Tāmati Durie-McGrath discusses the function of mana and whakapapa within te ao Māori legal constructs through an examination of Ngāti Raukawa's narratives.

Hei tīmatanga – Introduction

Whakapapa, the foundation. Mana, the authority. Tikanga, the tool. 

Mana underpins te ao Māori; all social relationships and land relationships are mediated and guided by the high value placed upon mana.^[1] The Native Land Court understood these relationships through concepts familiar to English property law and applied conquest, occupation, and title as the primary indicators of entitlement to land.^[2]  Yet tikanga understands a very different dynamic to the treatment of relationships. Indeed, the Ngāti Raukawa narrative presented in the WAI 2200 inquiry describes the tikanga Māori before the arrival of the British. For in te ao Māori, authority is not derived from possession over whenua, nor military success, nor whakapapa alone, but from the continuing recognition of mana, as established by whakapapa.

The distinction is jurisprudential. Whakapapa provides the foundation that relationship obligations and authority are constituted. Mana provides the basis that authority is recognised and exercised within those relationships. Tikanga holds the mechanisms through which that authority is maintained and constrained. Mana is therefore not simply a synonym for authority, prestige or influence. Its significance lies in the determination of who may legitimately exercise authority, and whether that authority should continue to be recognised.

This article will go beyond the definitions of mana and whakapapa, and instead examine the function they perform within te ao Māori legal constructs. This will be conducted through an examination of  Ngāti Raukawa’s narratives.

Kōrerorero – Discussion

The foundation of whakapapa

To understand mana, one must first understand where it derives. For this, it cannot be understood independently of whakapapa.^[3] Whakapapa is the papa of tikanga. It functions as a pātaka mātauranga, connections between te hunga ora, te hunga mate and the whenua are understood. It establishes the relationships where obligations and authority arise.

Whakapapa can then be understood as a given legal significance to relationships, when viewed through this framework. Tā Joe Williams describes it as the “kin matrix”. The idea is that it binds people or groups to reciprocal obligations.^[4] Consequently, authority is not simply derived from possession or dominion, but from a person’s place within this relational network.^[5]

It is within this foundation that mana operates. If whakapapa establishes the relationships, mana provides the authority and responsibility to preserve them. It is inherited through relationships and continually expressed through conduct within them.

This distinction is important because it prevents mana from being reduced to either inherited status or individual power, mana whakatipu.^[6] A rangatira may possess mana whakaheke through whakapapa, but the continuous recognition of that authority depends on whether mana is exercised consistently with tikanga.^[7] This is reflected in the distinction between mana whakaheke and mana whakatipu. Inherited authority provides a foundation, while conduct determines whether that authority is strengthened and sustained.

Mana as a jurisprudential principle

Mana as a jurisprudential principle therefore must go beyond asking what mana is, and ask what mana does. The Ōrākei Report, as the most relevant finding on this topic, affirms this understanding.^[8] Its jurisprudential function, however, can be taken further: mana mediates between whakapapa and the exercise of authority.

Mana grants authority through both whakapapa and continuing relationships, granted it is maintained through correct conduct. It may be understood, by analogy, as a form of social currency. This analogy is not literal. Rather, like currency, mana has value because it is collectively recognised. It is strengthened through conduct consistent with tikanga and diminished when obligations to the collective are neglected.

This explains why mana cannot be separated from responsibility. Leadership requires more than inherited status. Protection of the collective, generosity, strategic judgement and the maintenance of relationships are all means through which authority is demonstrated and sustained. Authority may be inherited, but its legitimacy must be continuously maintained. Its jurisprudential function becomes visible through the mechanisms of tikanga. Utu, tuku and hohou i te rongo, or peace-making, are not merely examples of customary practice, they are mechanisms that mana guides in order to maintain relationships established through whakapapa. This is seen in the Ngāti Raukawa narratives.

The Ngāti Raukawa narrative: Mana in practice

Utu

Authority, Te Rauparaha’s, primary rangatira of Ngāti Toa Rangatira and ally of Ngāti Raukawa in the 19th century, was grounded in mana whakaheke. This was mandated through the ōhākī (dying instructions) of Hape-ki-tūārangi, the rangatira of Ngāti Raukawa, who invited Te Rauparaha to succeed him.^[9] Te Rauparaha then bewed Hape’s widow, Te Akau, to ensure the rights and obligations of his people remained part of an unbroken ancestral line.

With whakapapa as his foundation, mana served as the tool through which he asserted his authority. Te Rauparaha arrived on the Kapiti Coast in 1818, initially to search for a place to relocate people from the war in Waikato, and to find a territory where he and his people (Ngāti Toa Rangatira) could engage in trade with Europeans.^[10] He captured some of the local rangatira, one being Toheriri, who he would later return. Under tikanga, this act of clemency created an obligation of reciprocity, as Te Rauparaha had shown an act of good faith. This should have granted settlement in the area. However, when he returned the second time to Kapiti to settle his people and his whānau, Ngāti Raukawa understood that Muaūpoko violated this reciprocal obligation. Following a feast in Te Wi, Mūaupoko attacked Te Rauparaha’s whānau, killing his wife and his son. This was a kōhuru, a murder by stealth or deceit.^[11] Within Māori jurisprudence, seeking utu was not an option, but a legal response.

Failure to address such a loss would have resulted in the permanent degradation of the group's mana.^[12] Simply, the mana of both parties had diminished, therefore an action to restore the mana was needed.

The act of kōhuru of Ngāti Toa Rangatira’s whakapapa, in accordance with te ao Māori, required the utmost response. That response was found in utu. Utu, a mechanism of tikanga to uphold mana, would restore the right as such a grave violation occurred. Te Rauparaha’s subsequent military campaign against Muaūpoko was a legal response to redress this. The original hara involved the slaughter of high-ranking tribe members of Ngāti Toa Rangatira, and the betrayal of good faith, requiring Te Rauparaha to take the land for his own, and annihilate the people of Muaūpoko.^[13] What Te Rauparaha enacted was a well known public execution of the killers.^[14]

Utu provided the mechanism through which that disruption could be addressed. Its jurisprudential significance is not simply that violence was answered with violence. Rather, utu operated to restore the balance of relationships and the mana of those whose relationships had been violated. A failure to respond could itself diminish the mana of the group.

This demonstrates that mana is not equivalent to unbridled raw force. Force acquires legal significance through its relationship to whakapapa, obligation, and the specific circumstances that give rise to utu. The legitimacy of the response therefore depends upon the relational order within which it occurs.

Take tuku

The same principle can be seen through tuku. Following the establishment of his superior mana over the Porirua ki Manawatū district, Te Rauparaha would then release the mana over the land to his Ngāti Raukawa kin.^[15] Recognising that he and his tribesman lacked the numbers to maintain ahi kā alone, he invited his whanaunga to settle the land.^[16] The tuku was not a ‘gift’ in the Western sense of transferring title, but a mechanism in tikanga to recognise the mana of one's fellow kin. He released his mana over specific territories to those of Ngāti Raukawa in Horowhenua, and the area along the Rangitīkei to Taratoa.^[17] In doing this, he anchored the mana of these areas into kin who could ensure that the continuing whakapapa was recognised.

Here, mana operated to preserve whakapapa through the continuing occupation and relationships of kin. Authority over whenua was therefore not simply a matter of possession, it was exercised to maintain the ancestral relationships that gave the whenua its significance. Ngāti Raukawa’s settlement also strengthened Ngāti Toa’s mana by enabling their shared lands to be maintained through the presence and protection of their kin. At the same time, the tuku recognised Ngāti Raukawa’s own mana. After taking risk in leaving their ancestral lands at Maungatautari, their settlement required recognition of the obligations and relationships arising from that shared whakapapa. The tuku therefore operated reciprocally: it enabled Ngāti Toa to maintain their mana through the occupation of kin, while recognising Ngāti Raukawa’s mana and preserving the whakapapa relationship between the two groups.

Hohou i te rongo

Hohou i te rongo lashes together disparate groups.^[18] It is tikanga’s restorative justice, which can assist in restoring a group's mana, when diminished. Te Whatanui exercised this to countermand Te Rauparaha’s policy of extermination against Muaūpoko, when they took control of the land where they resided. Te Rauparaha had intended to exterminate all of Muaūpoko.^[19] Te Whatanui understood that although caused a wrong to Te Rauparaha’s whakapapa, it should not be at the cost of their own. Here Te Whatanui was able to do this because his mana was considered so high, his words were sacred, he mana tō te kupu. This is a clear example of a tikanga mechanism, that is exercised through mana to protect whakapapa. Te Whatanui recognised that utu had been accomplished, and anymore killing would start to diminish Ngāti Toa’s by eradicating Muaūpoko. Instead he chose to preserve that relationship, so as to both groupings longer term benefit.

Kōrero whakamutunga – Conclusion

The Ngāti Raukawa narrative shows that whakapapa is the foundation of relationships, mana gives people authority within those relationships, and tikanga guides how that authority is used. What this speaks to is how Māori society lived and operated. I believe we can see these values help guide the law going forward, and assist with how the mana of groups and individuals should be treated.

Ngā kupu āpiti – Notes

[1] Hirini Moko Mead “Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori Values” 2016, at 41.

[2] Pakake Winiata, Jerald Twomey, Tā Taihākurei Durie and Rawiri Rikihana “Brief of Evidence by regarding tikanga Māori and Muaūpoko historical review” (2026) Wai 113A, Wai 2200 at [18]-[20].

[3] Waitangi Tribunal Generic closing submissions on tino rangatiratanga and constitutional claims (Issue 1), (Wai 2200, 2025) at [1.5].

[4] Joe Williams Lex Aotearoa: an heroic attempt to map the Māori dimension in modern New Zealand law. 2013 at 24.

[5] Mead, above n 1, at 244.

[6] Linda Te Aho and Robert Joseph, Comments on the Raukawa Pūkenga Evidence of Pakake Winiata, Jerald Twomey, Taihākurei, and Rawiri Rikihana (2026) Wai 2200, X22(b) at [10.2.7.1.2].

[7] At [10.2.7.1.3].

[8] Waitangi Tribunal Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Ōrākei Claim (Wai 9, 1987) at 186.

[9] Te Aho and Joseph, above n 6, at [10.2.4.2].

[10] Winiata et al, above n 2, at [142].

[11] Williams, above n 4, at [151].

[12] Winiata et al, above n 2, at [94].

[13] At [287].

[14] Porirua ki Manawatū District Inquiry for Wider Inquiry Phase Hearing Week 5, Day 4, at hour 5:08.

[15] Winiata et al, above n 2, at [160].

[16] At [166].

[17] At [175]-[177].

[18] At [235.4].

[19] Hirini Moko Mead Ngā Pepeha a Ngā Tūpuna (Wellington, Victoria University Press, 2004) at 177.

Author: Guest Author

View all posts by Guest Author