.iwi.nz Moderation Policy Review Submission

From:		Tony Chadwick
Received:	14 November 2004


Tena koutou nga mema a te Komiti Oversight: 

While progress in existing policy is always welcome, when "First principle" is 
compromised we sow the seeds for future trouble. 

It has long been my contention that casualisation of the term "iwi" plays 
into the hands of those who hope to see Maori identity weakened and eventually 
disappear. 

I contend that "iwi" can only properly apply to those whakapapa based community 
groupings, which are the foundation stones of "Maoridom" and which may be 
determined at whatever level appropriate to "te take o te ra", ie 
whanau/hapu/iwi whanui. 

This does not invalidate the status or the kaupapa of other tangata whenua 
groupings (such as Urban Maori Authorities), but declares they are in another 
category ie that of "Service Groups". 

The so-called "Iwi Authorities" (one of which I served on the Board of through 
its inception years) are also Crown registered Service Bodies - they are not 
IWI per se. My Runanga Organisation has always maintained this distinction - we 
are NOT the iwi but a body which SERVES the iwi regardless of politics etc. It 
was never an easy road but the early years never are. 

The Crown has NEVER "permitted" iwi to become "legal entities" since it 
legislated via its own London Parliament to annex NZ in May 1841 and assumed 
Sovereign authority over this country and its people. Yet beforehand it HAD 
recognised the NZ "tribes" as being the sovereign authority holders, hence the 
treaty process etc 

The Crown has intimated that it will accept "iwi" as legal bodies under special 
legislation, yet its obvious that Iwi have to pre-date the Crown by many 
generations and DO NOT REQUIRE THE CROWNS PERMISSION to exist. Where new Iwi 
groups may formate, such as "taura here" they MUST be sourced from that tikanga 
derived "koiwi" base. 

This was the issue underlying the Maori Fisheries raruraru, and one underlying 
the current Foreshore and Seabed matter, and it will arise time and time again 
unless te ao maori gets its kaupapa straight. 

You cant have two groups holding "mana iwi" in the same territory, and 
obviously the Urban Maori Authorities are not "tangata whenua" as such in the 
districts where they operate. This is not to denigrate their work, but they 
would not have to exist if colonial pressures had not dealt so harshly to the 
local iwi. 

It is however very possible to have two seperate categories or levels of 
operation carrying on simultaneously, as long as they are clear where their 
boundaries are. Modern societies make these distinctions all the time, not always 
in agreement but this is why we have authorities such as "the Moderator" to keep 
the seperate hats in their place. 

My point is that the existing registry is already in breach of Tikanga Maori; 
only genuine iwi bodies should be entitled to hold that designation with other 
"roopu Maori" holding some affiliated but seperate definition reflecting their 
community service status. 

So this raises the matter of "iwi legality"? Well, its about time. The longer 
Maori accept "colonial creep" as it were, the weaker their mana whenua, mana 
tipuna becomes. 

The wider issue of say "democratic power" vis a vis iwi based and urban based 
communities is one to be worked through as financial and other pragmatic 
resources are consolidated, and is not one for this forum. The concept of 
"iwi" however is at the heart of the definition of "Maori" itself - muddy 
this one and you end up in the swamp and THATS where the alligators are 
licking their lips. 

Kia ora tatou 

Tony Chadwick. Te Whanau a Apanui Iwi.