Urupā Access and the Septic Tank Deadline
Te Whare o te Aroha marae trust has $48,000 from a Lotteries grant to replace a failing septic system before the summer tangihanga season, which begins in seven weeks. The only practical route for the digger is a 60-metre track that passes within five metres of a small urupā containing 11 known graves, some unmarked. The contractor says the route saves $9,000 and three weeks; an alternative route would cross a wetland and needs a resource consent that could take eight weeks. The trust has six trustees. Four support the short route, one abstains, and one, a kaumātua, says the urupā is wāhi tapu and the project should wait. A whānau hui is scheduled in four days, but the contractor needs a decision by Friday to hold the booking. The trust also has a duty to provide a safe, hygienic marae for manuhiri.
1. Identify the tikanga principles in tension here and explain how each should inform the trustees' decision, rather than simply listing them.
Read the worked answer
The tensions are tapu, kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, whanaungatanga and mana. Tapu is not just a prohibition; it marks a relationship with the dead that requires restricted access, correct ritual and consent from the whānau connected to the urupā. Kaitiakitanga obliges the trustees to protect the urupā and the wetland, not only the budget. Manaakitanga requires them to provide safe facilities for manuhiri and to care for kaumātua. Rangatiratanga means the decision belongs with mana whenua, not merely with six trustees. A four-one majority cannot settle an unresolved tapu issue because mana is relational: proceeding over the kaumātua's dissent risks damaging trust and the marae's standing. A tikanga-consistent process would hold the whānau hui, seek kaumātua and tohunga advice, consider karakia and conditions, price the alternative route honestly, and explore a temporary pump-out. If the short route is used, conditions should include blessing, matting, fencing, no excavation near graves, and a cultural monitor. The contractor's Friday deadline should not dictate the decision.
2. Evaluate whether a 4-1 trustee majority is a sufficient basis for proceeding. What would a tikanga-consistent decision-making process require?
Read the worked answer
A 4-1 majority is not sufficient by itself. It is a governance mechanism, but tikanga decision-making is consensus-seeking and whakapapa-based. The abstention and the kaumātua's dissent show that the issue is not settled. The trustees hold mana through their mandate, but they do not own the tapu of the urupā. A tikanga-consistent process would give notice to affected whānau, hold the hui on the marae, let kaumātua lead karakia and kōrero, identify who are the kaitiaki, hear the contractor, consider alternatives, and seek agreement rather than merely a vote. It would record the reasons and make the decision reviewable. If agreement cannot be reached, the trustees should prefer the less damaging route or delay, because imposing access can create a lasting breach. They should also check the trust order and grant conditions. This is not about ignoring governance; it is about making governance work within tikanga.
3. Recommend a course of action, with conditions, if the trustees decide to proceed. Justify the trade-offs.
Read the worked answer
The trustees should not commit by Friday. They should ask the contractor to hold the booking or accept a partial deposit, start the wetland consent in parallel, and arrange a temporary pump-out if health risks are urgent. They should hold the whānau hui in four days with kaumātua leading karakia, and commission a short cultural assessment of the route, including grave locations. If they still choose the short route, conditions should include: no machinery within 10 metres of the urupā; hand-clearing; protective matting and fencing; a cultural monitor present; karakia before and after; stop-work if kōiwi or artefacts are found; restoration; written whānau consent; and a koha to the marae. If consent is withheld, they should use the alternative route and seek the resource consent. The trade-off is cost and time against tapu and long-term trust. Health cannot wait indefinitely, but tapu cannot be bypassed as if it were only a cost. The decision and reasons should be minuted and reviewed.