Crown’s interpretation of land claim questioned

Press, 13 April 1988, Page 6

Crown’s interpretation of land claim questioned

By

JANE ENGLAND

Maori affairs reporter

The Crown’s interpretation of a large portion of the Ngai Tahu land claim, was yesterday challenged before the Waitangi Tribunal. Mr Rawiri Te Maire Tau said he disputed the Crown’s view that mahinga kai were fixed cultivations. The Ngai Tahu interpretation of mahinga kai related to all food producing places, he said.

The argument on definition is a crucial point iin determining the extent I of the tribe’s claim and its Josses following colonisa- : tion.

Mr Tau, a Ngai Tahu tribesman and a research i officer for the Waitangi Tribunal, said the Crown’s interpretation reflected a I “eurocentric view.” Fixed cultivations referred to plots of land i such as back-yard vegetable gardens, he said.

The South Island Maori could not, for climatic reasons, copy the extensive kumara cultivations of the North Island, he said.

“They had to resort to adopting hunting and gathering patterns to survive and develop an economic base. ■ As a result, the high land and interior to the coastline and plains had to be‘ utilised to obtain ■ their resources.” I Mr Tau’s submission reinforced earlier • evidence given by a senior lecturer in archaeology at the University of Otago, Dr Atholl Anderson. I Mr Tau’s submission

was supported by reports of traditional observations.

"These are essential to understanding the tribe’s interpretation of mahinga kai, he said. He also referred to reports compiled last century which related accounts of Maoris being denied access into the high country, arid to the destruction of |the environment.

The Crown destroyed reserves by (draining rivers, making it impossible to utilise tuna, he said.

I “Through the introduction of imported or exotic fish into rivers, and imposed fines and l licences, we were denied access to our rivers.” Mr Tau said the tribe had , been denied its economic base and sufficient allocations to cultivate land, through European policies which breached the Treaty of Waitangi.

“We were denied our economic base in the traditional Maori world and the European world.” Through a lack of sufficient land allocations for survival, Ngai Tahu were forced to mortgage land “where the ultimate act was to sell it,” he said.

“Hence the process of urbanisation. This denial of an economic: base in a European or traditional Maori sense has contributed to a continual cycle of deprivation which is still continuing today,” he said-

Mr Tau said' (the tribe had only originally agreed to sell 20,000,000 acres of

land in Canterbury because it believed Crown promises, which : included the preservation of mahinga kai. j j Ngai Tahu have continually argued I that the Crown i failed in! this duty. The misunderstanding had arisen through the conflict on; interpretation, Mr Tau said. ! : He i referred I to the original words on Kemp’s deed of sale, which said: “our places of residence and cultivations must still be left to us, and the Governor must appoint a quantity of land for us hereafter, when the land has been surveyed.”

The tribe’s definition differed greatly, he said. I .1

Mr Tau presented a “practical definition” of mahinga kai (which was given by 'Waruwarutu, in the Royal Smith — Nairn Commission, 1879. “Mahinga kai is not confined to land cultivated, but refers to the places from which we obtain the natural products of the soil without cultivating.” ;

A tribesman from Tuafhiwi, Wiremu Te Uki, greed with that definition when he gave the commission his own interpretation. ( “Places where we used to obtain food, the natural products of the soil, such as cabbage trees, which grew from Kaiapoi to Purehurehu ! and were used by the chiefs,” he said.

Mr Tau repeated evidence presented to the commission by Taare Wetere Te (Kahu which revealed that the Govern-

l ; i ■! T !■I ment Land Purchase Commissioner,] ( Henry Tacy Kemp, had promised to reserve eel an,d {other fisheries for tbe- trine.! Te Kahu told the, commission that (Mrj Kemp said: “If you give up your land to me, I will give back to you ydui; mahinga kai, your eel fisheries and also your | permanent places shall be; restdred to you for the benefit bf you and your children.’ j Mr Tau submitted that the Ministry jotj (Agriculture and Fisheries Regulations were “eurocentric.” They related to{ 'lndividuals and did (not| take account of traditional methods of conservation or communal use ] of (resources. ( : "Ngai Tahu demand the right resources! and the enforcement necessary to administer ahdi manage mahinga kai.’i he said. Destruction I of mahinga kai and denial op- access was a common complaint among Ngai Tahu, Mr Tau said. Mr Tau referred to a submission jwhicjh; had been made |o the commission in | 18pi, by Tamati Toko:: “Some of us were nearly put into gaol for catching wekas on the same runs. ((I Donald McFarlane, ( of J i Hakataramea, and Mi; Hoare, of Station Peak, turned us off while I (I (catching wekas ... but | afterwards the wekas were filled on these runs by qogs and poison... butl the station owners would ribt allow the natives tot kill or catch them; they threatened to shoot us if Iwe jwent on their land.” | ■ j The submission illus-

trated the denial of access ! and destruction of re- " sources , which { was "totally alien” ito (Maori ;r thought and philosophy, he said. ’ i 1.. .:] ii '■' “Added to the misery of Ngai Tahu is the fact that the station owners’ dogs have a better chance of killing the jweka.; Ngai Tahu had an even!better , chance of being shot.” J j In matters of tradition > relevant to the (Maori, pollution of the sea beds was repugnant to (many, Mr Tau said. . |' I I ■ ‘ The Ngai Tahu of Rapaki have always objected to inefficient and ineffective sewerage schemes, Mr Tau said. | . I : ,ij However, the North Canterbury {Catchment Board was now working towards more stringent water rights to correct the problem. "For this support Ngai Tahu are extremely grateful,” he said. In being denied their existence in a traditional world and European world, Ngai Tahu lived a vulnerable existence, said Mr TauJ 'll ( J, “The South Island Maori suffered a great injustice, as their economic, cultural and spiritual morale declined severely.” i Mr Tau said he had not formed a conclusion from his evidence i because he resigned from his position on the Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board when! he began working for the tribunal. . : ( .! ■ ! A conclusion would instead be presented later ! in the week by his father, j the deputy chairman of the board, Mr Henare Rakiihia Tau;