Thursday March 10th

Environment Aotearoa 9 Co-governance




Co- management and Co-governance

Whatever solution is taken up by government regarding the foreshore and seabed there will probably be power sharing of some kind. The most desirable aspect for many iwi might be a form of co-governance or co-management.
A set of important elements of co-management arrangements are set out in a Local Government New Zealand publication entitled Co-management case studies involving local authorities and Maori (2007). These include the acknowledgement of iwi history and circumstances, common goals and objectives, strong leadership and the importance of planning.
When defining co-management the 2007 document says it describes decision-making processes where more than one party is involved in this process. There is a continuum from minimal involvement of an interested party to devolution of power to an interested party. At the lower end of the continuum the community is informed about decisions already made. This might progress to communication, consultation, co-operation and then the participation in advisory committees, management boards and finally in partnership or community control at the higher end of the continuum.
Some of the things that might be seen on a co-management continuum would be points of benefit for both parties, aspiration building processes, information sharing and partnership, testing and policing.

At the half way point there is, perhaps, communication involving the start of two way information exchange with local concerns beginning to enter management plans.
At all points on the continuum social capital is involved. A great deal of the discussion of social capital below is to do with co-governance but many of the arguments involved apply also to co-management and a high degree of social capital might be found at the level of shared responsibility, partnership or information sharing.
Putnam (1993) talks of social capital and the performance of public institutions. Yasao gives the following definition;
the institutionalised participation of citizens, such as through administrative evaluation, elections, information disclosure, omsbudsman systems and referenda systems at the local level comprises this medium for the physical materialisation of social capital.
Takao, Y 2006:2
A number of contributors have sought to refine the explanation of determinants for social capital formation. Fukuyama and Putnam see the origins of social capital in centuries of cultural evolution and both argue that government policies hardly contribute to social capital formation (Putnam 1993, Fukuyama, 1995). Others argue that social capital formation can be produced and accumulated in a rather short period of time to solve the problems of political and economic development (Fox 1994, Brown and Ashman 1996, Lowndes, Stoker, Pratchett, Leach and Wingfield 1998).
There are many examples of co-management and co-governance from around the world. The treaty system in Poland is one such example. The United Nations has had a strong interest in the area for some time as shown in the first case study discussed below to do with the importance of such leaders as mayors.
Peter Hall (1999, 2002:21-57) specifically emphasises the importance of government policies in influencing levels of social capital. In his view the case of post WWII Britain demonstrates that government policies which emphasised social policy and egalitarian education policy were able to maintain the level of existing social capital.
A key factor which would explain variation in stocks of social capital across localities and countries is the degree of both social inequality among citizens in the act of co-operation and political inequality among citizens in meeting public demand (Boix and Posner 1998: 688).
Part of social capital formation is the sharing of respect for differing world views and value systems. It is important that any consultative committee for co-management or co-governance recognises where the values and priorities of management varies from Maori to European world views and vice versa.
One example of social inequality and differing world view involves environmental risk due to erosion and pollution. Dymond and Shepherd (2006) suggest that 500 of 5000 farms in the Manawatu contribute nearly half of the sediment going into the Manawatu River. There are few Maori farm owners involved as the percentage of Maori farm ownership in the Manawatu generally is not high. This is comparable to Maori ownership of farms near the foreshore and seabed around the country.
In fact, Maori have little or no say in the farming community. It is also possible, given the earnings of farmers generally in this country to suggest that there are differences of a socio-economic kind between these farmers and the rest of the population including Maori.
With the differences above in mind co-governance or co-management of the water quality in the Manawatu River involves the management of the 500 farmers who discharge nearly half of the sediment into the river. Following the readings above, to do this effectively social capital would need to be created between Maori and the group of farmers involved in order for people to listen to one another.
Another way to look at this might be to suggest that the local council or some other quasi-governmental agency forms a bridge between the two groups. In some ways though this approach also involves social capital as all parties in such a serious matter need to know and trust one another.
It is also important when considering such examples as that of Dymond et alia above to suggest that the consultative committee on co-management note that strategies involve varying scientific views. The iwi have a scientific model.
The kind of environmental co-management sought by Maori must not only be defined in ecological or environmental terms. Co-management of the kind desired must also relate to indigenous cultures and the models and examples of government found in those cultures.
This might be taken to a higher plane. In the resource management context co-management involves the resource manager involving the community in decision making. In some situations this means sharing power and decision making with the community.
Co-management and co-governance may mean some sharing of responsibility for a resource between the resource manager and the community. It also involves drawing on a range of knowledge systems, including local knowledge to inform management and focussing on negotiation and consensus rather than adversarial approaches.
A recent study by a local bodies group (Local Government New Zealand, 2007) showed that in New Zealand twenty four percent of local authorities interpreted co-management on a spectrum of involvement. This includes a high level of control by Maori (for example where Maori have authority and control over a resource or have the ability to have a casting vote on a committee that manages the asset). Also included is the situation where an equal local authority/Maori level of control (for example where local authority and Maori jointly collaborate and assist with input into a local authority led process).
As well as these situations there is that where there is a low level of Maori involvement (for example where Maori are assured opportunities to input into a local authority process in what could be called enhanced consultation).
At the other extreme there is mention in the 2007 document of a Maori owned resource with local authority involvement in management. The case study of Lake Horowhenua discussed below might afford an example of this.
We need co-management in New Zealand as there are different cultures with different connections and responsibilities to the land. Conflicting world views also result in differing understandings of the level of participation and ownership.
It might be asked whether there is an existing framework in NZ for co-management? If not it might then be asked who might supply the methods or incentives to do so or how this might happen. Is this a question of local or national government? The questions raised above about social capital would seem to apply here and across the board in discussions of co-management and co-governance.
Closer to home than some of the field work undertaken by the commentators above is Tuvalu. This small Pacific island state is an interesting and important case. There are issues of self government and issues of environmental risk. The title of Michael Goldsmith’s work in this area is salutary; Theories of governance and Pacific microstates: The cautionary tale of Tuvalu (Goldsmith 2003a).
Goldsmith questions the popularity of governance frameworks in explaining development failures and proposing new models of development for Pacific states. Other work by Goldsmith on the use of terms like bi-culturalism and his cautionary thoughts on how terms like this can become different to their original meaning may apply to ‘co-governance’ and ‘co-management’(Goldsmith 2003b).
Regarding the last two terms, co-governance and co-management, the latter is a milder version of the former. At least that is the way it seems at first. Co-management though is a matter of exercising power clearly and effectively with another party and this is an exacting process. The devil, as they say, is in the detail.
With the theoretical points above in mind, next week a set of case studies in co-management and co-governance will be presented.
Bibliography
Adler, P & Kwon, S W 2002, "Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept", Academy of Management Review, 27(1).
Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development
27, 629–649.
Aldridge, S, Halpern, D & Fitzpatrick, S 2002, Social Capital: A Discussion Paper, London: Performance and Innovation Unit
Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4), 216–224.
Bailey, S 1999, Local Government Economics: Principles and Practice, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Beck, P., 2000. Collaboration and credible commitments: experiments with collaborative resource management in Uganda, Paper presented at the 2000 meeting of the International Association for the Society of Common-pool Property (IASCP), May 31–June 4, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Bekesi, G. (1996) Nitrate-Nitrogen in Horowhenua Groundwater, Manawatu- Wanganui Regional Council, May, 1996.
Berkes, F., 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspective from the bottom up, in: Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsˇak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S., Weber, E.U. (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 293–321.
Berkes, F., George, P., Preston, R., 1991. Co-management: the evolution ofthe theory and practice of joint administration of living resources. Alternatives 18 (2), 12–18.
Berkes, F., Davidson-Hunt, I., Davidson-Hunt, K., 1998. Diversity ofcommon property resource use and diversity of social interests in the western Indian Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 18, 19–33.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems, Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bird, Jon, Curtis, Barry, Putnam, Tim, Robertson,
George and Tickner, Lisa, eds 1993 Mapping the
future; local cultures and global change Routledge
London New York

Boix, C & Posner, D 1998, "Social Capital: Explaining its Origins and Effects on Government Performance", British Journal of Political Science, 28(4).
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., 1996. Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context IUCN, Gland (Switzerland) http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/tailor.html.
Bourdieu, P 1986, "The Forms of Capital", in John Richardson (ed), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press.
Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A., Zerner, C., 1998. Representing communities:histories and politics of community-based resource management. Society and Natural Resources 11, 157–168.
Brown, D & Ashman, D 1996, "Participation, Social Capital, and Intersectoral Problem
Burger, J., Ostrom, E., Norgaard, R.B., Policansky, D., Goldstein, B.D., 2001. Protecting the Commons. A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Campbell, Tracy 1996, Co-management of Aboriginal Resources, Information North Vol 22. No 1, March, Arctic Institute of North America
Carlsson, L, Berkes, F Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 65–76 74
Carlsson, L., 2000. Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies Journal 28 (3), 502–520.
Carlsson, L., 2003. Managing commons across levels of organizations, in: Berge, E., Lars C. (Eds.), Commons Old and New, Proceedings from a workshop on Commons: Old and new, Centre for Advanced Study, Oslo 11–13, March 2003, pp. 23–34.
Cash, D.W., Moser, S.C., 2000. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10 (2), 109–120.
Cleave, Peter, 1997 Rangahau pae iti kahurangi; research in a small world of light and shade, Campus Press, Palmerston North
Cleave, Peter 2009 Starting Points, Campus Press, Palmerston North
Cleave, Peter 2011 Takutai, the foreshore and seabed, Second Edition Campus Press
Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Olsson, P., 2003. Living with disturbance: building resilience in social-ecological systems, in: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 163–185.
Dymond, J.R., Ausseil, A-G., Shepherd, J.D., Buettner, L. (2006). Validation of a regionwide landslide risk model. Geomorphology, 74, pp 70-79.
Dymond, J., Shepherd, J. (2006). Highly erodible land in the Manawatu/Wanganui region. Landcare Research contract report 0607/027 (September 2006). 10pp
Fukuyama, F 1995, Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, London:Hamish Hamilton.
Gant, J, Ichniowski, C & Shaw, K 2002, "Social Capital and Organisational Change in High-Involvement and Traditional Work Organizations", Journal of Economics
and Management Strategy, 11(2).
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.
Goldsmith, M 2003a Theories of governance and Pacific microstates: The cautionary tale of Tuvalu in Asia Pacific Viewpoint Volume 46 Issue 2 Victoria University of Wellington
Goldsmith, M 2003b, pp280-294, 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
Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.), 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Hall, P 1999, "Social Capital in Britain", British Journal of Political Science, 29(3). Contemporary Society, New York: Oxford University Press.
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
Hasegawa, K 2003, Kankyo Mondai to Atarashii Kokyoken (Environmental Problems and a New Public Sphere), Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K., 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10, 328–337.
Ife, Jim (1995) Community Development: creating community alternatives- vision, analysis and practice, Longman, Melbourne
Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management 24 (4), 449–465.
Ka'ai, Tania 2004 Te mana o te tangata whenua: Indigenous assertions of sovereignty. In: Ki te whaiao: An introduction to Mäori culture and society. Pearson Education, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 181-189.
Kawachi, I, Kennedy, B, & Glass, R 1999, "Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: A Contextual Analysis", American Journal of Public Health, 89(8
Kawharu, Merata 2010 Environment as a marae locale in Selby, Moore and Mulholland
Khulmann, Carola and Cleave, Peter 2000 ‘Language and Mutual Aid’, in Cleave (edit) The Nurturing Shield pp159-176 Campus Press
Kim, K 2005, "Social Capital and the Role of Local Government: A Virtuous Cycle between Institution and Culture", Journal of Public Policy Studies, 5.
Kymlicka, W 1995 Multicultural Citizenship: a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, New York, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Kymlicka, W 2001 Politics in the vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Little, A., 2002. The Politics of Community. Theory and Practice. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Macpherson, C.B. 1962 The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. London: Oxford University Press (cited in Goldsmith 2009: 327)
Mutu, Margaret 2010 Ngati Kahu kaitiakitanga in Selby, Moore and Mulholland (13-36)
Plummer, R., FitzGibbon, J., 2004. Some observations on the terminology in co-operative environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 70, 63–72
Pomeroy, R.S., Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21, 465–480.
Putnam, R 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Robinson, L, Schmid, A, & Siles, M 2002, "Is Social Capital Really Capital?" Review of Social Economy, 60(1).
Ruru, Jacinta 2009 The legal voice of Maori in Freshwater Governance. A Literature Review, Lincoln University, Landcare Research
Taylor, C 1992 Multiculturalism and the “Politics of Recognition”, Princeton, Princeton University Press Tipa G, Tierney L (2005a) A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways- Applying the CHI Framework to the Hakatere (Ashburton River): a Different River Type (unpublished)
Tipa G, Tierney L (2005b) A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways- Applying the CHI Framework to the Tukituki River: a Different Iwi (unpublished)
Tipa G, Tierney L (February 2006) Using the Cultural Health Index: How to assess the Health of Streams and Waterways Available at;
Scott, J., 1994. Social Network Analysis. Sage, London.
Selby R, Moore P, Mullholland, M 2010 Maaori and the environment:Kaitiaki Huia Publishers
Singleton, S., 1998. Constructing Cooperation: the Evolution of Institutions of Comanagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Toonen, A.J 2009 The unitary state as a system of co-governance: the case of the Netherlands Public Administration Volume 68 Issue 3 Pages 281 - 296 Blackwell Publishing
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
Warren, Kay, B. and Jackson, Jean E., (Eds) 2003, Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, University of Texas Press
Winiata, W. (2000) Some thoughts on managing Mana a hapu and mana a iwi Relationships: The Long Term Survival of the ART Confederation as a Case Study, Te Wananga o Raukawa, Otaki
Woolcock, M 1998, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Towards a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework", Theory and Society, 27.
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
Young, O., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Papers and Policy Documents
Local Authority Engagement with Maori, 2004, Local Government New Zealand publication
Co-management: case studies involving local authorities and Maori, 2007, Local Government New Zealand publication


Written by Peter Cleave

Wednesday March 9th

Environment Aotearoa 8 Kaipara Harbour Mouth




This week Environment Aotearoa leaves the Manawatiu and moves to a Greater Auckland location; the Kaipara Harbour.
Given the move to new territory this is a preliminary kind of discussion.
Let’s start with a comment from an MP from that general area. On 10 February 2011 Labour MP and Te Tai Tokerau candidate Kelvin Davis said the planned construction of two hundred tidal turbines in the Kaipara Harbour overrides the wishes of tangata whenua and other locals, and is the wrong decision.
“It will be impossible to construct 200 turbines the height of the Auckland Farmer’s Building in the Kaipara Harbour without undue impact on the marine environment.
“The sad thing is that there is an alternative solution, which is to construct a wind farm on the Poutu Peninsula, that people could live with,” Kelvin Davis said.
“If the environmental impact of these turbines is such that they kill off the west coast snapper, sharks and maui dolphin and silt up the harbour, who will take responsibility in the future for tearing the turbines out and restoring the harbour to its original state?
“This decision proves the shallowness of the Government’s commitment to protect the foreshore and seabed for everyone.”
Going back to a report by Wayne Thompson on Feruary 8th;
‘More than half a billion dollars will be spent on sinking tidal power turbines to the seabed of the Kaipara Harbour after the approval of New Zealand's first tide-driven power station.
But the Environment Court has set conditions of consent for the project after a year of mediation among four objectors.
The key requirement for applicant Crest Energy is two years of environmental monitoring and evaluation and starting with only three turbines.
The company wants to sink up to 200 turbines off the harbour mouth in a $600 million plan to harness the swift tidal flow to power homes from Albany to Cape Reinga.
It appealed to the court in 2008 when Northland Regional Council allowed only 100 turbines to be sunk.
On Thirsday (Feb 3rd), a final decision was issued by the court, Judge Laurie Newhook and commissioners Ross Dunlop and David Bunting.
They sought to overcome concerns about effects on the North Island's west coast snapper stocks and survival of the rare Maui's dolphin.
Heavy-duty changes to earlier draft conditions were made and they insisted on an adaptive management style for the project to ensure effects were no more than minor.
Crest's evidence was that the project would have no adverse effect on either the snapper fishery or Maui's dolphin breeding, nursing or feeding and that the dolphins rarely ventured into the Kaipara.
The conditions say if results with three turbines satisfy the Northland Regional Council, the company can add up to 17 turbines, provided operation of the 20 turbines is monitored for a year to give sufficient information on the impact on fisheries.
From there, the council will decide whether to allow turbines to be built up in further stages from 20 to 40, then 80 and then to a maximum of 200.
The director-general of conservation wanted the company to monitor operations for three years between going from 20 turbines to 40.
Iwi-based objector Environs Ltd wanted consent refused altogether or at least three years of monitoring after finishing each stage.
Judge Newhook said Crest and the parties worked co-operatively to resolve key issues.
He said the proposal was "very significant in terms of its contribution to power generation and the national economic interest". There was no basis to accept Environ's appeal that the term of consent should be for 10 rather than 35 years, he said.
Crest Energy director Anthony Hopkins last night expressed delight and said the company was now awaiting the consent of the Conservation Minister.’
So there is a green light for Crest and a red light for other parties some of the latter being denizens of the deep.
With the preliminary background above in mind it might be time to ask a few basic questions.
Has this been an easy ride for Crest Energy?
What about the views of Te Uri o Hau, the local iwi?
And what about the idea advanced by Kelvin Davis above that there could just as easily have been a wind farm on the Poutu Peninsular?
Is there a nationwide or West Coast plan here? After Kawhia are we looking at similar ventures at the mouths of the Manukau, Kawhia, Aotea and other harbours?
Most importantly, what about the species concerned? These include tamure and the maui dolphin. Are they at risk and if so to what extent?
Where to from here?


Written by Peter Cleave,

Tuesday March 8th

Commons, Iwi and Councils Environment Aotearoa 7




Environment Aotearoa 7
Commons, iwi and councils
Some things are not being noticed in the Foreshore and Seabed debate.
One is the idea 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 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. And for all that the history of enclosures and commons is not all rosy…
The commons always gives a sense of collective identity though and the scale of all this could change the way we think of ourselves.
At this stage it seems that only the arrangements with Ngati Porou will break the ring of the commons around Aotearoa in any significant way. 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.
Whare seems to suggest that local councils such as that in Gisborne and on the East Coast actually get a lot out of the arrangements with iwi regarding customary title.
It seems as though the arrangement with Ngati Porou will stand regardless of whether the foreshore legislation before parliament at the moment is passed. Whare is referring to the legislation proposed earlier for Ngati Porou itself. There are all sorts of ramifications. One is the way in which redistribution of wealth amongst iwi occurs. The role of councils is not greatly considered in the literature on this topic. A set of readings are given in the bibliography notably Goldsmith and Van Mejl (2003) regarding the local situation and Taylor (1992) and Kymlicka (1995) giving a more general position. In most of the literature there is a central concern with the minority group and the state without a great deal of attention to local and municipal councils.
Should the legislation proceed we will face a commons, the like of which we have not seen in this country and that is a new ball game for environmentalists to be played out and discussed at a later stage. But a commons broken here and there by arrangements between iwi and councils is what we are looking at right now.

Bibliography
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.
Cleave, Peter 2009 Takutai, the foreshore and seabed, Second Edition, Campus Press
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.
Hingston, Ken 2006 Foreshore and Seabed in Mulholland 2006
Honoré, A.M. 1961 “Ownership.” In Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, edited by A.C. Guest, 107–47. Oxford: Clarendon Press (cited in Goldsmith 2009:327)
James, Colin 2010 in the Dominion Post on Sep 13th
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
Macpherson, C.B. 1962 The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. London: Oxford University Press (cited in Goldsmith 2009: 327)
Park, G. (1995) Nga Ururoa (the groves of life)- ecology and history in a New Zealand Landscape, Victoria University Press, Wellington
Tawhai, Veronica W.H. Rawaho, in and out of the environmental engagement loop (Selby, Moore and Mulholland 2010: 77-94)
Taylor, C 1992 Multiculturalism and the “Politics of Recognition”, Princeton, Princeton University Press
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
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



Written by Peter Cleave,

Monday March 7th

Rivers as Sewers
Rivers, once the living space of people in the Manawatu and Horowhenua areas have in many respects become sewers and drains. In their historical introduction to their book Kaitiaki 2010 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 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.
Selby and Moore lend themselves to action research or at least field based research in their use of the marae minute book, careful document development and planning. Their work allows a dynamic approach.
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 in his article in Kaitiaki tells an extraordinary and generally 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 Manawatu 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 abattoirs 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 species; 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.
Footmote
On Feb 1 the Editor of the Manawatu Standard noted in an appropriately scathing editorial that the E-coli levels of the Foxton River Loop were coming in at an astonishingly high level of 4800. The acceptable level is 260.
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.
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
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
Hingston, Ken 2006 Foreshore and Seabed in Mulholland 2006
2010 Environment as a marae locale in Selby, Moore and Mulholland
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
Park, G. (1995) Nga Ururoa (the groves of life)- ecology and history in a New Zealand Landscape, Victoria University Press, Wellington
Ruru, Jacinta 2009 The legal voice of Maori in Freshwater Governance. A Literature Review, Lincoln University, Landcare Research
Selby R, Moore P, Mullholland, M 2010 Maaori and the environment:Kaitiaki Huia Publishers
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



Written by Peter Cleave

Friday March 4th

Environment Aotearoa 5 Details of Foreshore Bill




One feature of the Coastal and Marine Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is 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 Bill has the idea of a coastline that no-one actually owns but which is a shared territory. This is a change 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. There will be a commons but just as there were departures for the nobility in England where the lord of the manor might have been free to hunt foxes every third Saturday while others may only have been allowed to 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. And for all that the history of enclosures and commons is not all rosy…
The commons always gives a sense of collective identity though and the scale of all this could change the way we think of ourselves.
At this stage it seems that only the arrangements with Ngati Porou will break the ring of the commons around Aotearoa in any significant way. 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 Foreshore and Seabed Act) 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.
Whare seems to suggest that local councils such as that in Gisborne and on the East Coast actually get a lot out of the arrangements with iwi regarding customary title.
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 coastline being a common space. 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 in their areas 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 iwi 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 their coastlines 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. There may have been boundary issues but 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. 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 the Manawatu coastline.
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 Wai 262) 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 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. Who controls the use of vehicles and speeding in the cmca?
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 iwi 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. 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 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 of the Bill on a clause by clause basis so that the way these operated with respect to the coastline was known to both parties. The expression ‘The Devil is in the detail’ comes to mind. 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.
In the next edition of Environment Aotearoa reaxtion to the Bill will be discussed.


Written by Peter Cleave

Thursday March 3rd

Enironment Aotearoa 4 Green on the Foreshore?

In January 2011 it all looks a bit daunting on the Coastal and Marine (Takutai) Bill. Labour have withdrawn support. Hone Harawira from the Maori Party seems to have done the same for different reasons and there seems to be unease within the National Party.
John Key has said that if the Bill cannot be passed into law then the status quo will prevail.
Forgotten for some time by the media at large has been the position of the Greens. They say that the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004 needs to be repealed and Maori access to the courts restored.
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.
Does the Green solution apply to both territorial customary rights and to customary rights orders as seen in the Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou case and the Ngati Pahauwera cases? 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?
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 licenses 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.
Patchy as it might be the Green solution to the foreshore and seabed issue might be close to where things end up. Even if the Coastal and Marine(Takutai) Bill is passed early in 2011 the chances of it being amended later seem high. Any such amendments would more than likely be in the direction of what the Greens are talking about.


Written by Peter Cleave
HotakaMarch 3 Thursday
Te Ao Toi
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Shortland Street
Rangahau
He aha te pai o Shortland Street?
Subject of the day
Shortland Street
Analysis
What’s the use of Shortland Street?
tvnz.co.nz/shortland-street-cast/2736630

Wednesday March 2nd

Environment Aotearoa 3 The LAWF 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 last week in mind.
Bisley’s report is very important as it shows the wider context; water in New Zealand is now so important and so scarce in Canterbury now and elsewhere soon that allocation and costs for water are likely. Not only are the waterways threatenening to turn traditional Maori dwelling places into sewers as happened in the Hokio Stream area in the Horowhenua- this will be discussed next week- they are also starting to carry price tags, the effect on Maori remaining to be seen but able to be imagined.
There are two major developments that affect iwi and water in Aotearoa/New Zealand. One is the Coastal and Marine Bill and the second is found in the suggestions of the Land and Water Forum. The former looks at the seas around New Zealand and the second to freshwater on land. They both share an official concern for iwi rights. The introduction to the LAWF report talks about water as a matter of identity for iwi as iwi relate to locale.
The LAWF consists of 58 organisations reducing to a Small Group of 21 and a Plenary. In 2010 the LAWF produced a report and the next step is greater public engagement.
The LAWF does seem to be introducing a new regime for freshwater. There is a call for a national strategy with a guiding document to be known as the National Policy Statement. A non-statutory body a National Land and Water Commission is to be set up on a co-governance basis.
The critical thing is the strategy. Following the Report the strategy will involve more planning on a national basis with a dismantling of a first past the post process for water rights, a transfer system for water rights in accordance with market mechanisms.
The 2010 LAWF is written in something of a naïf style. Things that are blindingly obvious are considered with a childlike wonder. How could we possibly be going without water? And some of the thinking does seem to be naïve as with the discussion of trading water permits in the Executive Summary. The chance of background deals that do not involve a direct cash payment would seem to be high especially in areas like Canterbury where the water resource is limited and competition for such permits would be fierce. Iwi would be in the middle, so to speak of such competition.
Regarding iwi the LAWF report says in the Executive summary;
We have recognized that the relationship between iwi and freshwater is founded in whakapapa, that freshwater is recognized by iwi as a taonga of paramount importance and that kaitiakitanga-the obligation of iwi to be responsible for the wellbeing of the landscape including water and waterways- is intergenerational in nature and has been and may be expressed and even given effect to in many different ways.
This again is naïve. Bisley accepts the equation of Maori with locale blissfully unaware of the writings of Veronica Tawhai discussed last week.
Some of Bisley’s critique of the present situation is correct though. Later in the Executive summary the LAWF Report says;
Iwi, who have a Treaty relationship with the Crown, have no clear path to engage as a partner with Councils.
In fact AlistairBisley’s Report, for such the LAWF Report actually is, can be seen as a search for clear pathways of engagement for iwi with Councils and/or other parties interested in water. The Report is calling for early collaboration and this includes iwi. Bisley is very conscious that iwi are working things out with the Crown as changes are being made to water allocations and limits at the regional council level. In the Executive summary he takes pains to note that one process should not lose sight of the other.


Written by Peter Cleave

Hotaka
March 2
Wed
Te Ao Paho
Kaupapa korero mo te ra
Nga mea wareware
Rangahau
He aha nga mea wareware i te ao paho i te wiki o te Ruwhenua?
Subject of the day
The forgotten things
Analysis
What are the things that have been forgotten in the world of broadcasting in the week of the earthquake?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10709492

Tuesday March 1st

Veronica Tawhai- an excellent article

Veronica W.H. Tawhai has an article in Maori and the Environment; Kaitiaki edited by Selby, Moore and Mulholland and published in 2010 by Huia Press.
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 the words 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 old Maori 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 level. 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). Van Mejl especially of the two seems to follow a straight whanau-hapu-iwi model of distribution and Veronica Tawhai shows some of the other dimensions involved.
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 and 1960s Maori people from outside Auckland used to gather in the Community Centre in Fanshawe Street.
While not emphasizing solutions Tawhai’s work is extremely important. A sense of order, a way to arrange matters between kin is sketched and hinted at within her article. The intricacy of it all is striking.
Bibliography
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
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
Kawharu, Merata 2010 Environment as a marae locale in Selby, Moore and Mulholland
Mutu, Margaret 2010 Ngati Kahu kaitiakitanga in Selby, Moore and Mulholland (13-36)
Selby R, Moore P, Mullholland, M 2010 Maaori and the environment:Kaitiaki Huia Publishers
Tawhai, Veronica W.H. Rawaho, in and out of the environmental engagement loop (Selby, Moore and Mulholland 2010: 77-94)
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

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
Hotaka
March 1 Tues
Te moana me te ngahere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te Ruwhenua ki Otautahi
Rangahau
Nga rangona korero o te ra mo te ruwhenua.
Subject of the day
The earthquake in Christchurch
Analysis
The news of the day about the earthquake.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Christchurch-quake-Still-a-rescue-mission/tabid/423/articleID/200603/Default.aspx

Monday Friday 28th

Environment Aotearoa 1
kaitiakitanga;Merata Kawharu, an important voice
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 that make her marae locale distinctive. 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 to any great extent). A lexicon is involved beginning with tiaki and then on to kaitiaki, manaaki, atawhai and other words (cf 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

or

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. She 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 extensions 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.

The above is from 'Land by Water; a walk through some conversations,' an essay in 'Aotearoa, Papers of Contest' 2010 by Peter Cleave. This book is available through Wheelers Books, Auckland



February 28 Mon
Rangitaanenuirawa
January 3 Mon
Rangitaanenuirawa
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Nga mahi ki Tanenuiarangi o Manawatu Incorporated
Rangahau
He korero mo tena mahi, tena ranei e kitea nei ki TMI.
Subject of the day
Activities at TMI
Analysis
A section by section look at work done at TMI.
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/ -

February Friday 25th

February 25 Friday
Te whare miere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te haere o te Pire Takutai Moana?
Rangahau
He tere rawa atu te haere o te Pire Takutai Moana?
Subject of the day
The progress of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill
Analysis
Has the Foreshore and Seabed Bill been rushed?
Foreshore and Seabed legislation 'rushed' through‎

February Thursday 24th

February 24 Thurs
Te ao toi
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
He aha te pai o nga mea e mohiotia nei hei blogs.
Rangahau
He korero mo te mahi na tena, tena ranei i runga i te ipurangi.
Subject of the day
The value of blogs.
Analysis
A discussion of the work of various people on the internet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogosphere

February Wednesday 23rd

February 23 Wed
Te ao paho
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Iwi Telco
Rangahau
He hokinga whakaaro ki te mahi e mohiotia hei Iwi Telco ki te Tai Tokerau.
Subject of the day
Iwi Telco
Analysis
A return to the discussion of what is known as Iwi Telco in the North.
Iwi consortium plans $9 million Auckland-Whangarei fibre link‎

February Tuesday 22nd

February 22 Tues
Te moana me te ngahere
Te Urewera
Rangahau
No wai Te Urewera? Kei te aha te Karauna me Ngai Tuhoe mo te patai; no wai te Urewera?

Subject of the day
The Urewera
Analysis
What is the Crown and Tuhoe doing about the question; who owns the Urewera?
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid...

February Monday 21st

February 21 Monday
Rangitaanenuirawa
Te mahi mo te petipetii ki Rangitaane Pa
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Rangahau
He aha te mahi e taea nei ki Rangitaane Pa mo te petipeti me ena moumou mea?
Subject of the day
Work on gambling at Rangitaane Pa
Analysis
What is the work being done at Rangitaane Pa about gambling?
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/

February Friday 18th

February 18 Friday
Te whare miere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te pakeke o nga mema Paremata
Rangahau
He pakeke rawa atu etahi o nga mema peremata inaianei?
Subject of the day
The age of parliamentarians
Analysis
Are some parliamentarians too old now?
www.parliament.nz/ -

February Thursday 17th

February 17 Thursday Te ao toi
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Nga whakairo ki Rangitaane Pa
Rangahau
He tirohanga ano i nga whakairo ki Rangitane Pa
Subject of the day
The carvings at Rangitaane Pa
Analysis
Another look at the carvings at Rangitaane Pa
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/

Wednesday February 16th

February 16 Wed
Te ao paho
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Nga niupepa o Papaioea
Rangahau
Te pai ranei o nga niupepe ki Papaioea.
Subject of the day
The newspapers of Palmerston North?
Analysis
The worth of newspapers in Palmerston North.
www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/

February Tuesday 15th

February 15 Tues
Te moana me te ngahere
Me haere tatou ki te kohi kaimoana!
Rangahau
He aha te aha mo te kaimoana i te rohe o Rangitaane ki Manawatu? Kei hea nga wahi tino pai?
Subject of the day
Let’s go gathering shellfish!
Analysis
What’s what with shellfish in the Manawatu? Where are the best places?
www.nzfishing.com/FishingWaters/.../WGTNFishingWaters/ WGTNManawatu.htm –

February Monday 14th

February 14 Mon
Rangitaanenuirawa
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te ao hakinakina ki Rangitaane Pa?
Rangahau
He korero mo te mahi hakinakina na Paora Johansen me Dean Rauhihi ki Rangitaane Pa.
Subject of the day
The sports world at Rangitaane Pa?
Analysis
A discussion of the sports work of Paora Johansen and Dean Rauhihi at Rangitaane Pa.
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/

FRiday February 11th

February 11 Fri Te whare miere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Hone Harawira
Rangahau
E wehe a Hone i te Torangapu Maori?
Subject of the day
Hone Harawira
Analysis
Will Hone leave the Maori Party?
www.maoriparty.org/

February Thursday 10th

February 10 Thurs
Te ao toi
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te Ao Toi i te Pouwhakaata Maori
Rangahau
He aha nga mea pai mo te Ao Toi i te Pouwhakaata Maori?
Subject of the day
The arts on Maori Television?
Analysis
What are the good things about the arts on Maori Television?
www.maoritelevision.com/

February Wednesday 9th

February 9 Wed
Te ao paho
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te Kaea
Rangahau
He aha nga mea pai mo Te Kaea?Subject of the day
Te Kaea
Analysis
What are the good things about Te Kaea?
www.maoritelevision.com/default.aspx?tabid=278

February Tuesday 8th

February 8 Tues
Te moana me te ngahere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te hopua ki Hokowhitu
Rangahau
He aha te ora o te hopua ki Hokowhitu?
Subject of the day
The Hokowhitu Lagoon
Analysis
What is the health of the Hokowhitu Lagoon?
www.pncc.govt.nz › ... › Facilities › Parks and reserves

February 9 Wed
Te ao paho
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te Kaea
Rangahau
He aha nga mea pai mo Te Kaea?Subject of the day
Te Kaea
Analysis
What are the good things about Te Kaea?
www.maoritelevision.com/default.aspx?tabid=278

February 10 Thurs
Te ao toi
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te Ao Toi i te Pouwhakaata Maori
Rangahau
He aha nga mea pai mo te Ao Toi i te Pouwhakaata Maori?
Subject of the day
The arts on Maori Television?
Analysis
What are the good things about the arts on Maori Television?
www.maoritelevision.com/

February 11 Fri Te whare miere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Hone Harawira
Rangahau
E wehe a Hone i te Torangapu Maori?
Subject of the day
Hone Harawira
Analysis
Will Hone leave the Maori Party?
www.maoriparty.org/

February 14 Mon
Rangitaanenuirawa
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te ao hakinakina ki Rangitaane Pa?
Rangahau
He korero mo te mahi hakinakina na Paora Johansen me Dean Rauhihi ki Rangitaane Pa.
Subject of the day
The sports world at Rangitaane Pa?
Analysis
A discussion of the sports work of Paora Johansen and Dean Rauhihi at Rangitaane Pa.
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/

February 15 Tues
Te moana me te ngahere
Me haere tatou ki te kohi kaimoana!
Rangahau
He aha te aha mo te kaimoana i te rohe o Rangitaane ki Manawatu? Kei hea nga wahi tino pai?
Subject of the day
Let’s go gathering shellfish!
Analysis
What’s what with shellfish in the Manawatu? Where are the best places?
www.nzfishing.com/FishingWaters/.../WGTNFishingWaters/ WGTNManawatu.htm –

February 16 Wed
Te ao paho
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Nga niupepa o Papaioea
Rangahau
Te pai ranei o nga niupepe ki Papaioea.
Subject of the day
The newspapers of Palmerston North?
Analysis
The worth of newspapers in Palmerston North.
www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/

February 18 Thursday Te ao toi
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Nga whakairo ki Rangitaane Pa
Rangahau
He tirohanga ano i nga whakairo ki Rangitane Pa
Subject of the day
The carvings at Rangitaane Pa
Analysis
Another look at the carvings at Rangitaane Pa
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/

February 19 Friday
Te whare miere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te pakeke o nga mema Paremata
Rangahau
He pakeke rawa atu etahi o nga mema peremata inaianei?
Subject of the day
The age of parliamentarians
Analysis
Are some parliamentarians too old now?
www.parliament.nz/ -

February 21 Monday
Rangitaanenuirawa
Te mahi mo te petipetii ki Rangitaane Pa
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Rangahau
He aha te mahi e taea nei ki Rangitaane Pa mo te petipeti me ena moumou mea?
Subject of the day
Work on gambling at Rangitaane Pa
Analysis
What is the work being done at Rangitaane Pa about gambling?
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/

February 22 Tues
Te moana me te ngahere
Te Urewera
Rangahau
No wai Te Urewera? Kei te aha te Karauna me Ngai Tuhoe mo te patai; no wai te Urewera?

Subject of the day
The Urewera
Analysis
What is the Crown and Tuhoe doing about the question; who owns the Urewera?
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid...

February 23 Wed
Te ao paho
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Iwi Telco
Rangahau
He hokinga whakaaro ki te mahi e mohiotia hei Iwi Telco ki te Tai Tokerau.
Subject of the day
Iwi Telco
Analysis
A return to the discussion of what is known as Iwi Telco in the North.
Iwi consortium plans $9 million Auckland-Whangarei fibre link‎

February 24 Thurs
Te ao toi
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
He aha te pai o nga mea e mohiotia nei hei blogs.
Rangahau
He korero mo te mahi na tena, tena ranei i runga i te ipurangi.
Subject of the day
The value of blogs.
Analysis
A discussion of the work of various people on the internet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogosphere

February 25 Friday
Te whare miere
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Te haere o te Pire Takutai Moana?
Rangahau
He tere rawa atu te haere o te Pire Takutai Moana?
Subject of the day
The progress of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill
Analysis
Has the Foreshore and Seabed Bill been rushed?
Foreshore and Seabed legislation 'rushed' through‎

February 28 Mon
Rangitaanenuirawa
January 3 Mon
Rangitaanenuirawa
Kaupapa korero mo te ra nei
Nga mahi ki Tanenuiarangi o Manawatu Incorporated
Rangahau
He korero mo tena mahi, tena ranei e kitea nei ki TMI.
Subject of the day
Activities at TMI
Analysis
A section by section look at work done at TMI.
www.rangitaane.iwi.nz/ -