puff 586 Tuesday 14th

This is a daily spin on what is already going on. For example the Hotaka says what is happening today on the radio.
puff is sponsored by Campus Press and the Campus Press Update follows the Hotaka.
What else is happening? Get back to us via the Comments section of this Blog!

Takutai Update

Treaty specialist warns foreshore issue may never be resolved



With Labour's sudden withdrawal of its support for the Government’s Marine and Coastal Area Bill, Treaty specialist and History Professor at AUT University , Dr. Paul Moon, suggests that there is a good chance that the issue may now never be resolved.



“Each major party in Parliament now has the opportunity to use the foreshore and seabed issue to its advantage, and to promise changes in the law to appeal to its voters,” says Dr. Moon. “Labour’s promise to repeal National’s Marine and Coastal Area legislation is the first clear warning sign that the foreshore and seabed debate will be dredged up again in the future”.



Dr. Moon is concerned with the prospect of further instability over who has what rights to the foreshore and seabed. “The worst-case scenario is that every election year, promises will be made by either of the main political parties to modify the law in order to appeal to their supporters. This would set a pattern of ongoing instability, and would certainly cause some groups to become increasingly resentful at the management of the foreshore and seabed.”



Dr Moon’s main criticism is directed at Labour: “Labour took the opportunity three months ago to support the Government’s Marine and Coastal Area Bill. This sent a strong message regarding the resolve of Parliament to find a lasting solution for the issue. Labour’s flip-flop this week has had the effect of removing that sense of political solidarity behind the law change, and has signalled that future changes to the law on the foreshore and seabed are not only possible but to be expected”.





Contact:

Dr. Paul Moon | Professor of History | AUT University

Mobile 021 036 6592 | Phone 09 921 9999 extn. 6838 | Email paul.moon@aut.ac.nz

From Takutai, the foreshore and seabed, First Edition
The position of political parties
By Peter Cleave

Before looking at the position of political parties we might look at what might actually be done following repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. A first response might be to do nothing and let precedents develop and then use these for further reference as time goes by. The cases of Ngati Porou and Ngati Pahauwera are often referred to in this book mainly for this reason.

From the above two cases it might be possible to extrapolate a recognition for customary rights that applies to all iwi. This would require new legislation.

Iwi were placed in a postion by the 2004 Act where they had to go out of their way to prove their relationship to the seabed. Any new legislation might address this by reversing the proposition so that someone else would have to go to court in an attempt to prove that any given iwi does not have rights in the foreshore and seabed.

There is also the matter of care and protection of the marine and coastal environments. This must be addressed in any new legislation about the foreshore and seabed. The examples of co-governance given in the next chapter point to how this might be done. But legislation by those in parliament might be required to ensure the guardianship, the kaitiakitanga of the marine and coastal environment.

Compensation or any other redress for iwi affected by the 2004 legislation would have to be legislated. Part of the case for a move like this is set out in the next section as a speech by Tariana Turia considering the foreshore and seabed in terms of restotative justice is considered.

Across the board there is a need to recognise mana moana and moana whenua. This would need to be done in any new legislation. Given the problems with the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act there might be a case for a tag in new legislation to the effect that mana moana and mana whenua will not be compromised.

A day, as they say, may be a long time in politics. In early 2010 some direction can be seen in the thinking of political parties regarding the foreshore and seabed. Having said that, it must also be said that this is, after all, politics and anything can and sometimes does happen!

On this particular issue there is a wide varietry of opinion though, wider, possibly, than most political discussions in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. In what follows the distance between, say, Chris Trotter and Hone Harawira is remarkable.

The position of the Labour Party in 2004 was very clear. They introduced the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004 and put it through parliament. The Act came as a political statement and, as suggested in several places in this book, changed and, to some extent, reversed the momentum of Maori claims.

The Labour Party are in opposition now though. The Ministerial Review of 2009 has come out opposed to the 2004 legislation. Labour members do not seem to know what to do or to have firm direction.

There are variations in position within the party though and these will become apparent as the Act is reviewed in parliament in the latter part of 2009 and throughout 2010.

There is some direction from commentators. Chris Trotter in the Dominion Post of July 10 2009 notes the sudden appearance on the scene of Winston Peters following the report of the Ministerial Panel on the Foreshore and Seabed.

In a fairly high flown article Trotter says;
‘Our place in this country need not be dictated by an accident of birth- whether we are Maori or Pakeha; but by how much each of us is willing to contribute to the goals that we, as a nation, set ourselves.’
Trotter 2009

Trotter suggests that Peters has stolen the thunder of the Labour Party. He argues that embracing and defending the Foreshore and Seabed Act would unite people and he urges Labour to speak up and do so. To delay would only allow the New Zealand First Party, lead by Winston Peters back into the fray.

Trotter reminds his readers of the Act’s purpose, ‘to preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders’. He suggests that the last part of the sentence quoted provides a clear path for Labour, one which he sees as ‘more wholesome’ than one which follows what Trotter calls the politics of identity.

Trotter suggests that the politics of identity supplanted the economic radicalism of the left, especially the trade union left. He also suggests that the politics of identity have not resulted in better conditions for women, minorities or disabled people.
‘ That’s why emphasising our common heritage and, more importantly, promoting our common future promises to pay such hefty political dividends.’
Trotter 2009

Trotter sees the foreshore and seabed as a central political issue. In doing so he accounts for several things at the same time. For example, why Labour passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004. Or why Winston Peters was so quick to pick thise issue up as soon as the report of the Ministerial Panel came out. And the centralitry of the issue is why Labour, as Trotter sees it, needs to come out for the Act again.

While a commentator does not politics make Trotter’s commentary in 2009 may give a lead to Phil Goff in 2010. Trotter is undoubtedly correct in his assessment of the importance of the report as a rallying point for New Zealand First, a party outside, but only just outside, parliament under MMP at the last election. Galvanising opposition to reports like that of the Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 could push New Zealand First into parliament at the next election.

Commentators like Hingston (2005) see the actions of the Labour Party, particularly those of Helen Clark, in 2004 as trading on the ignorance and prejudice of the public. There seems no question that the public is poorly informed, generally speaking at least, about the rights of iwi and this is a matter, surely, of education. At the same time it is to be hoped that members of Labour and other parties are themselves informed about the historical background regarding iwi, the Crown and resources, in this case the resource of the foreshore and seabed.

The position of the Maori Party seems clear in that they were formed as a response to the Act. As part of the government it remains to be seen whether there will be any change to their position. The points of difference between Te Ururoa Flavell and Hone Harawira as of March 2010 are discussed later in this chapter.

The critical position in 2010 could be that of the National Party and to a lesser extent, that of the Act Party given that they have the power to carry a vote in Parliament. But it is not clear what members from National and Act think from press releases and the like as position taking, so to speak, seems to be left to the Maori Party. There is also the fact that the National Party voted against the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004, possibly as a matter of course as they were in opposition.

Having said that there is a general alignment involved where just as National members in the main and all or most of the Act members support the Super City idea without Maori representation on council so they may well support a retention of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.

By comparison to the clearly articulated position of the Greens though a lot of the above is speculation. The parties concerned have not been readily flagging their interests
The position of the Greens on the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is interesting and important. They say that this Act needs to be repealed and Maori access to the courts restored. The position taken by the Greens is that the Act blocks Maori accessing the courts to have their customary title investigated.
Metiria Turei, Maori spokesperson for the Greens said at Omaka Marae in May 2009 that the position of the Greens was that Te Ture Whenua Maori of 1992 might be amended so that it becomes impossible to prevent Maori customary land being converted into freehold title.
Pointing to such gross abuse as the vesting of Te Whaanga Lagoon in the Chatham Islands in the Crown, Metiria Turei who became co-leader of the Greens shortly after the Omaka marae press release said that public access to the foreshore and seabed was never an issue. But it had been used by Labour and National to whip up opposition to Maori having access to the courts for the investigation of their customary title.
On the face of it the Green solution if such it might be called is a conservative one. Such land as is now in customary title remains in Maori hands. This solution misses the momentum that might have been there in 2003 when iwi like Ngati Apa were testing and winning in the High Court the battle for access to the foreshore and seabed. Things would be frozen for iwi if the Green solution was applied. Iwi would be no better and, on the face of it, no worse off.

A large part of the argument in earlier chapters has been devoted to the Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou case and the Ngati Pahauwera case. Does the Green solution apply to both territorial customary rights and to customary rights orders?

As discussed above both Ngati Porou with territorial customary rights and Ngati Pahauwera with the customary rights order appear to have gone to court and then gone on to directly negotiate with the crown. Does the Green solution make this process easier?

Compounding this issue is the fact that the outcome of the Ngati Pahauwera and Nga Hapu o Ngat Porou cases has not yet been reached. Apart from the five or six year gap between the 2004 Act and the present day the frustration for iwi is that the detail of judgements on these matters is not known so there are no precedents. This is also important in any political discussion; the precedents for a proper and full debate are not there yet and may be delayed further as the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act is repealed and reconsidered.

A set of precedents in these cases would allow a better consideration of the position taken by the Greens as such precedents might perhaps take matters beyond Te Ture Whenua Maori. For example if any of the decisions over territorial customary rights or customary rights orders applied to control of resources such minerals found or the generation of power at harbour mouths then this might not be covered by Te Ture Whenua Maori.

A similar problem with the Green solution is what happens when there are new factors as with the establishment since 2004 of mineral exploration zones with licences that do not involve the iwi. It might be asked whether one way forward might have been an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 so that iwi interests are taken into account on a significant and consistent basis.

There are possibly implications here for iwi in the latest decision by the government in early 2010 to allow mining on Department of Conservation land. The iwi interest in such land is like the iwi interest in the foreshore and seabed in many respects.

The Green solution then would be as much an amendment to if not an endorsement of the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The amendment would be simply that freehold title is not possible for Maori customary land. Two Acts would effectively be amended to that effect, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1992 and the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

There might be other legislation affected as the main agent that might effect freehold title as things stand is the Crown and there might be constitutional and sovereignty issues pertaining, say, to public safety, the taking of land for purposes to do with war and so on.

The reality of Parliament in 2009-10 is that what National wants it tends to get so the point made earlier that the position of the party is critical remains. The question to be put here is which of the positions discussed in this book is most likely to be adopted by the party with power in parliament.

Do National MPs understand the issue? It may be that the way in which National members are informed about the resource concerned, the foreshore and seabed, and the relation of iwi and the Crown to that resource is the most important factor.

On the one side of the National Party is the Act Party. Lurking alongside like a shape just under the water is New Zealand First, only just outside of parliament under the MMP system. On the other side of the National Party is the Maori Party. So far the thinking of the bloc in between, the National Party itself has been opaque on the issue of the Foreshore and Seabed.

The Maori Party has its own points of distinction about the Act. Te Ururoa Flavell seems to favour following the lead of tribal leaders while Hone Harawira seems to favour the will of the people who turned out to march on the hikoi of 2004.

One statement of position is that of Hone Harawira (Tuesday, 16 February 2010);

Hone Harawira, Maori Party Member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau
The Prime Minister didn’t talk too much about the Foreshore and Seabed in his speech last week, so I’m glad my bro Te Ururoa raised it in his reply. Te Ururoa’s line was basically that the Maori Party is happy to allow this matter to be settled by the Iwi Leaders Forum’ as the best group to represent Maori in negotiations, given that every member is an elected member of their own iwi there is undoubtedly considerable support for that point of view, but if I can be so bold, I suggest that that is not necessarily the view held by the tens of thousands of people who have voted for the Maori Party over the past 5 years. In fact, going back to when the Maori Party was still just a twinkle in somebody’s eye, I bet that if I’d asked the 40,000 people who marched on parliament back in 2004 whether they thought the Foreshore and Seabed debate should be settled by the Iwi Leaders, I reckon 39,500 of them would have probably said no’: You see, the march on parliament wasn’t exactly loaded down with iwi leaders. In fact, quite a few stayed away, some because they had plans to do their own deal regardless of what that might mean for other iwi, some who were offered a sweetheart deal by Labour to break ranks, some because they were genuinely scared that being seen on the march might mean their iwi contracts got the chop, and some because they weren’t sure whether their mana might be compromised by hangin’ out with the marchers. Certainly there were those who weren’t there, but did their bit by helping with the cost of transport for their people, but given the fact that every man and his dog knew what day the hikoi was going to be marching on parliament, the absence of iwi leaders at parliament was noticeable. And I know that because I know most of them personally, and I saw very few of them there on the day. One who was there, and prominently so, was Sir Tipene O’ Regan who told me that he had come up with his people from Te Waipounamu and that he was ‘bloody proud’ to be there. And undoubtedly there were others as well, but in fact the leaders of the march itself weren’t the iwi leaders at all, they were mainly the hardened activists of the past 20 years who understood immediately the racism inherent in the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and made a snap commitment to be part of a national team stitched together at the last minute to organise the march, and to ensure that as many people as possible were aware of the potential threat to our status as tangata whenua, and our rights to our takutaimoana

And yet, even still, for all the commitment made by the activist brigade, the march would still have been a total flop if the people themselves hadn’t stepped forward and they did; in their hundreds; in their thousands; indeed, in their tens of thousands. And they came from everywhere. From the back blocks, from the small towns, from the streets of our cities, from Maori homes throughout Aotearoa. Men, women, teenagers, kids, mokopuna, kaumatua and kuia, everyone was there. And regardless of whichever iwi or hapu they came from, there were thousands who marched to Wellington who didn’t read the act, who didn’t understand all of the technicalities, and probably didn’t even know what iwi they were but they knew that something was wrong, they knew that they were getting shafted, they knew that their tupunas’ rights to the Foreshore and Seabed were about to get torn up, and they wanted to do something about it. And they didn’t wait for the iwi leaders or the activists to give them the nod. They jumped in and they marched for our rights to the Foreshore and Seabed, because they knew it was the right thing to do. And those are the people who the Maori Party has a commitment to respect, because they are the people who helped us ride a wave of freedom and independence all the way into parliament, on a promise to be true to our kaupapa of taking major decisions back to them, and of always trying to include them in the dream that they have asked us to realise: They’re the people who have pinned their hopes on the Maori Party getting the Foreshore and Seabed Act repealed, and want us to do our best to get a good result for everyone. And we know who they are. They’re the kaumatua and kuia who have known decades of deceit and dishonesty, and voted for the Maori Party because they wanted something fresh, something honest, something Maori. They are our generation, a generation made cynical by the stories handed down of politicians who talk up a storm but never deliver, and they are the kids who want anything but the bullshit brigade of yesteryear. And it’s us that they have chosen to carry this kaupapa. It is us, the Maori Party Members of Parliament who have been asked to carry this battle. It is us who have the honour of speaking up for our people. And we do our people a grave disservice by passing this on to somebody else to handle; and I have no intention of treating my people with such disrespect. So what exactly is it that the Maori Party want to see? Well folks, I’m happy to say that the kaupapa that I’ve been touting all round the place over the past few months was approved by our caucus last week as the basis for a new deal on the Foreshore and Seabed. It’s based on a paper written for us by Moana Jackson which proposed the notion of ‘tupuna title’ which basically says that if the whole world already knows that Maori people were here first, then lets stop being ridiculous by making Maori go to court to prove it. Let’s simply accept it’s true and build on that And it’s also based on discussions I’ve had with a number of other people, both Maori and Pakeha, who agree with the Maori Party that we need a solution that shows we are serious in our intentions, that we are comfortable with justice, and that we are mature enough to act with hope and with optimism So here it is. Three simple steps
Maori Title: If government can assume ownership of the FSSB with one piece of legislation, they can just as easily give it back to Maori with another. That will put an immediate end to all the anxiety and angst and anguish from the past, and the decades of discord that will surely await us in the future, in we don’t act honourably now Inalienability In the same legislation, include a clause ensuring that Maori can never sell the Foreshore and Seabed. That fits with the Maori world view that we don’t own land as a commodity, but rather we hold it as a taonga for future generations. It will also put an end to all that rubbish about Maori only wanting it so we can sell it.
Again, in the same legislation, guarantee full access to all New Zealanders, because in the same way that Maori don’t want it to keep it for ourselves, neither do we want it to keep Pakeha out. As kaitiaki, we must be able to set limits on access to protect seafood stocks, promote conservation, and control behaviour, but granting access to Kiwis is an easy deal: So there you have it. It ain’t rocket science but it will work
The technocrats have already pointed out some problems, but they ain’t insurmountable. The vision is the important thing, and if we can buy into that, the rest will be easyWe’re planning on takin’ this out on the road, because with a kaupapa as big as this we need to know that our people understand it, that they agree with it, and that they believe in it
In closing Mr Speaker, let me thank the Iwi Leaders Forum for their efforts and for the really positive outcomes that they have been striving to achieve. They have played an important role in bringing a different perspective to this whole debate.
And although I say this very rarely, let me also thank the Minister for Treaty Negotiations, Mr Chris Finlayson for his sincerity and his commitment to trying to achieve a result that comes close to realising the expectations that our people have. Mr Speaker, on Waitangi Day the Prime Minister asked the following question: Why can't this be the generation of New Zealanders who open the next chapter in our history? " Well Mr Prime Minister the Maori Party is ready to take up that challenge. All we ask is that you and your government be bold enough to take it up as well.

On February 24th 2010 on Radio Watea Professor Margaret Mutu said that Hone Harawira could say what he liked and take up the part of the voters and the marchers but she was going to speak on behalf of the hapu and iwi of Ngati Kuri.

As suggested at the outset of this chapter there is a long way between Chris Trotter and Hone Harawira. And there are a variety of other positions including those of Margaret Mutu. As well as a range of strong opinion there is a curious vacuity about the knowledge and position of National Party MPs as well as some in Labour which gives serious pause. It is as though the MPs are ill informed in a sea of information and it is hard to say if this is by choice or not.

To be fair to the Maori Party there is a will apparent that the people at large might be informed and this is seen in the following Press Release;
MEDIA STATEMENT
Rahui Katene – MP for Te Tai Tonga
Te Ururoa Flavell – MP for Waiariki
Hone Harawira – MP for Te Tai Tokerau
Friday February 26, 2010
Maori Party sets out on 'after-the-repeal' roadshow
The Maori Party will begin a series of hui throughout Aotearoa tomorrow to gather the views of the people on foreshore and seabed issues.
More than 20 hui are scheduled to take place over the next four weeks to consider the next steps if the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is repealed, including what could constitute a replacement regime.
The first of the roadshow hui began in Dargaville today and the second will be held at Kuratini Marae in Mt Cook, Wellington at 7pm tomorrow.
“We’re taking this issue out on the road to hear what our people have to say; to listen to the ideas they have on a major issue for Aotearoa,” Maori Party MP for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira said.
“Maori title, no sale and free access for all will be just some of the talking points but there may be other things that our constituents want as well.”
Maori Party whip and MP for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell said the party had always been one to actively consult with constituents.
“We in the Maori Party have an obligation to our constituents to consult and listen so that’s what we’re doing."
Maori Party MP for Te Tai Tonga Rahui Katene also revealed that she has deliberately held back her Private Members Bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act while negotiations are in progress.
"The important thing is that we've still got that bill ready to roll should we need it,” she said.
"Repealing the act is our number one priority and we’re determined to try every approach we can to make that happen. Hearing from the people who put us into Parliament is vital at this critical juncture in the policy process.”
A report will be developed from the hui and that will be presented to the Maori Party caucus, she said.

The discussion above again shows the complexity that needs to be faced in any resolution of the issues to do with the foreshore and seabed. It also shows the stress involved. The ingenuity of Maui might be required.

It might be profitable to set down what is being asked for in May 2010 and what is being offered. In a speech of 16.02.10 given in full later (pp) Hone Harawira is asking for three things. These are tupuna title, Maori being unable to sell the land at the foreshore and seabed and full access by all New Zealanders to the foreshore and Seabed.

What is being offered by the government in April 2010 in the Consultation document entitled Reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 are the following specific proposals;
Allocation of coastal space- regional councils would continue to have the role of allocationg space in the foreshore and seabed. This would be done in conjunction with those coastal hapu/iwi whose customary interests in the area have been recognised and who therefore received the awards relevant to the level of their interests.
Structures- there would be no impact on the ownership of existing and new structures
Reclamations- existing decision-making processes would continue in respect of reclamations although the nature of the interest granted may change
Local authority-owned foreshore and seabed- any foreshore or seabed owned by local authorities would be incorporated into the ‘public domain/takiwa iwi whanui as it is currently treated as public land
Adverse possession and prescriptive title (‘squatting’)- no person would be able to claim an interesrt in any part of the foreshore and seabed on the ground of adverse possession or prescrriptive title.

In 2010 the parliament is set to deal with the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed legislation by repealing the act and, possibly, replacing it with something else. In terms of the way such things usually proceed all this borders on haste.
If we have haste rather than speed then the stress caused by the Foreshore and Seabed legislation of 2004 might be partly to blame along with other stressors.

New Books from Campus Press in late 2010- early 2011


Papers to Conference Volume Two by Peter Cleave ISBN 978-1-877229-48-0 All new essays from 2005 onwards.

200 pages



Aotearoa, Papers of Contest, Volume Two.by Peter Cleave ISBN 978-1-877229-49-7 All new essays from 2005 onwards.

200 pages



Takutai, the foreshore and seabed, Second Edition by Peter Cleave ISBN 978-1877229-50 Updated to include the legislation of late 2010- early 2011. 200 pages



Papers on Social Work, Fourth Edition by Peter Cleave ISBN 978-1-877229-47-3

200 pages



About Campus Press

Campus Press is the biggest academic press outside the universities in New Zealand. Campus Press was established in 1992 and for the last twelve years has been based in Palmerston North.


To buy a book

A lot of Campus Press books are sold through Wheelers Books, New Zealand. This company has excellent URL details and payment arrangements. There are never any issues with supply of books and they send a lot of books to points around the globe. To buy a Campus Press go to the URL below and order;

www.wheelers.co.nz/



About the author.
It is said that Peter Cleave has more books in New Zealand Libraries than any other author. Beginning as a collaborator on The Oxford Picture Dictionary of Maori in 1979 there has been a consistent pattern of a book published, an article in a refereed journal and then a radio commentary repeated over a long period. With this pattern of published work have come the prizes; the First Class Masterate from Auckland University and a Commonwealth scholarship to the University of Oxford, the Phillip Bagby Scholarship and Rhodes Foundation funds while doing the Oxford Doctorate, the chair of the college common room and on from these to taking the prizes for best paper at conferences like the International Federation of Social Workers in Montreal in 2000.

Peter Cleave is without peer at the meeting place of language, culture and criticism, locally and internationally and this is seen in the sale of his books to libraries in New Zealand and Australia and around the world.

At the same time Peter Cleave, a former captain of the Manurewa High School First Fifteen in South Auckland, works on community radio and touches base with working people. He left school to work on the MV Tofua, a Banana Boat and began to learn about the Pacific, something he is still doing.





 










Maori Unpacked continued
47

What about connecting two nominal phrases?

One way of doing it might be with
part-to-whole relationships. What? You know, like, the part of the thing;

Te waahanga o te mea
The part of the thing

Te waewae o te teepu
The leg of the table

and another might be with relations of dominance

Te kuri a te tangata
the dog of, belonging to, the man

Te kai a te tangata
The food of the person

and yet another might be relations of subordinance

Te whaea o te tangata
The mother of the person

Te whenua o te tangata

Or we might be talking about a means of transport

Te waka o te tangata
The canoe of the person








Hang phrases like

Te mookai

or

te tangata

in mobiles

and connect them together using

a

or

o

te mookai a te tangata

te roa

te whare

te roa o te whare

te kai

te tangata

te kai a te tangata

te whare

te tangata

te whare o te tangata

Set up a box alongside the definite article box and the noun box.


He kupu hou- some new words

koorua- you two

koutou- you, more than two

taatou- we including the speaker and the people spoken to

katoa- all

whakamau- take or grab

kura- school

Hato- Saint

Paora- Paul

Huini- Queen

Irihaapeti- Elizabeth

taaua- we, you and I

maaua- we, speaker and one other but not the person spoken to

noa- just, quite

tootika- straight

maatou- we, speaker and more than one other but not the person or persons spoken to

raatou- they, more than two

aata- carefully

whero- red



tawhiti- far

tuarua- second, secondary

whare kura- school house

waahanga- part

waewae- foot

whaea- mother

mookai- pet, subordinate

roa- long