1.So why did the Waitangi Tribunal find that Ngati Toa had take raupatu in the PNB area and ahi ka in Heretaunga and parts of the South West Coast?

Transcription

1 Oral Submission to Maori Affairs Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill (2013). September 4, Turakirae ki Rimurapa, Rimurapa ki Rimutaka te takiwa o Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui, na Te Wharepouri i whakatau Given that this is an oral submission, i feel it is appropriate that our traditional maori oral literature be accorded a higher status as a form of evidence when mitigating iwi reconciliations, especially when they are sourced from the mouths of our ancestors he tapu. All of the oral references detailed in this oral submission are potent. They are potent because they come from Ngati Toa even Te Rauparaha himself. In my written submission, i pointed out that the Ngati Toa Deed of Settlement was littered with historical untruths and dubious statements. Some Ngati Toa statements can even be regarded as cold hard lies that have caste a veil of dishonour over those Ngati Toa historians or spokespeople who have continually re-iterated those lies, especially with regard to Tapu Te Ranga. I know they are lies because i have been involved in meetings with the Ngati Toa leadership in the past and have personally heard at least three conflicting statements from Ngati Toa in relation to their boundaries. In my written submission five key areas were highlighted and conclusively proved that; I. Ngati Toa were dependent on Ati Awa military strength as they fled Kawhia, took shelter in Taranaki, migrated to Kapiti and conquered the areas that Ngati Toa actually occupied; II. Ngati Toa have distorted their own pepeha in their Deed of Settlement relating to their takiwa. I consider this to be a gross act of deceit; III. Ngati Toa played no part in the actual raupatu of the PNB area this was an exclusive and independent affair that rightfully belongs to the Ati Awa people; IV. Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui exerted successful ringa kaha and raupatu against Ngati Toa when challenged by Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. This effectively settled any disputes regarding who had rights, and to what. This tikanga has not been recognised as such; V. Ngati Toa never occupied the PNB area. They claim Ngati Rangatahi as an ahi ka right by default. In any case, this is a fundamental oversight in that the basic 1840 rule of thumb has not been adhered to in this situation, because Ngati Rangatahi didn t actually move over into Heretaunga from the West coast until So why did the Waitangi Tribunal find that Ngati Toa had take raupatu in the PNB area and ahi ka in Heretaunga and parts of the South West Coast? In his commissioned report for the Waitangi Tribunal, Customary Tenure in the Port Nicholson Block 1820 s-1840 s, Professor Alan Ward made the perplexing conclusion that Ngati Toa had a customary interest in the PNB area, by virtue of their leadership of the heke and the military conquest of the whole region. They were not overlords. The Waitangi Tribunal has simply adopted Professor Ward s view which is based on the claim from Ngati Toa that; Ngati Toa had raupatu rights as conquerers of the whole Te Upoko o Te Ika district, while also acknowledging that that this conquest was not entirely a Ngati Toa affair, and that they did not physically occupy much of the conquered territory. 2 Despite the great work and expertise of such a renowned historian, the first part of his statement is wrong, while the second part is correct, and, it is his subjective opinion not historical fact. The historical fact is detailed in another of Dr Ward s conclusions, which is perplexing in that Te 1 Ibid, p.xx Ngati Rangatahi were absent at the signing of the Port Nicholson Deed purchase in 1839, but they returned to Heretaunga in Waitangi Tribunal, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa, p. 40

2 Rauparaha s difficulty was that, in respect of Te Whanganui a Tara he had not directly conquered and occupied at all, but through his allies, Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Awa. Moreover Ngati Awa had ceased to be close allies, and had indeed become something like enemies, because of Te Rauparaha s association with Ngati Raukawa. 3 Historical evidence and maori oral literature prove that Te Rauparaha and Ngati Toa played absolutely no part in the actual raupatu of the PNB area during the campaigns of Dr Ward s conclusion is not based on, and has not taken into account, traditional maori oral literature such as pepeha and moteatea, and doesn t recognise the ringa kaha and raupatu exercised against Ngati Toa by Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui when challenged by Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. When these variables are taken into account, the findings that recognise Ngati Toa take raupatu and ahi ka in the PNB area make a farce of our tikanga, which was surely not the intention of Dr Ward. Historian for Ngati Toa, Richard Boast cites the statement of Paka Ngapiko of Ngati Toa/Ngati Koata when discussing the extent and reality of Te Rauparaha s mana ; Te Rauparaha was the tino rangatira who led the people to Kapiti, but i don t admit that he was the rangatira who was paramount over the affairs of the hapus who (actually) conquered the district Ngati Toa dependence on Ati Awa Te Rauparaha himself openly admitted this truth when he sang his famous waiata tangi Tera ia nga Tai ki Honipaka. In terms of moteatea, this is Ngati Toa s anthem. When describing this dependence on Ati Awa during the migration south, Te Rauparaha sang Ma te rahi Ati Awa, e kautere mai ra 5, which means, it is by the might of Ati Awa, travelling in company (with us). Te Karihana, Matene Te Whiwhi, Wi Parata Te Kakakura and Tamihana Te Rauparaha, all of Ngati Toa claimed that between Ati Awa Warriors escorted Ngati Toa men, women, children and elderly. Ngati Toa would do well to remember the words of Te Rauparaha everytime they sing his waiata tangi that pays homage to Ati Awa. This is the truth of the matter. 3. Tapu Te Ranga what really happened The lie of Tapu Te Ranga can be traced to a comment from R.D Crosby, author of The Musket Wars a History of Inter Iwi Conflict , published in He states that Te Rangihaeata happened to be with the Ngati Mutunga group that is said to have captured Tamairangi. Crosby has taken his reference from the recorded account of Shand (J.P.S, Vol 1, p.90) and Percy-Smith which states that Just before Ngati Mutunga succeeded in capturing the island pa, her people carried her off by canoe round Cape Te Rimurapa and Cape Te Rawhiti to a little bay named Ohariu, due west of Wellington. Whilst here (at Ohariu) she and her party were captured by some (other) Ngati Mutunga. 6 That is why Ballara stated that Te Rangihaeata, who was visiting Ngati Mutunga (at Ohariu), was moved to offer Tamairangi and her family his protection. 7 It is important to note that recent comments from Ngati Toa spokespeople to the media state that the fall of Tapu Te Ranga was a combined effort from Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Toa that is the lie. Ngati Toa are deliberating misintepreting the historical narrative. On a personal note, i have been involved with talks with the Ngati Toa leadership on a few occasions where we were told that the Ngati Toa boundary was at Toka Haere 3 Alan Ward, Customary Tenure in the Port Nicholson Block 1820 s-1840 s, p Ibid, p.35 5 Te Rauparaha, Ngati Toa Rangatira 6 Shand, J.P.S, Vol 1, p.90. Cited in Percy Smith, History and Traditions of the Taranaki Coast, p Angela Ballara, Tamairangi, Ngati Kuia and Ngati Ira woman of mana, Poet, Dictionary of New Zeland Biography, update 22 June, 2007.

3 (which they call Thoms Rock). Another boundary was Owhiro Bay, and also Mukamukaiti in Palliser Bay. The inconsistency noted here is in stark contrast to the true boundaries of Ngati Toa, which are detailed in their own pepeha. 4. Ngati Toa pepeha Under 1.22 of the Ngati Toa Deed of Settlement it states that according to Ngati Toa Rangatira tradition the northen most point of the Ngati Toa rohe is Whangaehu; in the North Island it extends eastwards to Turakirae Head and encompasses Te Moana o Raukawa. This is actually a distortion of the truth another lie. The Ngati Toa pepeha is well known among other local iwi. It is important to note that the traditional form of pepeha to describe takiwa was not expressed in the DoS, which begs the question as to why? In evidence given to the Waitangi Tribunal by Oriwa Dene Solomon, dated 9th June 2003, the takiwa of Ngati Toa was clearly detailed in their pepeha; Mai Miria te Kakara ki Whitireia, Whakawhiti atu te Moana o Raukawa, ki Whakatu, ki Wairau, which translates as, from Miria te Kakara to Whitireia (Mt Cooper, Porirua Harbour), across Cook Strait to Nelson and Blenheim. Oriwa went on to say that this statement emanated from Te Rauparaha. It is Ngati Toa s pepeha or statement of identity to other Maori tribes. It is saying that from Rangitikei in the Manawatu to Whitireia (the Mountain overlooking Mana Island), across Cook Strait to Nelson and Blenheim. 8 There is absolutely no mention of any Ngati Toa identity south of Whitireia/Porirua in their own pepeha, and certainly not the South Coast and Te Whanganui a Tara. Pepeha form the foundation of iwi identity in relation to their lands and resources, mahinga kai, mahinga mataitai, marae, papakainga and our most sacred urupa. This should be the end of the issue relating to boundaries and rights to land and resources. Ngati Toa s own pepeha the real one, not the distorted one is crystal clear. One has to ask why was this evidence, which was delivered to the Waitangi Tribunal orally by a Ngati Toa kuia not included in the Waitangi Tribunal s final report on Te Whanganui a Tara? Such an oversight is astounding when you consider the potency of this fundamental pillar of tikanga maori, and as such, it should now be included as formal evidence in this Committee to assist with the decision making process. The Waitangi Tribunal report also acknowledges that Ngati Toa s own historian Richard Boast came to the damning conclusion that he could not locate any evidence which demonstrates a particular Ngati Toa interest in Wellington Harbour and the Wellington South Coast. 9 This led to the Waitangi Tribunal finding that Those Maori having rights in Wellington Harbour in 1840 were confined to Te Ati Awa, Ngati Tama, Taranaki, and Ngati Ruanui. 10 Despite this finding, the Crown still entertained negotiations and awarded assets to Ngati Toa from within Wellington Harbour and south coast, including the harbour itself????? 5. Ati Awa successful ringa kaha and raupatu against Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata. Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui successfully exerted ringa kaha and raupatu against Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata before and after This effectively settled any disputes regarding who had rights, and to what. At the conclusion of peace talks after the battle of Haowhenua in 1834, Nini of Waikato, (on behalf of Te Rauparaha who, with Ngati Raukawa also called on the assistance of Tuwharetoa, Ngati Maniapoto, Whanganui, Ngati Apa, and Ngai Te Upokoiri) stated; Hei konei e Ati Awa, e kore au e 8 Brief of Evidence of Oriwa Dene Solomon to the Waitangi Tribunal, 9 June 2003, p.8. 9 Waitangi Tribunal Report, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa, p Ibid, p.458

4 hoki mai, Ki te tae mai he iwi hei patu i a koe, ka mate! 11 (Farewell Ati Awa, i shall not return. If a people come and make war with you, they will die!). Mananui Te Heuheu, ariki of Tuwharetoa and ally to Te Rauparaha, also displayed his thoughts by breaking his Taiaha over his knee, after mourning the loss of his younger brother Te Papaka, who was killed by Ati Awa. Ati Awa were again victorious in 1839 at the battle of Kuititanga the Waitangi Tribunal concur with this fact, stating that the aggressors (Ngati Raukawa under Te Rauparaha) were decisively defeated. 12 Our tupuna, Te Manutoheroa of the Puketapu section of Ati Awa, claimed the victory after the battle by executing 55 captured prisoners. 13 The attitude of Ati Awa during peace negotiations after Kuititanga was recorded by Carkeek of Ngati Toa: Te Hiko s (of Ngati Toa) relationship to Ati Awa was said to have been an important factor in allying the wrath of the Taranaki tribes following the Kuititanga affair. Kawana Hunia (Ngati Apa) told the Land Court that he heard Tuainane (Ati Awa) tell Te Rauparaha, If it had not been for Te Hiko you would have been killed. 14 The raupatu over Te Rangihaeata by Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui from Heretaunga in 1846 has not been recognised as such either, despite the fact that it actually happened. 15 It is important to note that Te Rangihaeata himself admitted that He did not acknowledge that Europeans had conquered him. Mr Forsaith, in 1860 in the House of Representatives at Auckland, reminded members that Rangihaeata said to Grey I am finished. But do not suppose, O Governor, that you conquered me. No. It was these, my own relatives and friends, Te Rangitake (Paramount Ariki of Ati Awa) and others. It was by them i was overcome Ngati Toa admit to Ati Awa dominant rights It is of extreme concern that Ngati Toa are being accorded customary rights and in turn cultural redress within the PNB area, especially to our awa tapu, Te Awakairangi and all its tributaries, Te Whanga nui a Tara and coastlines. The evidence detailed above clearly highlights the prejudice that is being meted out on the true tangata whenua of the PNB area. It would not only be legislative raupatu which would be a gross injustice in itself but it would be a serious breach of tikanga maori that all iwi maori adhere to. It is very important to note that during the WAI 2235 Hearing, Counsel for Ngati Toa, on behalf of Ngati Toa openly admitted and accepted that Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui had dominant rights in the PNB area. This is a clear admission that it is in direct conflict with statements that Ngati Toa were the dominant iwi in the Cook Strait region. In some cases, neighbouring iwi may agree to overlapping areas, but no iwi would ever accept that their neighbouring iwi have equal rights over the entire area of their takiwa. This is the situation that the Crown has created they will be giving Ngati Toa equal rights over the entire PNB area, even despite the fact that Ngati Toa themselves admit that Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui have dominant rights in the PNB area. 11 W Carkeek, The Kapiti Coast, A.W Reed, 1966, p.41. We acknowledge that Ngati Tuwharetoa traditions claim that it was Mananui Te Heuheu made this comment. 12 Waitangi Tribunal Report, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa, p W. Carkeek, The Kapiti Coast, A.W.Reed, 1966, p Ibid, p Ibid, p.xx Ngati Rangatahi were absent at the signing of the Port Nicholson Deed purchase in 1839, but they returned to Heretaunga in / tm/ scholarly/ tei Rus01Hist t1 body d8.html

5 7. Recommendations We are duty bound to forever defend the sacrifices of our ancestors who fought, spilt blood and died for the rights of our customary lands and resources in the PNB area. The following recommendations must, as a matter of tikanga, cultural integrity, honour and natural justice be adopted; 1. Historical inaccuracies detailed in the Ngati Toa Deed of Settlement should be corrected; 2. The items of cultural redress that lie within the PNB area be removed from the Bill; 3. The dominant rights of Ati Awa/Taranaki Whanui that have been acknowledged by Ngati Toa should be recognised as such in the legal context of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Bill by way of a sub-clause. Such a sub-clause should equate to a Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust veto right on all customary interests and rights within the PNB area. At the most Ngati Toa should only be permitted to have consultation rights within the PNB area only because in these modern times, all of the Porirua Basin s water supply is pumped from the Hutt Valley catchment over the hills to Porirua. Porirua does not have its own water catchment so we have to share ours with them. It would not be tika to award consultation rights based on no raupatu rights and no ahi ka rights. 4. Commercial redress and RFR properties within the PNB area being offered to Ngati Toa in the Bill should be transfered to those Ngati Tama claimaints that were part of the Port Nicholson Block Claim but were able to exercise the right to opt out of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement, and seek a seperate settlement in their own right. That forthcoming settlement has been acknowledged by the Crown and is still a work in progress. Failure to transfer these assets would leave those Ngati Tama claimaints that are yet to settle, with little or no commercial redress and RFR properties, which they are entitled to as of right. It is worth noting that many of those Ngati Tama claimants that opted out of the PNB claim are a mixture of Ati Awa people based in Waiwhetu and Ngati Toa people based at Takapuwahia, Porirua, expressing themselves through their mutual Ngati Tama whakapapa. A Final Word We are duty bound to forever defend the sacrifices of our ancestors who fought, spilt blood and died for the rights of our customary lands and resources in the PNB area. The WAI 2235 Hearing found in favour of Ngati Toa on the grounds of a narrow scope involving a commercial property deal relating to the Wellington Police Station not historical and cultural truths. The WAI 2235 Hearing would also not allow for a review of Tribunal findings. The High Court Hearing found in favour of Ngati Toa on the grounds of poor timing on the part of the PNBST in taking the dispute to Court, which was re-iterated by Judge Williams not historical and cultural truths. This Committee may not be accustomed to removing items from an iwi s Claims Settlement Bill at the Select Committee stage this doesn t mean that you shouldn t if the grounds are there to do so. This Committee can make a decision that favours Ngati Toa, but that decision will perpetuate historical untruths and distortions of tikanga maori. In doing so, another injustice will be created. Or, this Committee can make a decision based on tikanga maori, pepeha, moteatea, ringa kaha, actual raupatu, actual ahi ka, historical truths (instead of fictitious stories), honour and natural justice. The evidence presented here speaks for itself.