An Indigenous Perspective on One Aspect of Reconciliation


By PAULINE TANGIORA

Mahia, Aotearoa/New Zealand

With the reestablishment of the Treaty of Waitangi between the representatives of Queen Victoria and a number of Maori chiefs, conflict resolution in New Zealand has increasingly incorporated Maori interests and traditions and the Maori way of community. Among the influences on conflict resolution have been the importance of the "marae", or meeting ground, as a location for talking and resolution; of the value of the "hui", or meeting, as a framework for talking through issues; of tradition, status, and "mana" (the complex of norms that surround and support the sense of self and shared identity and esteem); and of cultural location, of "turangawaewae", or having a place to stand, and of community. New Zealand is often described as a bicultural society rather than a multicultural one. The intent is to create a society that acknowledges the unique and irreplaceable attributes of maoritanga together with all other non-Maori races.

In this case study, Pauline Tangiora reports on a conflict between local tribal people in Aotearoa/New Zealand, and outside developers over the construction of a hotel. The tribe called upon the Minister of Conservation and Environment for assistance. In meetings held between the tribe and the develop, the mediator/spokesperson allowed members of the tribe to say what tile waters and land meant to them. The tribe's consensus decision making, while not taken into account by the developers, was critical for dealing with the conflict.

Aotearoa/New Zealand is a country populated by two principal peoples: Maori — the indigenous peoples of the land and Pakeha — and all others who came after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840.

When the Maori offered to share this country with strangers they did not give up their sovereign rights. Ownership was and still is retained by the tribes of this country. The ideal was to live together in peace and harmony in some semblance of order. The Maori peoples had their own laws of living and governance, each tribe having jurisdiction within its tribal area. The "mana" of the tribe was ever paramount, and intertribal disputes were addressed by the country under the tribe's collective decision making.

The forests, waters, mountains, and lands were sacred, and each tribe gave respect to its own "Kaitiaki" (caretaker). In the context of this case study, the "Kaitiaki" is a "Taniwha", who resides at the bottom of Whangawehi harbour at Mahia Peninsula in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

NATURE OF THE CONFLICT

The conflict arose because outsiders viewed the beauty of this peninsula, with its peaceful and harmonious disposition, as an ideal place to build a hotel for tourists. This decision was made without first consulting the inhabitants, although a few persons approached thought it was a good idea, with no prior research into how this would affect the historical background of the tribe, with no recognition of the significance of the "living" heritage this area has in the everyday movement of the people, and not accepting that, first and foremost, this area is a food resource for the tribe, namely, cockles and whitebait, and a major disturbance would adversely affect this important food source. The hotel developers' approach amounted to cultural insensitivity. On hearing through the "grapevine" what was proposed, several of the local tribal peoples moved in to physically stand in the water to declare the tribe's displeasure at what was being proposed.

Then the hard work began. Letters were sent and visits made to the Minister of Conservation and Environment — both of these departments the tribe felt were players. Environment was the living ethos of the people, and conservation was concerned with the possible eradication of the cockles and whitebait.

Meetings of the tribe were called. Elders and the young, male and female, stood to voice their opposition to the move to invade their territory.

Costs were borne for a legal opinion that tribal peoples can ill afford and is really not a part of their culture. The developers brought their plans and ideas and painted a really glossy picture:

  1. That one of the partners was a tribal person from the area was accepted, but decisions made by the tribe in community.

  2. That the project would create jobs for the people in an area with a high unemployment rate—it worked out to be only a minuscule number of jobs and all would be in the cleaning area.

  3. That the hotel/marina would open up the area for tourism—the tribal people found they were not ready for this as they did not have the infrastructure in place.

The developers heard that there was a barrier to any common ground that could be discussed. They had shown a lack of respect for the tribal way of life by attempting to "bulldoze" a development for purely financial gain. Directions were then given by the appropriate ministries that the developers must gain the consent of the tribal people as well as adhere to the policies as laid out by the Ministry of Environment and Conservation.

THE MEDIATION PROCESS

More gatherings were called of the tribe and the developer. A spokesperson knowledgeable of the consensus decision making of the people was given permission to speak on their behalf. In this case, the mediator and tribe spokesperson were the same person.

It was seen as paramount that the parties understand, personalities aside, why, in this modern-day world of business, respect for traditional teachings and cultural values is so important. The spokesperson asked members of the tribe to tell in their own words what their waters and land meant to them. All members present took up different areas of mediation—spiritual, economic, environmental, conservation, and fishing. The presentation was like a circle, with no one being told their role and each working with each other to give an oral picture of where they fit in. The tribal mediation allowed members to take their place in the holistic mediation process. Their oratory of the land, water, wind, mountains, sea, and the life forms that grow in these areas was interwoven with reasons why there could not be a marina at that particular spot, as was demonstrated in the following comments:

The water covers our Kaitiaki. If you put your bulldozers in and move the seabed, things will happen. On special days and low tide you can see it laying there. Our Kaitiaki is us. Leave it alone.

We know our peninsula is a haven. That's why we are so protective of it. We don't want people crawling over us. We have so many special places here on the peninsula, we want to take care that our children of the future are able to feel, and know, who they are. Once one developer comes, the rest will follow. Then we become like the rest of the world—lost and abused, all for the dollar.

The nontribal recognition of the European missionaries who came and baptized some of the tribal peoples was a part of the reservations expressed about the proposed marina: "How can you push over the font where the first baptism occurred and set it up somewhere else? We respect those stones— that is a Tapu place for us."

The developer countered with these comments:

The marina will benefit you. Money will be spent in the area. Jobs would be yours. You can start a tourist industry. You have to move into tourism sometime. One can't stop progress. The local boaties who come in the holidays need a marina to tie their boats up.

After all the talk, the mediator/spokesperson tied it together:

We live here, the land is us, the sea is us, but we are working toward a sustainable future but our people will do it our way, in our time, keeping in mind that we are a living embodiment of our living history, we are a part of the past and live in the present with those things that came from our past. We cannot accept doing what you want. We're not ready, and when we look to moving into such ventures it will be done with the consensus of the people. Here we are a community. We would like to retain this traditional and cultural mode of living. Maybe at some future time we can look to continuing a dialogue but for the present we cannot agree to this proposal.

OUTCOME

The conflict motivated the local district council and conservation department to meet with the tribal people to develop a plan for the peninsula that would cover more than just a marina but also waste disposal, water, housing, recreation, and any business proposals that might be envisioned.

The mediation process in this case, although its decision was not to the benefit of the developers and their overseas syndicate, benefited from the tribal conflict-resolving process. The approach taken is not multicultural but bicultural, as what is done at the bicultural level, needless to say, would be good for any other groupings within society.

CASE SUMMARY

The case suggests that a small number of the tribe thought that development was a good idea and that one of the developers' partners was a tribe member. What was important, though, was that the tribe arrive at a consensus. The developers did not recognize the importance of the tribal group's interrelationship, harmony, and consensus.

The following points were illustrated in the case study: