John Tamihere: Deep respect in K¯ıngitanga,
flashpoint when on July 12, 1863, the Crown crossed the Mangatawhiri Stream, sparking the invasion of Waikato and the K¯ıngitanga.
Their lands were highly sought after and their organisation under a pan-tribal grouping had to be attacked by the Crown because they did not approve of land sales and were able to deploy a large number of armed warriors.
It is important to also note that as a consequence, the K¯ıngitanga to many Ma¯ ori is an office requiring of deep and abiding respect.
It is not about the person that presently holds and personifies the office of the king or queen. It has always been about the consistent genealogical connection, the consistent loyalty and support of the K¯ıngitanga movement to those whose forbears committed to it.
Recent adverse publicity around K¯ıngitanga speaks more about the individuals involved in bringing the office of K¯ıngitanga into disrepute.
The settling of scores by former K¯ıngitanga adviser Tukoroirangi Morgan and Rangi Whakaruru as well as others must been seen for what they are — in my opinion a despicable little act by those wanting to curry favour for their own self-interests, as opposed to acknowledging the deep and reverent way in which
The movement has recently begot a number of people who are more interested in the tribe’s Treaty settlement bank account rather than the dignity and humility of the office of the K¯ıngitanga.
thousands and thousands of Ma¯ ori uphold the office of K¯ıngitanga.
I was privileged to act as a solicitor and adviser to the present king’s mother Dame Te A¯ tairangikaahu. She ascended the throne following the death of her father Korok¯ı Te Rata Mahuta Ta¯ whiao Te Wherowhero in 1966 and was laid to rest regretfully 40 years later in 2006.
My father is of Nga¯ ti Porou ki Hauraki and tithed to the K¯ıngitanga. He was not a K¯ıngitanga man but was deeply respectful of the institution.
At no time would Dame Te Atairangikaahu ¯ or her father ever become overtly embroiled in politics or in making injudicious comments about others.
Both were well served by outstanding uncles, aunties and cousins who would take on to themselves any matters of risk which could bring her or her father or the office of the K¯ıngitanga into disrepute. Her father was served by the late great Princess Te Puea.
I have witnessed many K¯ıngitanga people, who at no time could be held liable for matters that might bring the K¯ıngitanga movement into disrepute, take on to themselves all liability.
So to sacrifice themselves, as opposed to having the dignity of their ancestors questioned on the basis of the actions of others and any perceived possible reputational damage to K¯ıngitanga, they stepped up and claimed responsibility.
Regretfully the movement has recently begot a number of people who are more interested in the tribe’s Treaty settlement bank account rather than the dignity and humility of the office of the K¯ıngitanga.
The office of the K¯ıngitanga has a value that can never be estimated or determined. The value of the K¯ıngitanga rests in the massive losses suffered by those who saw fit to commit to the K¯ıngitanga movement to defend their lands, their families, their communities, their culture and their very essence.
These are the things that, through greed shown in recent events, have been placed above the requirement for respect, dignity and humility.
The honouring of six generations of K¯ıngitanga who had ensured the retention of all of that Tainui history and whakapapa has been besmirched.
No one should ever sweep under the carpet wrongdoings, but no one should allege wrongdoing merely to settle petty personal scores and no one should bring the K¯ıngitanga into disrespect because of that pettiness.
It is a great institution and will outlast the present king and any poor adviser to the K¯ıngitanga.