title: Indigenous service programs plus indigenous evaluator equals Whitestream evaluation - What's wrong with this picture? (Reflections from my PhD)

authors: Masters-Awatere, Bridgette

abstract: For the past 100 or so years, formal evaluation has taken its lead from frameworks that originate from a culturally blind standpoint. Worldwide the major influence on evaluation practice comes from the United States of America. The absence of non-dominant (or indigenous) culturally constructed frameworks has been replicated around the world.
Before the formation of the Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association (ANZEA), as a NZ specific evaluation group, practitioners generally belonged to the Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) and joined in the sharing, adoption and adaptation of USAs Program Evaluation Standards. However, the context of evaluation in New Zealand has been somewhat different from the rest of the world, becoming more culturally centred than other countries. The role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi has been acknowledged as an attributing factor by ANZEA.
Four indigenous, externally evaluated “By Maori for Maori”, health & wellbeing programmes were used as case studies within my research. I draw upon examples from the cases studies to highlight the vulnerable and contentious position indigenous service providers and indigenous evaluators were in. Adapting Sandra Grande’s (2003) analysis, I critiqued the context of the case study evaluations that commissioners considered as Kaupapa Maori. In this presentation I argue that while stakeholders perceived the work to be an indigenous evaluation, the case studies demonstrate that whitestream evaluation was prevalent.

text: Indigenous service programs plus indigenous evaluator equals Whitestream evaluation - What's wrong with this picture? (Reflections from my PhD) For the past 100 or so years, formal evaluation has taken its lead from frameworks that originate from a culturally blind standpoint. Worldwide the major influence on evaluation practice comes from the United States of America. The absence of non-dominant (or indigenous) culturally constructed frameworks has been replicated around the world.
Before the formation of the Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association (ANZEA), as a NZ specific evaluation group, practitioners generally belonged to the Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) and joined in the sharing, adoption and adaptation of USAs Program Evaluation Standards. However, the context of evaluation in New Zealand has been somewhat different from the rest of the world, becoming more culturally centred than other countries. The role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi has been acknowledged as an attributing factor by ANZEA.
Four indigenous, externally evaluated “By Maori for Maori”, health & wellbeing programmes were used as case studies within my research. I draw upon examples from the cases studies to highlight the vulnerable and contentious position indigenous service providers and indigenous evaluators were in. Adapting Sandra Grande’s (2003) analysis, I critiqued the context of the case study evaluations that commissioners considered as Kaupapa Maori. In this presentation I argue that while stakeholders perceived the work to be an indigenous evaluation, the case studies demonstrate that whitestream evaluation was prevalent.

year: 2015

title: Nga Taumata o te Moana - A return to rangatiratanga over the takutai moana

authors: Downs, Season-Mary

subjects: takutai moana

abstract: The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 extinguished Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed at law by vesting ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.   The Act prohibited Māori from having their customary rights recognised at common law by removing the jurisdiction of the courts to investigate customary rights in the takutai moana.  The 2004 Act provided for the recognition of new lesser rights, should Māori be able to meet the tests specified in the legislation.  The legislation was heavily criticised and deemed inconsistent with the treaty,  the rule of law, and international human rights law, where it extinguished the rights of Māori, but not the rights of other right holders.   The legislation was so controversial the 2004 Act was repealed by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.   In the Crown’s mind, the 2011 Act is final, and the longstanding foreshore and seabed dispute related to Māori customary claims to the takutai moana is resolved by the legislation. 

The purpose of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is to “establish a durable scheme to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders” in the takutai moana.    Under the new Act, the takutai moana is now given the special status of “common marine and coastal area”; an area that is “incapable of ownership” by the Crown, Māori or anyone else.   The Act states that it “acknowledges” the “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and “recognises” the “mana tuku iho” exercised in the common marine and coastal area by iwi, hapū, and whānau as tangata whenua.    Like the 2004 Act, the 2011 Act still bars Māori from obtaining common law customary rights in the takutai moana, and instead puts in place a regime for the recognition of new legal rights that are created by the Act itself.

The primary research question is:  Is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori version of the treaty?

The primary research question is answered by examining the colonial experience of Te Kapotai, a coastal hapū (tribe) in the Southern Bay of Islands from pre-te Tiriti times through to the present day.  It provides an account of how, over time, Crown law, policy and practice have eroded the ability of Te Kapotai to exercise their rangatiratanga (authority) over their takutai moana.  This thesis concludes that the 2011 Act is inconsistent with te Tiriti for four key reasons:
1.	The Act was developed and implemented without negotiation and consent from Māori;
2.	The Act continues to remove the customary rights and procedure for recognition of those rights that were previously available at common law; 
3.	The Act fails to provide for the exercise of rangatiratanga by Māori over the takutai moana as guaranteed under Article 2 of te Tiriti o Waitangi; and 
4.	The Act is in breach of the principle of equity and equal treatment under Article 3 of te Tiriti o Waitangi where it treats Māori and their rights to the takutai moana differently to how all other right/interest holders in the foreshore and seabed are treated.

This research recommends a multifaceted approach to resolving the takutai moana issue, which includes pausing the implementation of the 2011 Act, and the development of interim options to increase Māori participation in the management of the takutai moana.  It promotes that a transformational approach to the takutai moana issue can be achieved when te Tiriti is implemented, and when Māori can exercise rangatiratanga over the takutai moana in a manner that was intended under te Tiriti o Waitangi.

text: Nga Taumata o te Moana - A return to rangatiratanga over the takutai moana The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 extinguished Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed at law by vesting ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.   The Act prohibited Māori from having their customary rights recognised at common law by removing the jurisdiction of the courts to investigate customary rights in the takutai moana.  The 2004 Act provided for the recognition of new lesser rights, should Māori be able to meet the tests specified in the legislation.  The legislation was heavily criticised and deemed inconsistent with the treaty,  the rule of law, and international human rights law, where it extinguished the rights of Māori, but not the rights of other right holders.   The legislation was so controversial the 2004 Act was repealed by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.   In the Crown’s mind, the 2011 Act is final, and the longstanding foreshore and seabed dispute related to Māori customary claims to the takutai moana is resolved by the legislation. 

The purpose of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is to “establish a durable scheme to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders” in the takutai moana.    Under the new Act, the takutai moana is now given the special status of “common marine and coastal area”; an area that is “incapable of ownership” by the Crown, Māori or anyone else.   The Act states that it “acknowledges” the “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” and “recognises” the “mana tuku iho” exercised in the common marine and coastal area by iwi, hapū, and whānau as tangata whenua.    Like the 2004 Act, the 2011 Act still bars Māori from obtaining common law customary rights in the takutai moana, and instead puts in place a regime for the recognition of new legal rights that are created by the Act itself.

The primary research question is:  Is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori version of the treaty?

The primary research question is answered by examining the colonial experience of Te Kapotai, a coastal hapū (tribe) in the Southern Bay of Islands from pre-te Tiriti times through to the present day.  It provides an account of how, over time, Crown law, policy and practice have eroded the ability of Te Kapotai to exercise their rangatiratanga (authority) over their takutai moana.  This thesis concludes that the 2011 Act is inconsistent with te Tiriti for four key reasons:
1.	The Act was developed and implemented without negotiation and consent from Māori;
2.	The Act continues to remove the customary rights and procedure for recognition of those rights that were previously available at common law; 
3.	The Act fails to provide for the exercise of rangatiratanga by Māori over the takutai moana as guaranteed under Article 2 of te Tiriti o Waitangi; and 
4.	The Act is in breach of the principle of equity and equal treatment under Article 3 of te Tiriti o Waitangi where it treats Māori and their rights to the takutai moana differently to how all other right/interest holders in the foreshore and seabed are treated.

This research recommends a multifaceted approach to resolving the takutai moana issue, which includes pausing the implementation of the 2011 Act, and the development of interim options to increase Māori participation in the management of the takutai moana.  It promotes that a transformational approach to the takutai moana issue can be achieved when te Tiriti is implemented, and when Māori can exercise rangatiratanga over the takutai moana in a manner that was intended under te Tiriti o Waitangi.

year: 2020

title: The physical environment of the Te Aroha district

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: Pakeha settlers and visitors delighted in the mountain and its vegetation, and to attract tourists some efforts were made to protect the portion behind Te Aroha township from disturbance by mining. Prospectors and those constructing mining tracks and the tramway struggled to cope with the rugged terrain, but the steep mountainside proved to be advantageous for mining. The topography worsened the impact of severe weather, in particular the gales and heavy rainfall which damaged buildings and caused regular problems for those maintaining tracks and tramways. Over summer months batteries often had to cease work through having insufficient water power. On the flat land, because swamps made transport difficult, the river provided the main access route until the railway line was constructed.  Drainage created productive farmland and, coincidentally, partly relieved the mosquito and sandfly scourge.

text: The physical environment of the Te Aroha district Pakeha settlers and visitors delighted in the mountain and its vegetation, and to attract tourists some efforts were made to protect the portion behind Te Aroha township from disturbance by mining. Prospectors and those constructing mining tracks and the tramway struggled to cope with the rugged terrain, but the steep mountainside proved to be advantageous for mining. The topography worsened the impact of severe weather, in particular the gales and heavy rainfall which damaged buildings and caused regular problems for those maintaining tracks and tramways. Over summer months batteries often had to cease work through having insufficient water power. On the flat land, because swamps made transport difficult, the river provided the main access route until the railway line was constructed.  Drainage created productive farmland and, coincidentally, partly relieved the mosquito and sandfly scourge.

year: 2016