The Gospel According to Tuku Morgan

Tainui, Animism and Forthcoming Penury

Tuku Morgan is the chairman of Te Arataura Waikato-Tainui. As such he is involved in the investment and divestment of Tainui assets. He has made an impassioned plea for New Zealand not to sell land to foreigners. Tainui, he says, will not be selling any land to foreign owned interests. (NZ Herald, 30th August, 2010)

Good for them. If the tribal authorities own the land on behalf of the tribe they are free to sell to whomever they choose. The tribe has a private property right in the assets, after all. But Mr Morgan goes further. He makes his argument on the basis of Taunui's religion and wants to see the same principles and practice of ownership be extended to all New Zealand. He informs us that, “There are strong cultural and spiritual elements to our belief that land ownership must remain in the hands of New Zealanders.” Now Tainui are entitled to their own established religion; but he wants to see the principles and beliefs of his tribal religion extended to govern the behaviour of all New Zealanders. That is wrong. Such religious imperialism must be firmly resisted.

Mr Morgan explains that land is sacred in Tainui's religion, (which, he asserts, incidentally to be the religion of all Maori, not just Tainui). He writes: “Maori continue to regard their land as taonga tuku iho, a treasure. Land gives us our identity, our kotahitanga, our tino rangatiratanga.” Ancient Maori animism is well documented. Mr Morgan continues to hold to those beliefs in asserting that land somehow gives him and his tribe and his race identity. If we were to ask, Why not your BMW? or your house? or your flat screen TV?--why don't these possession likewise give you identity? no doubt Mr Morgan would reply that there is something distinct and mystical about land in a way not shared by other material assets. It is related to the ancestors and to the gods and through them Mr Morgan and his colleagues are able to relate to their ancestors and their gods.Land apparently serves as a channelling talisman in Mr Morgan's animistic religion.

One presumes, those Tainui who have left their tribal land and migrated overseas must have lost their identity, their kotahitanga and their tino rangatiratanga. They presumably are able to be regarded as human beings, but, one assumes, no longer Tainui, no longer Maori.


Some might argue that primitive Maori socialism is also at work here. Property, goods and possessions are not really owned by the individual, but by the collective (past ancestors, present living tribal members, and descendants to come) and therefore must never be sold. But no, Mr Morgan quite explicitly makes a distinction between land and other property. When speaking of foreign trading partners and investors, he is quick to point out that Tainui is keen to buy and sell with the best of them.

Waikato-Tainui has established relationships with foreign partners. We want to reach out and be part of a vibrant global community. We will draw on the skills and resources of overseas partners as they will benefit from ours. But land sales will never be part of those relationships. A key element of . . . our 50-year inter-generational strategic plan for the social, cultural, and economic advancement of Waikato-Tainui, is to grow the tribal estate—to reclaim for our tamariki and mokopuna and for their tamariki and mokipuna, the lands of their tapuna, their ancestors.

“We are doing that block by block, acre by acre, piece by piece. It is a long and drawn-out process—to reverse the alienation of a people from its land—but we are determined. (Emphasis, ours)

He goes on to explain that for the tribe, land, unlike other assets and property, is owned under the principle of guardianship. He writes: “We do not 'own' it as individuals. We are merely caretakers for those generations who went before, and those yet to follow.”

So, in Waikato-Tainui's mind, land is in a special category. It can be bought, but never sold. Meanwhile, stadia, hotels, businesses, commercial buildings can be bought and sold at will—as Tainui have done. That kind of property can definitely be “alienated” from the people by being sold off.

It is clear that land ownership for Tainui is a religious matter. Once again—they are entitled to their beliefs and particular religion. It is a false religion, but they are entitled to it. It is economic nonsense, but there you go.

To explain, let's explore just three aspects. Let's assume for a moment that Mr Morgan's religion is the truth and that the land occupied by their ancestors really does control and shape his person. Let us also grant for sake of argument that such land can never be owned individually but is collectively owned by the Tainui—including all past generations, those presently living, and those yet to be born. Does this principle also apply to the land occupied by the Waikato-Tainui ancestors before their migration to New Zealand? And if not, why not? And if so, then Tainui has a far bigger problem than their present alienation from land in the Waikato.

Secondly, why has Mr Morgan confused individual ownership and corporate ownership of property with transactions of property? Why does he imply land must owned corporately and inter-generationally (and therefore never be sold), but all other property can be bought or sold by the tribe at will? Surely all tribal assets such as hotels and so forth can be bought and sold, but, he would agree, remain corporately owned. Purchase and sale simply is exchanging one form of ownership for another, or exchanging one form of property for another. But all tribal assets must be held in perpetuity for the tribe? And if not, why not? Why would land be placed in a special category of ownership—never to be sold, once purchased? Why can tribal assets such as hotels be sold, but land never?

But, if it were true that land really did determine the personhood of individual people—or Tainui believes that it does—then surely Tainui should sell up all their other assets as soon as possible to buy up as much land as possible—to ensure a greater identity and personhood of tribal members.

And herein lies the economic folly of what Mr Morgan is proposing: the market value of any asset is determined by what people are willing to pay for it. Mr Morgan wants Tainui to buy land, then remove it from sale forever. This means that the market value of the land falls overnight to nothing. That which can never be sold is often said to be priceless—but in fact, it is worthless in an economic and market sense. If Tainui pursue this fifty year strategy seriously the tribe will end up in penury. It will have a huge land bank with which it can do very little. Waikato-Tainui will succeed to poverty—and so the cycle will repeat. This is what animism always produces.

The smart Waikato-Tainui will have nothing to do with such nonsense. The idea that such folly should be extended to all New Zealand must be rejected out of hand. Mr Morgan and his colleagues have a right to take the tribe to penury if they so choose. They have no right to argue, even insist, that the rest of the country must likewise be afflicted with their false religion and its attendant economic nonsense.