Te Tono ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi
​
by Adam Rangihana

Submission to the Waitangi Tribunal

​
Te Tono ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi

Submission to the Waitangi Tribunal
Te Tono ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi

Summary
This submission urges immediate legislative reform to protect Māori taonga (treasures) and mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) across all domains of New Zealand’s intellectual-property system. Despite the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 262 recommendations in 2011, Crown progress has been piecemeal, leaving taonga vulnerable to misappropriation—as evidenced by the recent “Manuka Honey” certification-mark decision. Embedding kaitiakitanga (guardianship) via a new Taonga & Mātauranga Māori Protection Act, supplemented by targeted amendments to existing IP laws, will secure economic, cultural, and environmental benefits for all New Zealanders.

1. The problem: gaps in current IP law

1. The Waitangi Tribunal’s Ko Aotearoa Tēnei report (Wai 262, 2011) recommended sui generis protections for taonga species, designs, and knowledge, yet most proposals remain unimplemented fourteen years later. (wai262.nz)
2. The Trade Marks Act 2002 and Geographical Indications Act 1994 do not require decision-makers to weigh kaitiaki consent or the taonga status of Māori words, leaving terms like “Manuka” exposed to generic use. (wgtn.ac.nz)
3. IPONZ guidelines for mātauranga Māori are advisory only; the Assistant Commissioner must still apply “clear provisions” of statute without legal force to protect taonga. (iponz.govt.nz)
4. Plant Variety Rights Act 2022 includes Treaty-based clauses for some Indigenous plant varieties, but does not extend to all taonga species or mātauranga practices. (legislation.govt.nz, iponz.govt.nz)

2. Economic and cultural stakes

1. Māori entities contributed $32 billion (8.9 % of GDP) to Aotearoa’s economy in 2023—up from $17 billion in 2018—highlighting the Māori economy’s rapid growth. (asiapacificreport.nz, rnz.co.nz)
2. Global mānuka-honey exports totaled NZ $243 million in 2023, yet New Zealand producers lost exclusive branding rights, undermining premium price positions. (livebeekeeping.com)
3. Māori cultural-branding ventures in wine, tourism, and biotech report rising consumer demand for authenticity—but warn of offshore copy-cat brands diluting provenance.
4. Embedding kaitiakitanga into IP law would unlock new R&D partnerships (e.g. bioactive extracts) and secure benefit-sharing, boosting innovation across sectors. (learnnagoya.com)

3. Legislative recommendations
3.1 Taonga & Mātauranga Māori Protection Act

• Sui generis rights for all recognised taonga species, designs, kupu (words), and mātauranga practices.
• Mandatory kaitiaki consent: commercial or trademark uses must obtain approval from designated hapū/iwi guardians.

3.2 Māori Kaitiaki Authority (MKA)

• Establish a Crown–Māori entity to maintain a confidential Taonga Register, manage benefit-sharing trusts, and issue or refuse consents.
• Mirror Nagoya Protocol principles (prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms) to align with international best practice. (learnnagoya.com)

3.3 Amendments to existing IP Acts

• Trade Marks Act & GI Act: refuse or suspend applications incorporating registered taonga without MKA sign-off; require cultural-impact assessments for certification marks.
• Copyright Act: recognise and protect traditional narratives, designs, and recordings as protected mātauranga Māori content.

3.4 Enforcement and transition

• Provide statutory injunctive relief, damages, and border controls against infringing imports.
• Fund a 5-year rollout for Māori exporters: support for relabelling, traceability tech, and nationwide education on tikanga-compliant branding.

4. Alignment with Te Pae Tawhiti and Treaty obligations

1. The Government’s Te Pae Tawhiti programme (2019–22) commits to a “whole-of-government” Wai 262 response but lacks binding legislation or timelines. (tpk.govt.nz, wai262.nz)
2. Embedding taonga protections mirrors successful Plant Variety Rights Act 2022 Treaty clauses, demonstrating feasibility without stifling innovation. (legislation.govt.nz)
3. A comprehensive statute fulfills Crown obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, fostering true partnership and upholding rangatiratanga (authority) over cultural treasures.

5. Benefits for Aotearoa

• Economic resilience: recapture lost premium branding, boost export growth, and diversify Māori and national revenue streams.
• Cultural integrity: honour kaitiakitanga, ensure that mātauranga Māori remains under Māori stewardship.
• Innovation leadership: attract ethical R&D collaborations, strengthen NZ’s position under UN and WTO indigenous-knowledge norms.
• Environmental guardianship: codify sustainable harvesting aligned with Māori worldviews, supporting biodiversity goals.
• National cohesion: enshrine bicultural identity in statute, reinforcing Te Pae Tawhiti’s vision of an inclusive Aotearoa.

Conclusion
He waka eke noa—when Māori taonga and mātauranga are safeguarded, all New Zealanders prosper. We respectfully request the Tribunal to recommend:

1. Introduction of the Taonga & Mātauranga Māori Protection Bill in the 2025 session.
2. Establishment of the Māori Kaitiaki Authority with legislative mandate.
3. Budget 2026 allocation for transitional support to exporters and communities.
   
   
   

Nāku noa, nā,
Arama Rangihana
(Descendant of Toki Toki Pangari)

​How the New Zealand Government

Continues to Destroy the Mānuka Honey Industry


By Adam Rangihana

For two decades, Māori beekeeper Rangi Raroa has poured his heart into the land and the hives of the East Coast. He’s tasted the high times—when manuka honey was booming, and Māori producers found pride and prosperity. Now, after years of government intervention and tightening rules, he’s in survival mode, like so many others.
“We haven’t been able to sell honey in the last three years. We’re at the point of walking away from the hives—no one will buy them, you can’t even give them away.”
It wasn’t always like this. In the years before 2020, manuka honey put New Zealand beekeeping on the map. International demand soared, especially when the world learned of manuka’s health benefits. For a moment, the industry promised Māori a chance to prosper from ancestral lands and indigenous knowledge.
But as always, just when Māori communities started to get ahead, the rules changed.
Red Tape and Ruined ProspectsIn 2018, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) brought in new rules: only honey that passed a specific laboratory test—measuring five “official” markers—could be called mānuka for export. MPI said the science was robust and designed to “provide certainty” for overseas buyers. What it actually did was cut the legs out from under East Coast and Māori producers.
“Some honey that was always good manuka, suddenly didn’t qualify anymore. The markers were out of kilter with the natural variations in our region. Overnight, our honey lost its value and its market.”
Small producers like Raroa weren’t just squeezed—they were pushed to the brink. The big honey companies stopped buying from the little guys. Suddenly, Māori and family producers were stuck with barrels of honey and no buyers, while the cost of production, disease risk, and wild weather made each season riskier than the last.
MPI did a “review” in 2020 after complaints, but predictably, nothing changed.
Losing Control, Losing IdentityWorse, while Māori and New Zealanders were forced to jump through ever-higher hoops, the rest of the world was free to profit from the mānuka name. A hard-fought court case to secure trademark rights for “mānuka honey” was lost in 2023. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) sided with global commercial interests, arguing that “mānuka” had become a generic word.
Kristen Kohere-Soutar of the Mānuka Charitable Trust put it bluntly:
“The courts don’t care that it’s our rākau, our land, our word. Seven million years of evolution, and now anyone can slap ‘manuka’ on a label—even if it never saw Aotearoa.”
Clinging to HopeAgainst all odds, a handful of Māori producers scraped together a deal to send 38 barrels to Germany this year—a tiny lifeline, not a solution. Raroa’s optimism is battered but alive. “There’s a bit of hope. Maybe things can improve from here.”
But unless the government steps up to truly protect mānuka—not just for export, but as a taonga species and a birthright—the future of Māori honey is bleak. We need a geographical indication system (like France and Italy protect Champagne or Parmesan), so only honey from New Zealand, made by our hands and bees, can be called mānuka.
Anything less is another chapter in the ongoing dispossession of Māori knowledge, land, and industry—one jar at a time.