Keen to broaden my horizons, I have been finding the answer – a part of the answer, at least – to the question: What is the Māori world view?
At the heart of te ao Māori is the concept that people are closely connected to the land and everything on it. This connection is expressed through kaitiakitanga – guardianship and protection of the environment.
As tangata whenua (people of the land), Māori see themselves as guardians of the earth, with the responsibility to care for, protect and maintain the environment for generations to come.
That answer was reinforced by the following text which dealt with the matter of Māori and the land.
Māori have strong spiritual bonds to the land, Papatūānuku, the Earth Mother. She provides unity and identity to her people and sustains them. It is important that we protect our land and water from erosion, deforestation and inappropriate land use.
Māori consider that Papatūānuku sustains all life, and that they are spiritually connected to her. This connection is shown when a baby is born and the whenua (after birth) is buried in a sacred site.
Māori regard land, soil and water as taonga (treasures). Māori are the kaitiaki (guardians) of these taonga, which provide a source of unity and identity for tangata whenua (local people).
Anyone familiar with those beliefs – when alerted to a report today in The Press – could be forgiven for imagining an iwi had failed to persuade a judge she should stop a rapacious council from engaging in yet more environmental degradation.
The report was headed
As tangata whenua (people of the land), Māori see themselves as guardians of the earth, with the responsibility to care for, protect and maintain the environment for generations to come.
That answer was reinforced by the following text which dealt with the matter of Māori and the land.
Māori have strong spiritual bonds to the land, Papatūānuku, the Earth Mother. She provides unity and identity to her people and sustains them. It is important that we protect our land and water from erosion, deforestation and inappropriate land use.
Māori consider that Papatūānuku sustains all life, and that they are spiritually connected to her. This connection is shown when a baby is born and the whenua (after birth) is buried in a sacred site.
Māori regard land, soil and water as taonga (treasures). Māori are the kaitiaki (guardians) of these taonga, which provide a source of unity and identity for tangata whenua (local people).
Anyone familiar with those beliefs – when alerted to a report today in The Press – could be forgiven for imagining an iwi had failed to persuade a judge she should stop a rapacious council from engaging in yet more environmental degradation.
The report was headed
Iwi loses High Court challenge against beach vehicle bylaw.
The iwi – bat first blush – had been rebuffed by a judge after presenting its case to protect the beach from damage done by allowing an invasion by non-Maori hoons and petrol-heads and their vehicles.
Wrong.
The Marlborough District Council had adopted a bylaw that came into effect on July 2023.
This aimed to protect the environment by banning vehicles on beaches from the Awatere River to south of the Waima/Ure River, except for in a “yellow zone”.
So what was the iwi’s gripe?
It wants to preserve its customary rights to do something that has not been spelled out.
The Press reports:
Te Rūnanga a Rangitāne o Wairau Trust challenged the lawfulness of the bylaw, and the process of adopting it, in the High Court over two days in May 2024.
Rangitāne o Wairau Group kaiwhakahaere matua (general manager) Corey Hebberd said the decision was disappointing, but the iwi would keep working to secure its customary rights in the area.
In Justice Helen McQueen’s judgment, released on February 3, she dismissed Rangitāne’s claims that the Marlborough District Council consulted with them differently to another iwi with interests in the area, that the council had breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that the decision relied on inaccuracies in a technical report, among other claims.
According to The Press, Rangitāne first expressed concerns to the council in November 2019 about its lack of involvement in the bylaw process.
Furthermore, it said the council misunderstood the iwi’s cultural status in the area.
That’s where we learn of a turf war:
A technical report produced earlier that year had described Ngāti Kuri (Ngāi Tahu) as mana whenua of the area, while Rangitāne was described as having a “longstanding connection” to the area.
The council agreed to draw up a draft bylaw in December 2020, and appointed three commissioners for a panel to hear submissions and make recommendations to the council.
On July 8, 2021, the council offered both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kuri the opportunity to nominate a representative to the panel on the condition the iwi would not be able to make a submission.
Ngāti Kuri nominated a representative, but Rangitāne did not, so that it could make a submission.
Ngāi Tahu wrote a letter to the council in October 2021, to express support for the council’s consultation with Ngāti Kuri and the way it had approached their status.
Justice McQueen said this letter, which was forwarded to the panel, constituted a submission.
That was contrary to the council’s directive that an iwi with a panel representative could not make a submission, and was a breach of legitimate expectation.
However the letter did not have any material effect on the decision, Justice McQueen said. Despite the appearance of bias, the “yellow zone” of the bylaw was more in Rangitāne’s favour.
Justice McQueen further said the technical report was not heavily relied upon by the panel. Any misrepresentation of Rangitāne’s cultural claim to the area therefore was also immaterial.
Furthermore, she dismissed the claim that the bylaw was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, saying the council had met its treaty obligations as set out in the Local Government Act.
Justice McQueen agreed the council extensively consulted with Rangitāne before public notification of the bylaw process and until the bylaw was passed.
“It is concerning that Rangitāne had to make first contact with the council to seek information on November 29, 2019, however I consider this was cured by the council’s subsequent conduct,” Justice McQueen said.
“The opportunities for Rangitāne to participate in the decision-making went far beyond that afforded to the rest of the community.”
The Press has reported Corey Hebberd saying:
“We took this legal step to ensure our people’s ability to access sites of cultural significance could continue, and to preserve our rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we will continue to work to achieve that outcome,” he said.
“We have fought for many years to protect our rights and interests as kaitiaki and tangata whenua of this area, and it is disappointing that we still find ourselves in this position today.”
Hebberd said the iwi did not disagree the area was a “special place” that needed to be protected.
“But that needs to be balanced with, and not at the expense of, customary rights, rights that have already been agreed to and litigated over many years.
“We are open – and have always been open – to meaningful dialogue with the council and other stakeholders to find a path forward that respects both the environment and the customary rights of tangata whenua.”
This suggests the council’s protection of the environment on this patch of beach somehow breaches the iwi’s customary rights.
We are left to conjecture on what iwi members might want to do that has been prohibited.
The banning of motor vehicles surely can’t impede customary activities that hark back to pre-treaty days.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment