puff 587 Wednesday 15th

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!
Chapter One of Aotearoa, papers of contest, Volume Two1
Land by water; a walk through a conversation

The title refers to a shift towards looking at water, fresh or salt, in the last ten to fifteen years in Aotearoa-New Zealand and a way of looking through, past or over water to other things including land. The discussion below reviews recent literature on water and land and ways of protecting them. The intention has been to browse around that literature, to walk through that conversation, without heading for a firm conclusion.

Merata Kawharu discusses the environment as a marae locale (Kawharu in Selby Moore and Mullholland 2010: 221- 239). Kawharu gives an account of kaitiakitanga that considers time and space. The environment is seen as an ancestral landscape that encapsulates sites of significance.

Throughout her paper there is an attention to mana whenua. There is also an attention to terms and concepts. She talks about walking backwards into the future.
Kawharu emphasises that this is an orally based culture.

There is, in Maori society, she suggests, a sophistication of metaphors about economic, political and spiritual relationships with land. So much of this assertion depends on familiarity with the reo, especially key words in a lexicon shared by people who might not actually speak Maori but know these words (Kawharu does not discuss language use). A lexicon is involved beginning with tiaki and then on to kaitiaki, manaaki, atawhai and other words (Cleave 1979, Pocock, 1967 Goldsmith 2003). There are matters of oral performance and understanding and these might be considered as functional or extended.

Kawharu is talking about a triangle of people, environment and identity. She uses whakatauki to illustrate her points;
ka mimiti te puna i Taumaarere
ka toto te puna i Hokianga
ka toto te puna i Taumaarere
ka mimiti te puna i Hokianga
When the fountain empties in Taumaarere
The fountain of Hokianga is full
When the fountain of Taumaarere is full
The fountain of Hokianga is empty

Tamaki kaainga ika me nga wheua katoa
Tamaki where fish, bones and all are consumed

Kawharu sets out a model with dimensions of space, time and whakapapa with korero, tapuwae (footprints) and whenua in the middle.

Kawharu talks about the tapuwae as the footprint of the iwi and talks about the kin group’s estate. Kawharu does not mention it but there is another meaning to tapuwae as a chant of movement to ensure speed. A tapuwae is a chant referring to speed in flight or pursuit. The footprint, cultural or otherwise may be fluid as well as stationary.

She suggests that Kaitiakitanga is not simply an environmental ethic but rather a socio-environmental ethic. It is about relationships between humans and the environment (ibid 2010:227). Kaitiakitanga finds continuity in Maori kin based communities because it weaves together ancestral, environmental and social threads of identity, purpose and practice.

The environment may be considered as an extension of all that marae symbolise and vice versa, marae are an extension of a wider community. Kawharu talks about the marae as a person and sets out a model with dimensions of divine principles-ira atua and human principles- ira tangata. The environment as a marae locale contains a series of cultural reference points. Kawharu quotes Sir James Henare saying;
When I look at these landscapes I see my ancestors walking back to me.

With regard to kaitiakitanga Kawharu speaks of creative potential. The storytelling aspect of creativity is crucial. Maori heritage is the kind of experience and consciousness that is created and maintained through interactions with places of Maori heritage.

Kawharu sets out some present challenges such as re-establishing mana whenua and a cultural footprint in a multicultural society, re-affirming credible tribal leadership, re-learning traditional knowledge and values and applying them (such as through the arts of formal speech making, carving and tukutuku and reviving traditional knowledge among rangatahi).

The space of the city would seem to be problematic.
There is a real gap between the work of Merata Kawharu and the work of Stokes and Barton in the New Zealand Herald in 2006 and 2007 on the Ngati Whatua settlement. Stokes and Barton show how difficult, impossible almost, the city situation is in the claiming process. They show how, in the intense pressure of the city, historians take sides, important documents are lost and leadership issues arise. This produces a stalemate which, the present writer would argue, amounts to a lock out of the locals in their own city.

Neocosmos (2003) has written of the lock out of the poor and the foreign and the definition of people as official citizens or not in the context of the cities of Southern Africa. It seems hard not to read Barton's work in particular and begin to make comparisons.

Merata Kawharu (2010:235-6) writes of a disconnection between the marae locale and the environment. This is a break in oral reference, a break in the storytelling of the locale a break that strips out and warps the richness of the culture. This relates to several other pieces in the collection of Kaitiaki in particular those by Veronica Tawhai and Rachel Selby and Pataka Moore. Tawhai’s consideration of rawaho shows this disconnection between marae locale and the environment as it shows a disconnect between history and geography.

Veronica W.H. Tawhai’s paper is entitled, Rawaho, in and out of the environmental engagement loop (Selby, Moore and Mulholland 2010: 77-94) and is one of the gems of the Kaitiaki collection. Her key points of legislative reference are the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002. Her thesis is well expressed by her in a few lines at the outset of her argument;
In the tribal lands of another, the manner in which Maori individuals can express their interests as Maori is unclear. Similarly there are concerns about the extent to which Maori, living far from their tribal homelands can effectively be involved in the management of tribal and public environmental resources.
(ibid 2010: 77)

Tawhai considers people who are known variously as rawaho or taura here or maataawaka. Her argument precedes that of Rangi Mataamua and Pou Temara in a later article that refers to diaspora. Tawhai is talking about the situation of rawaho, people who live outside their homeland without clear lines of civic relation to the homeland or the place that they live in. Tawhai quotes one informant to the effect that three sites are involved; where the person lives, where they were born and their ancestral homeland (ibid 2010:78).

Tawhai is talking about the rights of rawaho under the Local Government Act of 2002. There is a sense in which rawaho and Maori are at odds. Maori means to be native to natural to an area. Rawaho means to be from without.
She notes that eight out of ten 25-29 year olds have moved at least once since 2001. With this kind of movement between localities the challenge of engaging rawaho is different.

Tawhai falls back again and again in the article to using the Treaty of Waitangi as the basis of the relationship between rawaho and councils. This is also seen in her model on (2010:92). No matter whether the entity is mana whenua or rawaho the relationship is always based on the Treaty of Waitangi.
A primary problem is the engagement of Maori from an assimilationist view of citizenship and not upon a basis that is culturally appropriate or recognizant of the disadvantaged socio-historical position that Maori bear when engaging with local authorities.
Cheyne and Tawhai 2007

Tawhai suggests a lack of clarity about roles locally and in tribal areas and that it is easier for rawaho to identify with national issues than local or tribal homeland issues. At one point she suggests for many Maori their collective identity overshadows their individual one, at least with regard to environmental management (2010: 91).
In her conclusion Tawhai says she is making assumptions about whakapapa and this is undoubtedly true as it is throughout the Kaitiaki collection including the work of Kawharu. Tawhai also asks questions about the role of urban Maori authorities.

Veronica Tawhai is raising- without directly addressing- questions to do with the distribution of environmental rights. Rawaho relate to environmental rights on a national basis and contribute at that lenel. But at the local level the locals, the mana whenua as she calls them have first rights, so to speak, regarding the environments.

This evokes the literature set out by Van Mejl and Goldsmith in their work (Van Mejl and Goldsmith 2003).
Tawhai does not emphasise rawaho solutions. Sometimes there is a distinct relationship between the rawaho group and tangata whenua or mana whenua. In Auckland, for example, the Tuhoe have Te Tira Hou as their own marae outside of their area. In Rotorua Tuhoe have Mataatua Paa which was arranged for them by Te Arawa. The latter is of long standing and illustrates that the rawaho/diaspora situation is not new. In the 1950s qnd 1960s Maori people from outside Auckland used to gather in the Community Centre in Fanshawe Street.

In their article Temara and Mataamua (Selby, Moore and Mulholland 2010: 95-108) show how extensive the rawaho condition is when they give figures to show that 81% of Tuhoe live outside the Urewera.(Nikora 2000:39). They ask are we becoming Tuhoe by name but not by nature? They suggest that those Tuhoe over 50 have a relatively strong relationship with the environment and those 40 and other do not have such a strong relationship with it. This goes with a distinction between ahi kaa and taura here and this is reminiscent of Tawhai’s tangata whenua and rawaho. Temara and Mataamua also suggest that the people who actively affirm their relationship with Tuhoe might be as low as 5%.
There is the suggestion that in 2008 the Treaty

Settlement might give the forest back to Tuhoe and when this article was written expectations may have been high,. The myth of return goes with the idea of diaspora though. The term has many accretions such as a myth of return or even that of a ‘lost tribe’ that may or may not apply to the situation of Tuhoe or other iwi in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Temara and Mataamua suggest the return of the forest might be imminent. They do perceive it as having fishhooks in that they will be coming to own a pest contol problem. But it is a promise unrealised so far with caveats seeming to come again and again from the Prime Minister in 2010- 2011. Just as Selby and Moore provide the classic example of the river habitat being made over into a sewer, Temara and Mataaamua offer the example of a Treaty Promise, the promise of return becoming a disappointment. In November 2010 at Taipa the same thing can be seen; the Waitangi Tribunal seems to have promised the return of land through a process whereby a third party, the council does certain things, this does not happen, people perceive a promise broken a return to the homeland delayed or prevented. There is in fact a kind of lockout from the homeland occurring, a blockage to the return.

With over 80% of Tuhoe outside the area and with many in the Urewera out of work it is difficult to relate identity to employment or vocation in the Urewera. Their source of identity is outside the experience of most people. Language is another matter. This is not addressed by Temara and Mataamua to any great extent but it is a very important marker of identity.

There are a secondary set of identity markers for those in the city. Temara and Mataamua gloss over these as they sometimes refer to Tuhoe outside of the Urewera becoming middle class. Gould (1992) would seem to suggest otherwise and it might be that Tuhoe are as caught up in the statistics of crime and urban poverty as much as other iwi. Attention to heritage issues might be something found in the middle class though.

The politics of identity that are being worked out here are difficult. The eighty percent or more that live outside of the traditional rohe in, say, the Tuhoe or Ngati Kahu areas are defined from without in a language that they sometimes do nor speak.

There is a gap between the iwi discussed by April Bennett (Selby, Moore and Mulholland 2010: 175-184), Te Arawa and Waikato-Tainui and other iwi. The former have secured agreements with the Crown that seem to usher in a time of co-governance and/or co-management. This is a contrast with such iwi as Ngati Kahu and Tuhoe.

At issue is the valence of the homeland. Environmental issues that are sometimes left to the Greens are taken up in earnest by Maori heritage advocates. Mason Durie says that a bond with the land and the natural environment is the fundamental factor of indigeneity and he cites Walker (1990: 11-15) to this effect. Beside the relationship to the environment there area five factors that Durie suggests are; time, human identity, continuity and social order, a system of knowledge on the basis of sustainability.

Durie is making a case for indigeneity with its cultural, ecological and temporal dimensions to be listed as an important criteria in determining outstanding universal value (2010: 247).He quotes Salmond from 1978 (166-67) and Kawharu from 1977 (60-62). He talks about the pyramids.

Durie talks about connectedness, mauri, continuity, contextual significance and reciprocity. He suggests that assessment and measurement of such things can be achieved. He also suggests that language is set in a locale and that this is a feature of indigeneity.
Regarding the language, is this a matter of heritage versus survival? A lexicon is obviously involved in the way in which a landscape is named but is Durie saying that languages are inextricably bound to environments?

Is it possible to see the work of Durie, Kawharu and others as the development of a heritage industry. Zemgulys (2008) suggests the making of a heritage industry in England especially in London in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and discusses writers like E. M.Forster, T.S.Eliot and Virginia Woolf. In the case of Aotearoa as seen in the articles discussed by Durie and Kawharu case the heritage industry is situated in issues of the environment while in London it was situated in the world of the arts, architecture and elsewhere. London was made old. What will a heritage industry make Maori?

Is such a heritage industry useful for Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand? Points of growth and development of the language might be in Australia and in the urban centres rather than in the rural locales. If it is true that a middle class with greater resources for study and reflection than other people drive a language that middle class could well develop in Australia in an entirely different locale to the point of origin. As we encourage what was we might be encouraging the language to die. The task might rather be to look clearly and accurately at where the language is now and build on that.

In some respects at least it is important to emphasise the portability of culture as well as its static aspects. Tawhai points to three identifications, the tribal homeland, where people were born and where they live. There are two major shifts in the geography of identity. One is leaving the homeland for the New Zealand city and one is leaving the New Zealand city for Australia. Dwelling on the stasis of the locale of origin might not be possible for many people and might be something of a cultural cage for some (cf Smith, 1993).

Are issues of heritage including the environmental heritage inherently middle class?

Selby and Moore jerk things back to reality. They show that this is not just a collapse of space (cf Tapsell 1998) but also a reformulation of space so that rivers, once the living space of people in the Manawatu and Horowhenua areas become sewers and drains. In their historical introduction Selby Mulholland and Moore show the priority of Pakeha interests over Maori with special reference to the use of rivers as sewers and places for the discharge of all kinds of effluent.

Later,Selby and Moore say (2010:43) that in many ways Ngati Pareraukawa, the marae and the surrounding homes were invisible to the Borough Council and the new settlers of Levin. At one stage in the 1950s things were so bad that there were very few people living in the marae area. This is an example that shows the extremity of the river dwelling site turned into a sewer in extremis. To the East there was a polluted lake, to the west a piggery, to the North the Hokio stream became polluted and to the south sewage was spread and there was a large rubbish dump.

The development of so-called solutions such as the dry land sewage disposal at ‘the Pot’ to the south actually contributed to the polluted environment of Ngati Pareraukawa. The nearby Anawahata stream became polluted by farm runoff.

The 1991 RMA seems to have served as a point of positive reference and the marae committee minute book recorded many objections under this Act as it became something of a rallying point for Ngati Pareraukawa.
Mullholland tells an extraordinary and true tale of the Manawatu River as a sewer which shows the same kind of thing that Selby and Moore are saying regarding the Hokio Stream. He talks about a systematic failure of councils to deal with the pollution of the river. Even recent agreements such as the 2003 Dairying and Clean Stream Accord seem to have been of questionable value according to Mulholland.

Mulholland quotes Moore to show how the river afforded a locale through which groups of people traditionally moved;
The Manawatu River was so rich with quality eel that it was not uncommon for entire hapu to relocate their people to areas closer to the Manwatu river in the fishing season for no other reason than to fish for eel… Eel became the staple diet for many Maori in the Horowhenua and the Manwatu and their reliance on this food source made it devastating when the number of eel began to dwindle. Moore 2006:3

The history of sewage discharge into the Manwatu River as outlined by Mulholland is disconcertingly vile. From the 1890s until 1958 raw sewage was discharged into the river. In 1968 there was a new treatment plant established, Sewage and effluent came from Palmerston North, Feilding, Foxton, Linton Military Camp and Mangahao Village. Rubbish was tipped into the river at various places. Meat wastes came from abbatoirs and freezing works in Feilding and Longburn. A wool scour and boiling down works in Feilding also contributed to the pollution (2010 128).

Mulholland’s horror story continues with fish kills due to lack of oxygen in 1978 and 1984. In 1985 a secondary sewage plant is established but in 1993 it is still possible to discharge raw sewage into the river. There were questions about the discharge of leachate from the landfill at Awapuni into the river in 2006. Mulholland refers to an open letter from Dr Mike Joy in the same year suggesting that the migratory native fish specvies; shortjaw kokopu, banded kokopu, koaro and redfin bully are no longer found in approximately two-thirds of the Manawati catchment.

Mulholland mentions review processes including a Memorandum of Understanding between Tanenuiarangi o Manawatu and New Zealand Pharmaceuticals that occurred despite pollution affecting Muaupoko and Ngati Taukawa further downstream Mulholland also notes comments by Buddy Mikaere in 2008 that the mauri of the river would not deteriorate. Mulholland mentions the One Plan as he finishes his discussion in Kaitiaki leaving conclusions about the plan open.

In the process of his argument Mulholland cites Alex Barnes to give a definition of mauri;
...the life energy or unique life sence that gives being and form to all things in the universe. Tikanga had emerged around this duty bringing with it an intimate knowledge and understanding of our local environments and a set of rules that guide our way of life both spiritual and secular. (Barnes 2006)

Kawharu does seem to posit a fixed marae space and this may not be always or altogether accurate. Maori in the Manawatu and Horowhenua and elsewhere lived in nohohanga, temporary dwellings following the seasons and the supply of food. They did not live in fixed marae locales. They followed kawa wherever they were. Locale might not be as important as ritual process.

There is a difference between history and geography involved and there are parallels to the points raised in Tawhai’s paper. One feature of Kawharu’s paper is the notion of a stable past. At its extreme this takes us back through anthropology to Levi Strauss’ idea of myth and history, of cold or cool societies of a traditional kind and hot ones like the European ones that Sartre and Levi Strauss were considering (Levi Strauss 1968). Fixed domicile itself in terms of a marae locale is a strong commitment to make. Then there is the idea of a fixed rather than a fluid cosmology and mythology. This ties in with Duries reference to Salmond’s Te Ao Tawhito of 1978 with its fixed categories. There is also the notion of boundaries fixed at contact and proverbs frozen at literacy.

This is an intellectual construct that arose in response to colonialism and was seen as a decolonizing tool. A given point outside of the West was posited where people were cool not hot, fixed not fluid, where locale was concrete and there was much more myth than history. As Zembulys suggests with regard to Heritage Studies in the making old of London the effect is to make the difference with now and the world of then, steeped in the Past, so the point outside of the West is made different, distant and out of Western time and space.

Leaving those matters aside the idea of Tapsell’s quoted by Kawharu that there is a collapsing of space might be generally right. The question remains as to what was constituted following or as a result of such a collapse. Selby, Moore and Mulholland state their idea in the introduction to their book and McDonald (1995) has his. The notion of a collapsing of space is more fully addressed in an article entitled Te takarepa o te wao in a recent book (Cleave, 2010).
Margaret Mutu in her essay in Kaitiaki (Selby, Moore and Mulholland 2010: 13-36) gives another perspective from the north and this may be an expression of anxiety as anger. This anger comes through in her article with such references as those to ‘the American’.

Mutu says that while the role of kaitiaki might be respected and protected under the 1991 Resource Management Act it is severely challenged and threatened on many occasions. The strength of this article is the close attention to detail in several examples from the far north which show again and again the flaunting of sense by the Far North District Council and developers and a disregard for the rights of Ngati Kahu, the iwi involved. Mutu talks about white supremacy.

Margaret Mutu notes that 80% of the Ngati Kahu population live outside the tribal area, mostly in cities. There is an important set of references to to Maori Marsden and McCully Matiu. The latter is quoted to show an identification of Maori with the environment as kaitiaki. This could be cross referenced to the work of Flavell (2010) who talks about the house and the people in it, Goldsmith (2009) and Brown (2003).

This is seen in a quote from McCully Matiu in the report and recommendations of the board of inquiry into the New Zealand coastal policy statement in 1994;
In Maori cultural terms, all cultural and physical elements of the world are related to each other and each is controlled and directed by the numerous spiritual assistants of the gods. These spiritual assistants often manifest themselves in physical forms such as fish, animals, trees or reptiles. Each is imbued with mana, a form of power and authority derived directly from the gods. Man being descended from the gods is likewise imbued with mana although this mana can be removed or violated if it is abused. There are many forms and aspects of mana of which one is the power to sustain life. Maoridom is very careful to preserve the many forms of mana it holds and in particular is very careful to ensure that the mana of kaitiaki is preserved. In this respect Maori become one and the same as kaitiaki (who are, after all, their relations) becoming the minders for their relations, that is the physical elements of the world.

Mutu cites a comprehensive array of law protecting the role of Maori as kaitiaki. In her examples there are a range of violations of the environment particularly regarding discharge of water comparable to those cited by Selby and Moore in the Hokio area.

In her conclusion Mutu suggests that ’cultural misunderstanding’ is a euphemism for racism’ and again talks about the White Supremacy shown by the council.
In fact Mutu shows the ‘disconnect’ that Kawharu and Tapsell talk about. Or rather the disconnect is shown by mainstream commentators talking about Mutu. As well as changes in physical space there is there is constriction or collapsing of the space to argue, the space to talk, the very room, so to speak, to breathe. The exchange below between Fran O’Sullivan and Margaret Mutu is worth examining in these respects.

O’Sullivan started things with a headline in the Saturday Herald- August 28 2010 saying 'Maori have duty to fund their own.' ‘Mute response to Minister’s call for iwi to support abused kids grates, given growing level of tribal wealth’, says the sub heading.

Fran O’Sullivan works off a stock of iwi bashing questions and rounds up the usual suspects but the mere fact that her article is given serious space in the New Zealand Herald shows that it has some editorial support.

O’Sullivan sets out the distinction between iwi and state in her opening paragraph. Along with this is the inversion not emphasized by Fran O’Sullivan; Paula Bennett is, like Winston Peters before her, a Maori advocate for the state. A Maori Minister of the Crown is berating leaders of Maori tribes, some Maori wear the iwi hat and some like Bennett and Peters in his day wear the state hat.

O’Sullivan gets alongside Bennett. In her next paragraph she takes iwi leaders to task for being tardy or indolent.
Then it is a matter of establishing that the iwi owe the government money. Are Treaty Settlements ‘found money’ or are there strings attached?
Next the Key government is accused of being craven and the claim by Maori for the foreshore and seabed as corrupt.

Then it is the Maori professor, Margaret Mutu, as space cadet. O’Sullivan says that Mutu is ‘disturbingly remote’. This calls into question the scholarship of Treaty claims and the general sociology and anthropology of race relations. The idea is that these academics live in a one dimensional world and this is usually hard anyway but in a small society like New Zealand it is very difficult.
The notion of ‘disturbingly remote’ runs into the idea of psychological problems touching on pathology as Fran O’Sullivan goes on to accuse Mutu of showing ‘learned helplessness’ and suggests that she is elitist. The underlying idea in the elitist suggestion is that Treaty Settlement money goes into education which promotes an the children of an elite but does nothing for people at risk.

Then O’Sullivan sets out the idea of a game, a double game where Maori tribal leaders are trying to get a privileged position as far as the ownership of assets now vested in the state are concerned while they have their own assets through Treaty of Waitangi settlements. They are, Fran O’Sullivan seems to be suggesting, playing poor when it comes to state assets while in fact Maori are collectively rich.

The uneasy suggestion, uneasy that is to O’Sullivan, is that Maori are building their way into the state.
Fran O’Sullivan seems to not want to overstate things here. In fact there is something of a ‘negative sovereignty’ happening where Maori are in the majority in prisons and elsewhere in the justice system.
Fran O’Sullivan goes on to talk about or at least hint at entrenchment. This is when Maori have automatic first cut at something as a given or entrenched right.
The play with long and short or immediate term is a significant part of this analysis.

In her last paragraph Fran O’Sullivan seems to be querying the very leadership of the tribal leaders group. The accusation seems to be that these leaders are not acting responsibly with regard to their own communities. If Maori are as rich or richer collectively speaking than others in the population of New Zealand then action by them to help people in their own communities ought to be forthcoming.

Is Fran O’Sullivan just stumping up indignation in the right wing corner or does she represent a deeper undercurrent of feeling and analysis? Is she foreshadowing the way Treasury thinks and might act?

In order for there not to be a reaction like that of O’Sullivan there needs to be sufficient social capital shared between the groups involved.

O’Sullivan’s views might lead one to think that Treaty Settlements are really Clayton’s settlements. Or actually they are loans or like loans that iwi take up at the risk of having to use the settlement for social welfare purposes rather than as the iwi sees fit.

There would seem to be a need for shared social capital also known as trust, a history of co-management of welfare that could be turned to at times like this. While this seems to exist in such fields as education, health and local government there is the need to so this perhaps in corrections and social welfare.

Taking O’Sullivan’s idea of Mutu as being remote as a starting point, closeness and remoteness are significant in any discussion of space. O’Sullivan seems to resent the academic space in which Mutu finds herself. This calls to mind the struggle for academic space described by Tania Ka’ai (cf Ka’ai 2008).

Coming back to the idea of a locale as a fixed space or as a space to move through, Paul Moon has an idea of a nomadic period from the ninth to the fourteenth century giving way to a more settled form of dwelling. The present author (1983) has talked about something similar at the end of the eighteenth century where there was a consciousness of tapu, of the pa, of whakairo and of iwi perhaps extending to a pan-tribal consciousness. The danger in that position is that one might assume that the settled phase ushered in a different, a higher form of Maori culture.

In fact the nomadic period which has been characterised by the present writer as one of small confined spaces like canoes and small, low houses would have sustained a vibrant oral culture (Cleave 2008). Such small spaces are not unlike the studios in the iwi stations some of which are used by kaumatua as they say karakia in the early morning. They are also like the nohohanga described for the Manawatu river dwellers earlier in this paper.

There is a legacy of all this in the kawa o te marae with its very clear definitions of space for the visitor, the locals and many other things.

There is also the fact that in the early twentyfirst century that dependency might diminish as the internet opens up an international situation for iwi. Iwi radio stations broadcast on FM to the locale of the local mountain and river and to a wider national and an international audience on the internet (Cleave 2009).

Coming back to rivers there is a curious but telling example of iwi-state relations in Alstair Bisley’s report. In the Report of the Land and Water Forum: a Fresh Start to Freshwater(2010) Bisley argues that iwi should deal directly with the crown before arrangements are made with local councils. The reasons for this are to do with variation in performance and criteria from one council to another. This is an example with parallels in many areas that have to do with space including communications, the foreshore and seabed and other areas. But it can mean that the Maori individual is displaced in the local setting and Bisley’s report should be read with Veronica Tawhai’s excellent analysis discussed above in mind.

Bisley’s report is very important as it shows the wider context; water in New Zealand is now so important and possible so scarce in Canterbury now and elsewhere soon that allocation and costs for water are likely. This gives an edge to the land by water proposition. Not only are the waterways placing Maori dwelling places into sewers they are also starting to carry price tags, the effect on Maori remaining to be see but able to be imagined.

It might be said the the Waitangi Tribunal has opened up space. It might also be said that it has closed off space. Something similar could be argued about the foreshore and seabed. There was the possibility of greater Maori control of the coastal space or at least that appeared to be so in the repeal of the 2004 legislation but as it turns out there is a constricting of Maori space and a tight delineation of rights and responsibilities.

Anxiety about space is a topic that might be pursued. The very question, No hea koe? or Where are you from? opens up possibilities of space and asks a person to define, usually in several steps, where they are from. This was once a straightforward question but it is one answered at a remove now. Again Tawhai’s work on rawho applies with her suggestion that there are three important locales, where one lives, where one was born and one’s point of tribal origin. Temara and Mataamua allude to this question of identity (Moore, Selby and Mullholland 2010: 95-119). They cite Moon (2006) to suggest that where once there had been an almost total equation of Tuhoe with the environment this is no longer the case.

This total equation is followed by estrangement as people leave the environment. A comparable type of relationship might be that of the Whanganui tribes to their environment as seen in an expression from this area;
Ko au te awa
ko te awa ko au
I am the river
The river is me

With all of this there is a move to consider intellectual property as well as the physical locale of the tribe. Colin James in the Dominion Post on Sep 13th 2010 is referring to two things. One is the foreshore and seabed and the other is intellectual property. He sees the latter as being particularly important.

As well as intellectual property there are also new conceptions of property such as that of a common space on the foreshore and seabed. This is an old concept repackaged and rephrased as something new for iwi and others in Aotearoa and is presented as a solution to other ideas of land and sea ownership and tenure. The foreshore and seabed arrangements may go past a treaty arrangement but it also goes past the commonly accepted idea of the commons with the idea of a coastline that no-one actually owns but which is a shared territory. Mainly this is a matter of scale. The common area in this case is not a plot at the back of the village where people grow cabbages and compare cauliflowers. It is the whole coastline.

Its almost an antiquarian English model where there will be a commons but just as there were departures for the nobility in England, the lords of the manor who might be free to hunt foxes every third Saturday while others may only watch, there will be variations around the coast of the country in regard to customary title. In the main these will be quaint arrangements regarding the collection of shellfish for events and not things that affect recreational use of the foreshore and seabed. We seem to have come a long way to have gone back so far.

The commons always gives a sense of collective identity though and the scale of all this could change the way we think of ourselves.

The research of Tracey Whare on the Ngati Porou arrangement with the Crown (Whare, 2010) shows the complexity of the customary marine title and also shows the need to create new arrangements with local councils that is required through the gaining of customary marine title.

Whare says regarding the Bill regarding the Hapu of Ngati Porou;
Given the FSA premise that the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown and that Maori have no right to compensation is this Bill the best that could be achieved? Does the tweaking of existing decision making processes simply mean business as usual? If so, then all the concerns around the FSA continue to be played out in this Bill. Given the Government’s previous negotiation processes, it also sets the precedent for future negotiations with iwi and hapu. With the government’s decision to review the RMA, the FSA and the proposed constitutional review, it remains to be seen what effect those reviews will have on this Bill. If the Bill is enacted its implementation will be closely monitored by all even more so by its supposed beneficiaries.
The Foreshore and Seabed Act: Five years on, where to from here?
Tracey Whare
In
Maori and the environment:Kaitiaki
Edited Selby, Moore and Mulholland
Huia Publishers 2010: 59-75

Tracey Whare also mentions pouwhenua instruments.
One of the issues before iwi in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill 2010 is that iwi would want to explore with the Crown the implications of the Manawatu coastline being a common space. Proceeding from this iwi would want to explore with the Crown the national implications of a commons around the whole of New Zealand including places like the Chatham Islands and Stewart Island (except for that part of the foreshore currently held by others under private title). Iwi would like to explore with the Crown the implications of customary rights and the implications of customary marine title for Rangitaane in this area and the possibilities and probabilities involved. Iwi would also want to be clear about the Crown’s understanding of mana tuku iho in Clause Four.

Beside the broad principles involved iwi would want to have a clear, shared understanding with the Crown on the Bill on a clause by clause, detail by detail basis.
In the Preamble to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill it is said;
‘This Act takes account of the intrinsic, inherited rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi, derived in accordance with tikanga and based on their connection with the foreshore and seabed. It translates those inherited rights into legal rights and interests that are inalienable, enduring, and able to be exercised so as to sustain all the people of New Zealand and the coastal marine environment for future generations.’
A response might be that a considerable amount has, in fact, been lost in translation and what follows sets out to explain why and how. To begin with the idea of the commons is examined, locally and then nationally. Secondly the concept of customary rights is examined and then customary marine title. Mana tuku iho is considered and then there is a consideration of the Bill looking at a range of details. Finally there is a conclusion referring back to the Executive Summary at the beginning.
At the outset there is a need to consider where the 2004 legislation fell short for many people and the need for repeal and a new bill. The 2004 Act amounted to a confiscation of iwi rights to the foreshore and seabed as it took away title and vested it in the Crown on behalf of ‘all New Zealanders’.
In many ways the act was discriminatory because it required iwi to allow access over areas of foreshore it had an interest in but did not place the same responsibility on people with no iwi affiliations. An inequality of obligation was set up by the 2004 Act.
The Act was also discriminatory because it denied ROM access to the Courts to seek clarification of rights. The 2004 Act created a basic inequality of legal opportunity and a replacement piece of legislation was sought that removed the possibility of confiscation and was non-discriminatory.

A path of development at law for Maori regarding the foreshore and seabed had begun to open up in the early 1980s and had continued until the Ngati Apa decision of 2003. After that things were put into reverse so that Maori interests were hampered and denied. The hope was that the repeal of the 2004 legislation and this new legislation would once again open up that earlier path of positive development. This has not happened and in fact Iwi consider that the proposed legislation maintains the direction and course set by the 2004 legislation.

This has happened partly through the introduction of new law such as that pertaining to the common space. This has the effect of making it seem as though new things are happening whereas matters remain essentially unchanged and iwi are left, in some respects, worse off.
For example it is a little perplexing to note that the new, statutory, ‘customary marine title’ only exists where a particular part of the foreshore and seabed has been exclusively used and occupied since 1840, and yet the title itself does not provide for such exclusive rights. If the exercise of customary rights is demonstrated by exclusive use and occupation, then exclusive use and occupation ought to be able to be recognised under this new form of customary title. Alternatively, if exclusive use and occupation is not part of customary title, why would iwi need to prove exclusive use and occupation to have that title recognised? This suggests that the legislative ‘customary marine title’ is to be quite different from common law customary or aboriginal title, as applied in places such as the United States and Canada, where the general principle has long been to give legal recognition to the customary rights and activities that can be identified and demonstrated.
In the example above there is a kind of legal legerdemain where it looks as though new legislation offers solutions but on inspection it turns out that the law involved has been seriously weakened from its original use at a point away from Aotearoa/New Zealand. This example and the false hope that it offers sets the tone of the Bill in many respects.
The common space is a legal fiction denoting an area that nobody owns and within which no-one is allowed to have new private title.

The Bill indicates the term ‘common space’ only applies to area in which Maori might have an interest and specifically excludes the large majority of foreshore currently held by others under private title. With regard to the Manawatu coastline iwi would want to know how much of this would be classified as common space and how much is in private hands. Similarly it is appropriate that iwi along with other New Zealanders know how much of the coastline is actually in private hands and to what exactly the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill applies.

Iwi would also want to know how arrangements for defense might affect the notion of the common space. If New Zealand were to be invaded would matters to do with the common space, customary marine title and customary rights be affected?

Traditionally the notion of common space does not really have a basis. All land was the domain of one iwi or another with boundary issues bur the idea of a commons or even a ‘no man’s land’ is not evidenced to an great extent.

There is also the relation of the commons to the adjacent areas. In one case there are a series of coastal dune lakes stretching from Kaikokopu near Himatangi to Pukepuke near Tangimoana. Rangitaane people lived in a state of interaction between these lakes and the foreshore and seabed and it is impossible to tease out one part of this ecology from another.

To take Kaikokopu as an example, Oahura was a pa that was actually in the lake at Kaikokopu. It was a pa whawhai, a fighting pa. There were eels, tuna, birds, manu and whitebait in the lake. Kaikokopu and Oahura were midway between the mouths of the Rangitikei and Manawatu rivers near Himatangi Beach on the west coast.

Oahura could be said to have been the perfect nohohanga. It was behind dunes and, to some extent at least, out of the wind. It was near the sea and the kaimoana there. There were forests immediately inland and Kaikokopu gave way to a fresh water stream which met with the salt water at nearby Himatangi beach. Oahura is a model for Rangitaane settlement along the Manawatu Coast. People lived just back from the wild West Coast close to fresh water. It is impossible to split this dwelling space into the coastal marine and coastal dune areas. Rangitaane lived in both as one.

Customary marine title is a new beast at law. It is neither the customary title or tikanga recognised in Maori law and lore nor even that recognised in the law of aboriginal title. It is also quite specifically defined in the Bill as being less than freehold title.

Customary marine title is therefore a discriminatory title in that others may have freehold in their land contiguous to the moana but Iwi and Hapu can’t – it is a subordinate title predicated on a notion of essentially subordinate Maori rights.
In a Press Release of 6 September 2010 the Attorney General said;
The Marine and Coastal Area Bill guarantees the rights of all New Zealanders to the marine and coastal area. These include free public access, which last year's Ministerial Review Panel described as a birthright of New Zealanders, and the opportunity for Maori to seek recognition and protection through the courts of customary rights. This includes the right to seek customary title to specified areas that have been used and occupied exclusively since 1840. Any customary titles recognised remain subject to the public right of access. Our rights as New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area are not in conflict with each other. This Bill reflects that reality. Recognising and protecting those rights does not require the right to exclude others. Where customary title can be proved, it will sit alongside the common area rights of public access, fishing, navigation, and existing uses. Customary title does not exclude these guaranteed public rights; it includes them. This Bill, unlike the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 which it replaces, treats all New Zealanders including Maori without discrimination and recognises that we all have legitimate and longstanding interests in this part of our heritage. The Bill also protects and in some cases extends existing rights associated with navigation, fishing, aquaculture and the operation of ports. This Bill provides a framework for recognising interests and rights in the marine and coastal area that is fairer and more durable than its predecessor.
Iwi would question the last sentence in the Attorney General’s statement. There are also many instances of discrimination in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill 2010 and these are noted throughout this submission. Similarly the idea that the rights of New Zealanders are not in conflict in the Bill is wrong.
There are many ways in which the power of councils seems to be strengthened by the Bill and these involve the proposed law on structures, reclaimed land and the development of ports as well as in relationships with groups gaining customary marine title.
The research of Tracey Whare on the Ngati Porou arrangement with the Crown (Whare 2010) noted earlier shows the complexity of the customary marine title and also shows the need to create new arrangements with local councils that is required through the gaining of customary marine title.

Following Tracey Whare’s work iwi would want to ask whether the Ngati Porou Bill and the effect of customary marine title would work to strengthen Councils. In the case of Ngati Porou it is the Gisborne Regional Council that is discussed. Each iwi has its own relationship with the local council and it would appear that something similar to the Ngati Porou-Gisborne City Council relationship would emerge.

Tracey Whare also mentions pouwhenua instruments and iwi would want to see an exploration of this way of naming and claiming and the possibilities in their coastlines.

It seems likely that those iwi that succeed in gaining marine customary title will have a well established and good relationship with their local councils. It might be said that for co-governance to work then a degree of shared social capital, a history of respect between the parties will be required.

The Bill restores right of access to the courts. It establishes a new ‘customary marine title’ in the ‘common space’ that iwi and hapu may seek to have recognised in court. However to establish the title iwi would have to prove continuous use of the relevant area since 1840. Because the ability of some iwi to use the foreshore since 1840 has been taken away or limited by actions of the Crown it is going to be very difficult for it to meet the test. It might be said that this is a cynical test, a test almost impossible to meet as many or most iwi and hapu have been denied undisturbed possession since 1840.

So while proper legal process, due process, as it were, has been restored this has been done in a way that maintains the basic inequality of access.

Regarding customary rights iwi would want to consult with the Crown about the definitions of the meaning of protected customary rights from Clause 53 onward.
The explanatory note to the Bill states that “the mana tuku iho of iwi and hapū is explicitly recognised in the Bill”, though the only reference to mana tuku iho in the Bill is contained in Clause 4, which sets out the purpose of the legislation. Mana tuku iho is very important and the Bill could have referred to the points below.

A very important part of mana tuku iho is intellectual property. There is very little in the Bill applying to the ownership of flora (cf Wai262) and nor is there much on such matters as copyright or intellectual property generally.

Another matter not discussed or referred to in the Bill is that of pouwhenua. These are markers of mana and are very important. It is hoped by iwi that factors like this are considered as the Bill is read in the House.

Research and the processes involved in research such as permissions to proceed and agreements to follow tikanga as well as blessings at the outset of research are very important to iwi. Also the science involved in the research is something that iwi would want to peruse and comment upon. Research on the coastal marine area is not discussed at any length in the Bill.

Similar points might be made about policing of resources and measurement of health indices on the foreshore and seabed (cf Tipa and Tierney 2006). Iwi would want to have mana and standing in these areas.

Mana tuku iho ki a Rangitaane applies to all matters in the Bill to do with wāhi tapu protection rights, protection of wāhi tapu and wāhi tapu areas, wāhi tapu conditions, the appointment of wardens and the implementation and enforcement of wāhi tapu conditions. It also applies to ngā taonga tūturu, new found treasures from the past or from the present.

Mana tuku iho is also very important in planning documents. Iwi would want editorial input and rights to create and assist with prefaces and conclusions using their own sayings and metaphors as they see fit. 

There is a lot in the detail of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, 2010. While not all clauses and details are considered a fair number are and the intention is to respond to the sweep of the Bill through its minutiae.
To quote from the opening paragraph of the Bill;
‘The (the Bill) repeals the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) and restores the customary interests extinguished by that Act.’
It is important to recall the history prior to 2004 and how complex the matter of customary title has been. It is going much too far to say that the Bill restores customary interests. It promises that but the tests and conditions are in fact prohibitive.
The Introduction and the Bill itself emphasise words and phrases like ‘public right’ and ‘commons’.
This theme is continued in the discussion of access;
‘The Bill explicitly continues rights of public access in, on, over, and across the common marine and coastal area. It also provides that nothing in the Bill affects existing commercial, recreational, and customary fishing rights and it preserves rights of navigation in the area. These rights of public access, fishing, and navigation are subject only to restrictions authorised by legislation.’

At the same time the Government says it is interested in equity for all and has sought in the proposed new legislation to arrive at a ‘regime that equitably balanced all interests in the foreshore and seabed’.

Looking at the Bill on a clause by clause basis some provisions like those of Clause 11 remain to be seen. This is one of the new parts of the legislation and is apparently based on Canadian law. There is very little precedent for this law in New Zealand and iwi would like to see and understand local precedents and ways in which the common marine and coastal area (the cmca) would operate.

Clause 12 might work so that interest groups such as Forest and Bird acted quickly to vest areas ahead of iwi. While Orders in Council might not be permitted once customary marine title had been given there might be a rush to secure areas as reserves and the like so preventing iwi from making application. The recommendation of the Mister of Conservation applies and hopes that this office might not be subverted by interest groups.

Iwi would want to see more detail on Clause 13. This pertains to accretions and erosion

Clause 15 is to be welcomed. This restores any customary interests in the cmca and gives them legal expression in accordance with this Act. However this is just the first step and there is a lot more to be done to give iwi proper standing in terms of the foreshore and seabed.
Clause 16 pertains to roads and this area seems messy and potentially conflict ridden

Iwi might take extreme issue with Clause 17. Iwi might want ownership of all minerals in or on the foreshore and seabed of the coastline.
Iwi might want to see more detail on Clause 18 which provides that, in certain cases, parts of the marine and
coastal area become part of the cmca.

Regarding Clauses 19 and 20 iwi would want to see protection of their rights regarding structures to be very clearly set out. The Bill says;
‘Structures that have been abandoned will vest in the Crown so that it can ensure that health and safety laws are complied with.’
Iwi would want all aspects of this process to be very well clarified so that members were not disadvantaged in any way.

Regarding Clause 20 the titles in which structures are registered with the councils would need to be assessed regarding iwi interest in them.

Regarding Clauses 23 and 24 iwi would want to be kept appraised of anything to do with changes in freehold title.
Iwi would want to be appraised of any ways in which claims might be prevented including through adverse possession and prescriptive title.

Clauses 25, 26 and 18 would seem to strengthen the hand of the Minister of Conservation. Redress cannot be sought, under this Bill, via the courts.

Iwi would want more detail on the ways in which clauses 27 and 78 would work regarding access and waahi tapu.

Regarding Clause 28 iwi would want more detail on exactly how navigation in an area of customary marine title and elsewhere would work.

Clause 30 also increases the power of the Minister of Conservation. Iwi would want to look at such governance models as that put forward in the recent Report of the Land and Water Forum (2010:48). In this model the Iwi works with the Minister in the first instance.

Regarding Clause 31 iwi would want input into the monitoring of structures. By whose definition might structures threaten the environment?

Clauses 32-47 apply to reclaimed land. Iwi would want more clarity around reclaimed land from their point of view. This especially applies to reclaimed land gaining freehold title as discussed in Clauses 45-47. Iwi welcome the moves in the Bill regarding reclaimed land but would like to see more input in the planning process before the land is reclaimed.

To encourage development, the Bill provides that land reclaimed from the common marine and coastal area will vest in the Crown and the reclaimer of the land can apply to the responsible Minister for a fee simple title or other interest in the land (for example, a leasehold or coastal permit). Anyone who plans to sell a fee simple title in reclaimed land will be required, first, to offer it to the Crown.

If the Crown decides not to acquire the reclaimed land, the seller will then be required to offer it to any iwi and hapu that exercise customary authority in the area. Once these rights of refusal have been exhausted, the owner of the reclamation will be able to sell it to any third party. Iwi would want to be appraised of every step in this process.

Clauses 48-59 set out the full extent of the legal rights and interests that arise from customary interests in the common marine and coastal area. These Clauses were considered above. Customary rights would have to be exhaustively defined rather than simply being those such as launching waka and gathering hāngi stones that were exercised in 1840. The Bill argues that these customary rights are not exclusionary and do not stop others from legitimately carrying out activities. Iwi would want to explore this argument thoroughly.

Clauses 49-52 deal with iwi and hapu participation in conservation processes in common marine and coastal areas. Iwi would want more detail on these clauses and would want to see the Minister working with the iwi in the first instance as seen in the model set out in the Report of the Land and Water Forum (2010:48).

Regarding Clause 57 iwi would want control over petroleum resources and disputes all clauses in the Bill such as this which would cede absolute ownership if any given mineral resource or the power to grant licences for exploration of such resources to the Crown.

Clauses 60-91 pertain to customary marine title groups. The comments made above on customary marine title apply here especially those references in the commentary on the Ngati Porou situation by Tracey Whare.

Iwi have grave misgivings about the concept of nationalized minerals and would welcome debate on this topic. The matter is set out in Clauses 82- 3 and one way forward might be a thoroughgoing review of the Crown Minerals Act 1992.

Clauses 84-91 regarding planning documents are very important to iwi. Access to all facets of planning documents at councils is critical in iwi planning and planning document processes.

Matters to do with recognition of customary interests as discussed in Clauses 92-5 and including Orders in Council are of the utmost significance to iwi and would need to be carefully followed and perused at every stage.

While the Bill removes the idea of vesting the foreshore and seabed in the Crown it still takes Iwi and Hapu interests and vests them in a new construct called a ‘common space’ in the marine and coastal area. The 2004 Act amounted to a confiscation. As far as many iwi are concerned this confiscation remains in place because it is still a taking from iwi and hapu. Where iwi land had been vested in the Crown before it is now vested in a common space.

Regarding rules around the common space the Crown says that on the one hand it is a common space no-one owns and on the other it outlines in great detail the authority and control the Crown has over it. For example there are specific provisions for absolute Crown ownership of certain minerals in the ‘common space’ with the associated power to grant licenses for those minerals. The Bill asserts Crown ownership rights over an area that no-one is supposed to own.

Iwi would be concerned if there were differences in access to the foreshore and seabed that discriminated against them. While iwi have always been willing to allow access there is an expectation that people without iwi affiliations in similar situations be required to do the same. Under the Bill they do not have to do so, which thus maintains the basic inequality of obligation set out in the 2004 legislation.

There may be difficulty with the setting of time limits in applications for recognition orders as set out in Clauses 98 to 107. The Bill sets a time frame of six years for Maori to prove their so-called ‘customary title’. This would seem to imply that a right or interest can only exist if people can establish it within a certain time limit. Rights are meant to be universal and their universality depends upon them being free of time constraints. Iwi may see this as introducing another discriminatory process applicable only to Maori.

Regarding customary marine title there would seem to be wide variations amongst iwi and hapu around the country. While direct negotiations can be held with the Crown they will in practice only be available to those few iwi and hapu that can meet the relevant test. Under the tests proposed most Maori will not have customary marine title and the proposed legislation will therefore be divisive and create further inequalities. A given iwi could be left with a situation where the iwi to the north and south have arrangements regarding customary rights and customary marine title at variance with those that that the iwi itself has.

There is a curious use of the word ‘exclusive’ in the Bill. It is alright for an iwi or hapu to have had exclusive rights in the past. In fact they need to demonstrate this to get ‘customary marine title’. But once they have got ‘customary marine title’ then they do not have exclusive rights.

Iwi would want to explore with the Crown the implications of the coastline being a commons. This will involve a great deal of detail ranging from that pertaining to structures and reclaimed land to that involving the differences between any privately owned land and the proposed common space. There will also be a need to state the iwi’s ownership of mineral resources, navigational matters and other things mentioned above.

Proceeding from this the iwi would want to explore with the Crown the national implications of a commons around the whole of New Zealand including places like the Chatham Islands and Stewart Island (except for that part of the foreshore currently held by others under private title). Will, for example, iwi be included in matters of national significance to the coastline and have membership on appropriate committees?

Iwi would like to explore with the Crown the implications of customary rights and the implications of customary marine title for Rangitaane in this area and the possibilities and probabilities involved. As argued in Section To above this might mean a much more detailed arrangement with local or regional Councils. Again a reference might be made to the model set out in Report of the Land and Water Forum (2010:48) and would like to see the Minister working with the Iwi in the first instance.

Iwi would want to be clear about the Crown’s understanding of mana tuku iho in Clause Four. A number of serious examples were given above in Section Three and it is hoped to see more in the Bill on mana tuku iho as it proceeds through its readings.

Iwi would want to be very clear about all tests set out or implied in this Bill. This includes any and all arrangements to do with and variations from the threshold test of no substantial interruption

Iwi would want to have a clear shared understanding with the Crown on the Bill on a clause by clause basis so that the way these operated with respect to the Manawatu coastline was known to both parties. A large number of points were raised in Section Four on this matter and the expression ‘The Devil is in the detail’ comes to mind. As suggested in Section Two there will need to be a degree of shared social capital, of trust between parties over a period of time for such matters as abandoned structures and reclaimed land to be properly worked through.

A general query is whether the Bill is just and fair to all concerned. The answer is that the Bill is mixed. Many iwi do not, as yet understand and agree with the idea of a commons on the coastline and around the country. They are not in the position of, say, the Hapu of Ngati Porou, where the customary marine title and the steps involved to get it are well set out and achievable, The same applies to customary rights. Complicating matters is the question of new and untried law.

Another general query is about title. Throughout its course the Bill seems to treat Maori interests as a lesser form of title than freehold title.

A final general query is whether the Bill removes the injustice of the 2004 legislation or does the Bill actually compound it. It would be of concern if the proposed Bill actually consolidated the main inequities of the 2004 Seabed and Foreshore Act. The Waitangi Tribunal found that Act to be problematic in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination held it to be racially discriminatory.

Review
The above is a walk through a conversation and there are no clear conclusions except to say how interesting a lot of the literature on water in Aotearoa/New Zealand is. The literature on guardianship and heritage is also important and across the board there seems to be an academic attitude in Aotearoa/ New Zealand that sets this conversation aside from others around the world. Having said that, a great many global issues are to be found in the writings discussed above. 
Bibliography
Barnes, A. 2006 Citing Whaia te Mahere Taiao a Hauraki: Hauraki Environmental Plan (16/06/2006) Submission made by Alex Barnes Resource Consent Number 102909 by Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd for the Discharge to the Manawatu River of Milk Processing Wastewater and Condensate Cooling Water from their Longburn Factory.

Barton, Chris 2006 Iwi wrangle takes a new turn, New Zealand Herald, Dec 1

Barton, Chris 2007 When history is on trial, New Zealand Herald, March 17

Bennett, April 2010 Uncharted Waters- recent settlements as new spaces for enhancing Maori participation in fresh-water management and decision making in Selby, Moore and Mulholland, 2010: 175-184

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, Building Resilience for Complexity and Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Brown, Michael F. 2003.Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

Cheyne, C.M. and Tawhai, V.M.H. 2007 He Wharenoa Te Rakau, Ka Mahue Maori Engagement with local government. Knowledge, Experience and Recommendations, Palmerston North, Massey University

Cleave, Peter 2009 Iwi Station, Campus Press

Cleave, Peter 2009 Takutai, the foreshore and seabed, Campus Press

Cunningham, B.T, Moar, N. T, Torrie, A.W, Parr, P.J, (1953) A survey of the western coastal dune lakes of the North Island, New Zealand. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 4(2): 343-386

Death, F., and R. G. Death. 2005. River Health of the Manawatu-Wanganui Region. Massey University

Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B.J., Acheson, J.M., 1990. The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18 (1), 1–19.

Findlayson, Chris, Attorney General, Press Release of 6 September 2010

Flavell Te Ururoa, 2010 Speech to Tapu te Ranga Feb

Goldsmith, M 2003;280-294, Culture, for and against: patterns of “culturespeak” in New Zealand, in Van Mejl and Goldsmith

Goldsmith, Michael 2005 Culture in Safety and in Danger. In Michèle D. Dominy and Laurence M. Carucci (eds), Special Issue: Critical Ethnography in the Pacific: Transformations in Pacific Moral Orders. Anthropological Forum 15(3): 257-265

Goldsmith, M. 2009 Who owns native nature? Discourses of rights to land, culture, and knowledge in New Zealand. International Journal of Cultural Property, 16, 325-339

Gould, John D, 1992 'Maori' in the population census 1971-1991, New Zealand Population Review, 18

Gould, John D, 1992 'Maori' in the population census 1971-1991, New Zealand Population Review, 18

Harmsworth, G.R, Barclay, Kerr, K, Reedy, T (2002a) Maori Sustainable Development in the 21st Century: the importance of Maori values, strategic planning and information systems, He Puna Korero, Journal of Maori and Pacific Development

Harmsworth, G.R. (2002) Indigenous concepts, values and knowledge for sustainable development: New Zealand Case Studies, Presentation at the 7th Joint Conference, Preservation of Ancient Cultures and the Globalization Scenario

Hingston, Ken 2006 Foreshore and Seabed in Mulholland 2006
James, Colin 2010 in the Dominion Post on Sep 13th

Ka’ai, Tania 2008 The Role of Maori in Tertiary Education Institutions Te Kaharoa Vol 1 No 1

Levi-Strauss, C 1968 The Savage Mind (Nature of Human Society) University of Chicago Press

Kawharu, I.H. 1977 Maori Land Tenure; Studies of a Changing Institution, Oxford University Press

Kawharu, Merata 2010 Environment as a marae locale in Selby, Moore and Mulholland

Kymlicka, W 1995 Multicultural Citizenship: a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, New York, Oxford: Clarendon Press

McDonald, Laurence 1995 Film as a Battleground: Social space, gender conflict and other issues in Once Were Warriors. In Illusions 24 Spring: 15-23

Moore, P. 2006 Submission by Pataka Moore: Resource Consent Number 102909 by Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd for the Discharge to the Manawatu River of Milk Processing Wastewater and Condensate Cooling Water from their Longburn Factory.
Mulholland, Malcolm and contributors, 2006 State of the Maori Nation; twenty first century issues in Aotearoa, Reed

Mutu, Margaret 2010 Ngati Kahu kaitiakitanga in Selby, Moore and Mulholland (13-36)

Neocosmos, Michael, 2006 From Foreign Natives to Native Foreigners: explaining xenophobia in contemporary South Africa, Dakar: Codesria

Nikora, T.R. 2000 Ko wai a Tuhoe? A Report for the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements.
Park, G. (1995) Nga Ururoa (the groves of life)- ecology and history in a New Zealand Landscape, Victoria University Press, Wellington

Pocock, J.G.A. 1967 The History of Political Thought: a Methodological Enquiry in Philosophy, Politics and Society, Runciman and Laslett, Basil Blackwell, Oxford

Ruru, Jacinta 2009 The legal voice of Maori in Freshwater Governance. A Literature Review, Lincoln University, Landcare Research

Salmond, A. 1978 Te Ao Tawhito: A Semantic Approach to the Traditional Maori Cosmos. Journal of the Polynesian Society Vol. 87 no1 166-167

Selby R, Moore P, Mullholland, M 2010 Maaori and the environment:Kaitiaki Huia Publishers
Taylor, C 1992 Multiculturalism and the “Politics of Recognition”, Princeton, Princeton University Press

Smith, Cheryl Te Waerea, 1993 ‘The natives are restless’ in Murphy, T (ed). Treaty of Waitangi Flora and Fauna Claim (Wai 262).

Stokes, Jon 2007 Waitangi Judge Slams 'Insulting' Treatment, New Zealand Herald Mar 17

Tapsell, P 1998 Taonga: A Tribal Response to Museums, D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford

Tipa, Gail and Tierney, Laurel (April 2006) A cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways: a tool for nationwide use A Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment

Turia, Tariana, March 27 2010 ‘Restorative Justice: turning the tide’ speech to National Restorative Justice Aotearoa Practitioners Conference
Brentwood Hotel, Kilbirnie, Wellington

Van Meijl, Toon, 2003:260-279 Conflicts of Redistribution in Contemporary Maori Society: Leadership and the Tainui Settlement In Van Meijl and Goldsmith

Van Meijl, Toon and Goldsmith Michael, Postcolonial dilemmas: reappraising justice and identity in New Zealand and Australia , Journal of the Polynesian Society, Volume 112, September 2003, No3

Van Meijl, Toon and Goldsmith, Michael, 2003: 205-218 Introduction: Recognition, Redistribution and Reconciliation in Postcolonial Settler Societies. In Van Meijl and Goldsmith

Walker 1991 Ka whawhai tonu matou: struggles without end, Penguin Books

Whare, Tracey, 2010: 59-75 The Foreshore and Seabed Act: Five years on, where to from here? in Maori and the environment:Kaitiaki Edited Selby, Moore andf Mulholland
Huia Publishers

Zemgulys, Andrea 2008 Modernism and the Locations of Literary Heritage. Pp. viii + 248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

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
48

Personals and Possessives

Te kai a te tangata.
The food of the person.

Te waka o te tangata.
The canoe of the person.

We could unpack personals and possessives,

taa taaua kai, our (two people) food (singular- one item of food)

aa taaua kai, our (two people) food (plural)

aa taatou kai- our ( more than two people) food

too taaua whenua, our (two people) land

oo taaua whenua, our (two people) lands

oo taatou whenua- our (more than two people inclusive) lands


So our Box might be between the Personal Box and the Possessive Box.

A Mind Map might show dominance and subordinance, singular and plural.

A Poster on the wall could use arrows to show relationships.

Ko te kai a te rangatira
ko te koorero.

Talk is the food of chiefs.

So we now have two Possessive Boxes, one for means of transport which takes o and one boxf or food or things you control which take a.
More Possessive Boxes to follow...