This blog sketches out how a century and a half of legal frameworks have defined contemporary relationships to whenua. It’s truly extraordinary that my entire primary, intermediate and high schooling was so devoid of Aotearoa’s socio-cultural history. But that’s symptomatic both of era, location and the cultural context of my whanau – parents who first stepped onto the tarmac at Auckland International Airport the year before I was born. Given it’s so easy to get caught up in your own narratives (and miss the bigger picture), the purpose of the Cultural Journey posts is to help plug a few gaps in how we can understand Aotearoa in the present. Not being an historian, each post in this blog series is just a starting point, with material largely drawn from a semester course at Massey University on Māori Resource and Environmental Management (Whenua).
Cementing and defining a presence on the land begins with ahi kā, translated as ‘keeping the home fires burning’. However, leaving the land for several generations in the past, allowed others to settle and become the new kaitiaki (Kingi, 2008). While different hapū or whānau could use the same land area e.g., for cultivating their own or food or fishing, only the highest ranking chief (through consensus) could assign land to individuals/groups from outside the tribe (Winmill and Morton, 1993). How land and water were used was governed by ritenga/rules with protection provided through tapu which prohibited or restricting access and activities, and rāhui/temporary bans.
Property allocation and harvest/use rights were built on relationships. Memorised accounts were handed down through generations weaving together descriptions of how people, place, events and spirits connected. These intricate narratives helped the organisation and registration of Māori land during the 19th century (Kingi, 2008).
Land: Going… going… going
By 1862 – an incredibly short space of time since European settlement, a full two thirds of Aotearoa, including nearly all of the South Island, had been secured by the government by deeds of purchase (Boast, 2017). But this wasn’t enough. The Native Land Court was established from the Native Lands Acts 1862 and 1865 to ease land purchase by the growing number of settlers (Gilling, 1994), at the same time detribalising Māori according to colonial principles held at the time (Taonui, 2012). The purpose of the latter Act, described by Justice Minister Henry Sewell in 1865, was specifically to:
…destroy, if it were possible, the principle of communism upon which their social system is based and which stands as a barrier in the way of all attempts to amalgamate the Māori race into our social and political system
Over a century of many, many legislative changes followed with more land being lost e.g., through the machinations of the Public Works Act (Land Information New Zealand, 2000 Winmill and Morton, 1993). In 1993, the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act was finally put in place to secure the remaining Māori land, but this was typically of poorer quality than other productive land and often landlocked. There still are barriers to realising the economic potential of some land blocks, while others are more suited to conservation rather than development (i.e., blocks in riparian zones, coastal areas and with wetlands) (Harmsworth, 2003; SILNA Owner Representatives, 2000).
Today, land management structures include incorporations and trusts (the most common form of ownership) with large numbers of owners registered against land titles (Māori Multiply Owned Land Management Committee, 1998). There are numerous complexities such as keeping share registers up to date; tensions between kaitiaki maintaining ahi kā and absentee owners; high numbers of minority shareholders impeding land development by out-voting small numbers of majority shareholders; multiple ownership hindering access to credit and the lack of business acumen among committee members and trustees.
A critical mismatch
In short, the European concept of and legal frameworks for owning land has never satisfactorily accounted for collective ownership and associated cultural values. Although new structures include limited liability companies to distinguish business from land ownership, for many Māori land holdings, economic imperatives will continue to be juggled alongside environmental and socio-cultural values (Kingi, 2008).
Where to from here?
The next blog will reflect on restoration and regeneration, in particular the large landscape initiatives underway around Aotearoa.
Further reading
Boast, R. (2017). Māori Land and Land Tenure in New Zealand: 150 years of the Māori Land Court. Comparative Law Journal of the Pacific, 27, 93–133.
Gilling, B. D. (1994). Engine of destruction? An introduction to the history of the Maori Land Court. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 24(2), 115–139.
Harmsworth, G. (2003). Māori perspectives on Kyoto policy: Interim Results.
Kingi, T. (2008). Maori landownership and land management in New Zealand.
Land Information New Zealand. (2000). Review of the Public Works Act: Issues and options (Public Discussion Paper).
Māori Multiply Owned Land Management Committee. (1998). Māori Land Development.
SILNA Owner Representatives. (2000). Concerns of Maori Owners of Land Granted under the South Island Landless Natives Act 1906.
Taonui, R. (2012). Te ture – Māori and legislation: The Native Land Court. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.
Winmill, R., and Morton, R. (1993). The Implication of Cadastral Reform for Māori Land. New Zealand Surveyor, 28–39.
monicalogues 