The borrowed mōteatea: mana, whakapapa and a three-week deadline
A city kura's kapa haka rōpū has 26 ākonga in Years 11–13, with whakapapa to Ngāpuhi, Tainui and two Te Tai Rāwhiti families; only four speak Māori at home. They are entered in a regional secondary schools' competition with a 20-minute set, and the entry form asks for the whakapapa and source of every item. The tutor, who does not whakapapa to the iwi concerned, taught the rōpū a mōteatea learnt from a YouTube clip of a senior kapa haka. The text names a maunga, an awa and a tūpuna belonging to one hapū, and it differs from a printed copy held in the kura library by two kupu and one vowel length. Three weeks out, a visiting kaumātua tells the rōpū the item 'is not yours to stand'. Two senior ākonga argue that the rōpū performs it beautifully and that dropping it now throws away six weeks of rehearsal.
1. Recommend what the tutor should do in the next seven days, and justify the decision against the competing pressures (time, rōpū morale, the kaumātua's objection).
Read the worked answer
Separate ability from authority. The kaumātua's objection is not about whether 26 ākonga can sing the item well. It is about who the item belongs to. A rōpū can perform a borrowed item beautifully and still be wrong to stand it, so 'we do it well' does not answer the objection.
Next seven days, in order:
- Stop rehearsing the item until the position is clear. Reallocate that time rather than losing it.
- Establish the source properly. The YouTube clip and the library copy disagree by two kupu and a vowel length. That disagreement is itself evidence the rōpū does not hold an authoritative text, which undermines any claim to perform it.
- Contact the right people - the hapū trust, the marae committee, or a kaumātua mandated to speak for the item - not a generic email to 'the iwi'.
- Set a decision date (say Day 10). If clear permission has not been given by then, the item is replaced.
- Start a replacement from Day 1 - an item the rōpū has an undisputed right to (its own whakapapa, or a kura item with a known history), or a new composition supported by kaumātua.
Why not wait and see. Three weeks is tight for a set change, but the cost of replacing an item is rehearsal time. The cost of standing an item without the right to it is a breach of manaakitanga and whanaungatanga with that hapū that outlasts the competition. Those costs are not symmetrical, so the safer option is also the correct one.
2. The entry form requires a whakapapa statement for each item. Explain the approach the rōpū should take for this item, including what to do if permission has not arrived by the submission deadline.
Read the worked answer
The statement is evidence, not marketing. It should let the organisers see where the item comes from and on what basis the rōpū stands it. So it must be accurate even when the position is unresolved.
What a sound statement looks like:
- Name of item and, if known, the composer and the hapū/iwi it belongs to.
- The status of the rōpū's text - for example, 'two versions are held; an authoritative text is being confirmed with [named body]'.
- The status of permission - for example, 'permission is being sought in writing from [named body]'.
- A commitment: 'if permission is not granted before the competition, the rōpū will withdraw the item.'
What not to write. Do not write 'traditional' or 'unknown composer' as a substitute for not knowing. Do not name the YouTube clip as a source - a clip is where the rōpū learnt it, not where it comes from. Do not overstate permission that has not been given.
If permission has not arrived by the deadline. Two defensible routes: withdraw the item before submission so the set submitted is the set performed, or submit it as provisional in writing, with the withdrawal condition stated, and confirm in writing the moment the position is known. The first is safer; the second is acceptable only if the organisers have agreed in writing. Listing the item and quietly replacing it later is the one option that damages trust with both the organisers and the hapū.
3. How should the tutor handle the two senior ākonga who want to keep the item, and what should the whole rōpū learn from the episode?
Read the worked answer
Do not overrule them - use the disagreement. They are not being disrespectful; they are naming a real cost (six weeks of work, pride in a strong performance). Acknowledge that cost before re-framing the question: not 'who is right' but 'what is a rōpū for'.
Practical moves:
- Give the seniors ownership of the problem: ask them to trace the item's source, draft the entry-form statement, and lead the transition to a replacement. They keep status and the rōpū keeps their energy.
- Take them to the conversation with the kaumātua, or have them hear the reasons directly. Second-hand summaries get flattened into 'we were told off'.
- Be explicit that their performance standard is not in question, and that the decision would be the same if the item were performed twice as well.
What the rōpū should learn:
- The difference between performing an item well and having the right to stand it - the core of kaitiakitanga in Te Ao Haka.
- Tika and pono in practice: an honest entry form is part of the performance, not paperwork.
- That mana is held collectively; a wrong decision by the rōpū is carried by the kura and by the hapū whose item was taken.
- That a well-handled no can build a relationship with a hapū that gives the rōpū access later. The follow-up letter of thanks matters as much as the withdrawal.