te Takutaimoana 13 Chapter Two: Colonial Encounters 28 Inset Chapter Three: In the Zone 47 Chapter Four: Still in the Zone 65 Chapter Five: The Tyranny of the Majority 82 Conclusion 94 Appendix 1 101 Appendix 2 102 Bibliography 104 iv Glossary of Maori terms Mana Power, authority Manakitanga Hospitality Mataamua First born Noa Profane, free of tapu Potiki Last born Tapu Sacred, restriction Teina Younger sibling of the same sex Tuakana Older sibling of the same sex Utu Reciprocity, revenge 1 Introduction This study operates at three levels reflecting the title of the thesis. It deals with Ngati Kuia’s connection to the Foreshore and Seabed Claim (Wai 1071) and t o this extent it focuses mainly on the years 1997- 1998. A t this time Ngati Kuia became involved in a series of Environmental Court cases that related to marine farming in the Marlborough Sounds. Anakoha1, heard in Blenheim from 28 April to 1 May, was the first of these hearings and began a process of litigation that ended in the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The Crown’s response to the Court’s decision was the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The Crown proposals that preceded the Act invoked a damning report from the Waitangi Tribunal, the resignation of Tariana Turia from the Labour Party, the formation of the Maori Party and a hikoi protesting the proposed legislation. It also prompted Maori to seek urgent intervention from the United Nations who recently released their report. Anakoha is a large bay near the entrance of Te Hoiere— Pelorus Sound— the traditional homeland of Ngati Kuia. Te Hoiere was the name given to the area by the ancestor Matuahautere in commemoration of his waka. According to tradition, Matuahautere was guided into the sound by Kaikaiawaro2 who remained there for a number of generations. The relationship between Ngati Kuia and Kaikaiawaro was to reinforce their connection with the foreshore and seabed. Land at the head of the bay, commonly known as Okoha, was occupied during the harvesting of titi and hapuku. It was later set aside as a reserve under the Landless Natives Act 1906. Both my grandmother and grandfather have land interests in this reserve. In this thesis Anakoha also represents a worldview, it is therefore not only a geographical place but a state of mind and a state of being, it is for Ngati Kuia the ‘genesis’ of the foreshore and seabed claim. 1 When written in italics Anakoha, Tawhitinui, and Port Gore refers to the Environment Court cases. When written in plain text it refers to the physical locality. 2 In Ngati Kuia tradition Kaikaiawaro takes the form of a white dolphin. In European tradition this dolphin is referred to as Pelorus Jack. 2 On another level this thesis examines how Ngati Kuia has become marginalised in their attempt at having their property rights recognised at law. Litigation presented Ngati Kuia with an opportunity to address the problems faced as they attempted to enter the marine farming industry. It also provided an avenue to re- negotiate historical grievances. I n his report United Nations Special Rapporteur Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen noted that in New Zealand Maori customary rights have in fact been legally recognised ‘through the courts, parliamentary statute or administrative decision’ . However, he also stated that the same mechanisms had been used to dispossess Maori and extinguish their inherent rights. Furthermore the protest movements of the last few decades and the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal can be traced to this process.3 My involvement in foreshore and seabed proceedings began in 1998 when I appeared as a witness in the Environment Court on behalf of Ngati Kuia. Myself, and others who presented evidence, provided the Court with an insight into the Ngati Kuia worldview. It should be acknowledged from the outset then that I am an ‘insider’. 4 I have had access to tribal whakapapa and tradition and am familiar with the dynamics, values, and concerns of this community. This has without doubt influenced both my analysis and the shape of this thesis. Its purpose is to write Ngati Kuia back into the narrative relating to the recent foreshore and seabed issue, and is then unashamedly Ngati Kuia- centric. Moreover it will become apparent in the chapters that follow that mana is at all times the central and motivating force in tribal affairs. The present work is no exception. This thesis is also written within the context of a western academic institution and thus poses some problems for the ‘insider’. Anna Green and Kathleen Troup write that a lthough post- modernism has challenged empiricism as a research method, few historians ‘dissent’ from its use.5 Chris Connolly identifies research, interpretation, reliability, and objectivity as the ‘common core of historical method’.6 All of this is meant to maintain the purity of the historian’ s craft which according to Ange la Ballara ‘typically seeks to 3 Roldolfo Stavenhagen, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People’, 13 March 2006, p. 6, retrieved 5/4/2006 from http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/fsinfo.htm 4 Linda Tuhiwai Smith deals with Insider/Outsider Research in Decolonizing Methodologies-Research and Indigenous Peoples, Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 1999, p. 137. 5 Anna Green and Kathleen Troup, The Houses of History-A Critical Reader in Twentieth-Century History and Theory, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999, p. 1. 6 Chris Connolly, ‘Historical Method, Postmodernism and Truth’ in History Now-Te Pae Tawhito o Te Wa, 9:4, 2003, pp. 17-19. 3 explore the past without any practical purpose in view’.7 But as previously stated, t his thesis is clearly written with purpose. T his philosophical debate has also surfaced in relation to the historiographical practice of the Waitangi Tribunal. W. H. Oliver, in his essay ‘The Future Behind Us- The Waitangi Tribunal’s Retrospective Utopia’,8 questions the Tribunal’s ‘presentist approach’ to history. He criticises the Tribunal for projecting utopian ideals on to the past. According to the Tribunal, writes Oliver, these ideals were embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, and if honoured would have secured a positive future for all.9 Oliver contends, however, that this was a ‘matter of feasibility’, even if certain provisions had occurred to the government of the day, could it have in actual fact implemented them.10 The proposition of a retrospective utopia also raises questions for our discipline. The Tribunal’s historiography allows it to arrive ‘at emphatic and straightforward conclusions’, but according to Oliver this comes at a cost. History of this genre, states Oliver, ‘lacks a sense of perspective, which deals peremptorily with the distinctiveness of the past, and which ignores the impact of that context upon past actors, especially those acting for the Crown’.11 This thesis then seeks to engage with these debates. If Maori history, or indeed Tribunal history, is written with purpose, how can it be reconciled with the need to remain free of ‘presentism’? Rather than defend the purpose driven nature of Maori history, my intention is to examine the discipline of history itself; questioning whether or not the ideal of reading the past on its own terms is also driven by a present day agenda. To this extent my analysis concentrates on the topical notion of indigenous agency. It is my contention that in present historical debate the amount of power Maori actually possessed has been overstated and has in turn minimised the effect colonisation has had on tangata whenua.