|dc.description.abstract||Taiāpure (local fishery) is a fisheries area management tool that emerged in 1989 as part of an interim settlement for Māori Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi fisheries grievances. The legislative provisions for taiāpure are provided for in Part 9 of the Fisheries Act 1996, the object being to make “better provision for the recognition of rangatiratanga” (s174). This research aimed to examine whether taiāpure processes allowed for rangatiratanga and how this contributed to well-being for iwi and hapū. Methodologically, elements of Kaupapa Māori theory and critical discourse analysis were utilised. The research was operationalised through Fairclough’s (2005a) concept of “objects of research” to examine the emergence, recontextualisation and operationalisation of the discourses of rangatiratanga. Multiple methods were employed, including: discourse analysis; Māori community research techniques; meetings and hui; field notes and; archiving.
There were multiple emergent discourses of rangatiratanga from key te Tiriti o Waitangi translation texts and Waitangi Tribunal texts that were analysed. The emergent discourses of rangatiratanga were rangatiratanga as: possession; chieftainship; trusteeship; kin relationships; mana; mana moana and mana whenua; sovereignty; under the authority of tikanga (encompassing dimensions of the spiritual, physical, reciprocal guardianship, use and manaakitanga); self-management and tribal sovereignty; governance and; missionary Māori. Importantly, following the 1987 Lands Case the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi emerged. The multiple discourses of rangatiratanga became blended with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the meanings were restricted and diluted, particularly through the Treaty principles of exchange and partnership.
The discourses of rangatiratanga were not convincingly recontextualised into the taiāpure fisheries legislation. The meanings of rangatiratanga that each discourse represented was misconstrued and misrepresented by the Crown. The Treaty principles of rangatiratanga in exchange for kāwanatanga and partnership were recontextualised by the Crown into the taiāpure fisheries legislation in ways that similarly acted to limit and restrict rangatiratanga. Despite the principles of partnership and exchange, in reality the Crown is granted the power to make any final decisions. The taiāpure fisheries legislation is a continuation of historical fisheries discourses that limited Māori fishing rights, the historical fisheries rights that partly gave rise to the taiāpure fisheries legislation.
In the study of the East Otago Taiāpure, the discourse of rangatiratanga is partially operationalised through the materialisation of the East Otago Taiāpure, and regulations; through the enactment of the meetings, and management plans and; through the inculcation of the multiple identities of the East Otago Taiāpure Management Committee. Rangatiratanga is partially operationalised through the discourses of kaitiakitanga, which is the physical expression of rangatiratanga. However rangatiratanga is constantly challenged and can never be fully operationalised while it exists under kāwanatanga or Crown rule.
Legislatively, the taiāpure processes do not make better provision for rangatiratanga because the legislation is based on historical fisheries legislation that restricted Māori fishing rights, instead of the rangatiratanga that the legislation purports. Despite these main conclusions, Taiāpure, with the appropriate changes, has the potential to promote rangatiratanga and a reconceptualisation of well-being.
Panelli and Tipa’s (2007) model for well-being was utilised to explore taiāpure as a model for well-being. From a Māori world view, with rangatiratanga guaranteed, Taiāpure has the potential to impact and improve well-being for hapū and iwi and peoples engaging with the Taiāpure concept. The main recommendation from this research is that significant changes need to be made to the taiāpure legislation to make better provision for rangatiratanga and thus impact and support the well-being of iwi, hapū and the wider community who reciprocally nurture the Taiāpure. One way this can be achieved is through staggered devolution of power from the Ministry of Fisheries to hapū.||