The thought snuck up from nowhere while watching a US television reality show. Hey, that chick just sat her bum on the kitchen bench!

Even as a Pakeha Kiwi – as old and white as they come – it struck a jarring note. So am I starting to get the first stirrings of an authentically bicultural identity? Mixing bottoms and food preparation areas is now instinctively felt as tapu?



Biculturalism is a tricky subject. As still a young country, New Zealand is on a journey of discovering itself. It wants to grow into something that is both authentic and distinctive in the world.



And a conscious browning of its culture seems a good thing. It would strengthen the national sense of identity. A "Maori cool" could even be taken as a international branding exercise – the way to cement New Zealand as a distinctive proposition in the world's eye.



READ MORE:

* Ngai Tahu's reach shapes a new city

* Tyson ink stink resolved

* Tapu taboos

* Pounamu mana​

* JK Rowling under fire for writing about 'Native American wizards'

* Russian badminton players celebrate victory with bizarre haka

* Google Doodles Dame Whina

​* Air New Zealand uniform's 'disrespect Maori'

* Cheeky French steal moko



SUPPLIED Traditional meaning: Kaikohe's Te Rangitu Netana working on a moko design.



Just witness the part the haka, moko-style tattoos and corded hunks of greenstone now play as markers of their Kiwi-ness when the young take off for abroad these days.



And yet biculturalism is awkward too. There is a fine line to cultural appropriation. And no-one wants to be accused of that.



JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author, has walked straight into such a fuss with her reworking of the Navajo legend of the skinwalker – a shadowy witch figure – into a faux North American history of wizardry on her new website, Pottermore.



Rowling says obviously it is just fictional fun. But she was blasted by native American academics for her disrespectful colonial attitudes and "commodification of spiritual practices".

The blogosphere erupted with "PC gone mad" rejoinders. "Does that mean all those superhero movies featuring Norse Gods and Greek Gods were cultural appropriation too?" cried one comment.



However it makes you think about the rules for Pakeha New Zealanders.



Since the All Blacks began to do it properly, the haka has become something we generally don't like seeing being mucked about with. If it is going to be done, it has to be done in the right way, in the right spirit, not made fun of in an Italian car advertisement or college football game in Arizona.



And ta moko – which correctly is an incision, a carving on the skin, using uhi, or chisels made of albatross bone – has become like that too. There is a Kiwi context that demands respect. So some people felt it off when UK singer Robbie Williams got one tattooed on his shoulder.

Boxer Mike Tyson caused a double stir because first he had one inked on his face, and then his US tattoo artist sued Warner Bros for copyright infringement after it used the design on a character in its top-grossing comedy movie, The Hangover II.

SUPPLIED/DESTINATION OREWA BEACH Ephemeral objects like this tiki-inspired sandcastle are not so sensitive an issue as permanent carvings.

Surely an American couldn't claim to be the owner of that particular piece of intellectual property?



But even within New Zealand, how are respectful boundaries to be drawn? Online, there are now continual debates about whether ta moko on white boys counts as a cultural offence.



Or with pounamu, there are anxious queries about whether it is right that carved greenstone can only be accepted as a gift, never bought for yourself? And do Maori really insist a stone must be washed and blessed to remove the tapu of its maker?



So when is it play-acting and when is it genuine? How do we share a culture without becoming simply its thieves? Yep, biculturalism has the potential to be the new social minefield.



IT'S ABOUT OWNERSHIP



Auckland University law professor and Waitangi Tribunal expert Dr David Williams says it starts with a formal framework.



New Zealand is working towards institutionalising its bicultural identity and before anything can be shared, first its proper ownership must be established.



The issue of cultural appropriation is being tackled internationally. There is a growing push to protect the myths and customary knowledge of indigenous people as intellectual property.



One of the milestones was the 1993 Mataatua Declaration in the Bay of Plenty. Tribal delegates from 14 countries – including Aboriginal Australians, Japanese Ainu and Native Americans – met to claim copyright protection and "control over the dissemination" of their traditional cultures.



Williams says that international fight has rolled on through various United Nation's resolutions and is being carried forward by intergovernmental agencies like the World Intellectual Property Office (Wipo).



Big business is now well aware of the feelings about cultural appropriation. In the past, Maori had to embarrass overseas firms into dropping products that were felt offensive.



Lego was made to back down over using Maori spiritual names on a range of its Bionicle toys. Phillip Morris ditched an Israeli brand of cigarette it had dubbed Maori Mix.

The way things are going, indigenous people may one day also have laws under which they can take action.

And then New Zealand has its own Treaty attempts at a creating a suitable regulatory framework. In 1997, Maori launched the Wai 262 "flora and fauna" claim.



Williams says that was radical because it was the first "whole of government" claim.



It stepped back from questions about ownership of land and other material assets to consider what Maoridom brought to the Treaty partnership in terms of its distinctive culture and historical relationship to the nation's plants and wildlife.



"Wai 262 asked what was going to be the post-Treaty relation between Kupe's people and Cook's people," says Williams.



And finally in 2011 it resulted in a book-length report, Ko Aotearoa Tenei, or "This is New Zealand", which documented what Maori considered to be its taonga, or cultural treasures, as well as suggesting how that should be protected.



Williams says so far the Crown has bottled giving a formal response to Wai 262 – saying nothing in reply that might commit it to a legislative programme to secure taonga as intellectual property.



Perhaps that is understandable. "My guess is government officials probably said it's too big, it's too hard", says Williams.



But informally there seems to be movement.



There are now Maori advisory committees to deal with both trademarks and patent applications. Although these exist simply as a source of Maori cultural expertise to warn of what might prove offensive in a general public sense, not to uphold any new property rights.



More significant says Williams is that Maori co-governance arrangements are being taken increasingly seriously. Maori are getting a seat at the table with regional councils, water bodies and other agencies, allowing the Maori view actively to shape the design of new policy.



"We've got beyond the ethnic wallpaper approach with government departments. The fact the Inland Revenue Department might decide it can also be called Te Tari Taake, the Department of Tax, doesn't change anything really.



"But I think there's a genuine commitment in the public service that they have to do more than just make a token nod to Maori culture now."



Thus while Wai 262 looks to have been ignored, Williams says he is of the glass half full opinion that the report has created a basis for treating Maori concerns as a living conversation. He points to the formula the Crown is using on the foreshore and seabed issue.



"When the legislation was repealed, the answer was that it had been in Crown ownership and now it's in no-one's ownership. So we will just have to work out how it is to be managed in relation to customary interests and the general public's interest."

DAVID HALLETT/FAIRFAX Bicultural governance: Dawn blessing of pounamu mauri stone at opening of Christchurch City Council offices.

Williams says this seems the healthy approach – wind back matters to a pre-Treaty state so as to allow room for a modern post-Treaty partnership solution to evolve.

And a further clear principle to emerge from Wai 262 is that cultural ownership needs to be considered as a continuum.

The report suggested there should be three categories of protection – Taonga works, Taonga-derived works, and "closely-held matauranga Maori", the third being things special to particular tribes.

MAARTEN HOLL/FAIRFAX NZ Artist Johnson Witehira: "The difference is Maori culture doesn't have a home anywhere else."

"Usually there's a continuum from where something is of such cultural significance, that really Maori ought to have strong control over its use in any form.



"And then the other extreme, where while something might have origins as a Maori motif, it's very much part of the public domain – and if Robbie Williams wants to put it on his shoulder, well that's probably OK," says Williams.



WHAT ABOUT BICULTURALISM?

Talk about who owns what when it comes to Maori culture seems both necessary yet also rather off-putting.



Proprietorial rights sounds like the intent to impose tight restrictions. And where would that leave the development of a fully fledged Kiwi biculturalism?



However Maori designer and Auckland University of Technology lecturer, Dr Johnson Witehira, offers his own disarming take. He says think about it and what Maori would want is actually more cultural appropriation.



"If you look back at how Maori engaged with European ideas and technology, or philosophy and religion, we were really happy to adopt those things in ways that shaped our own culture.



"And why cultural appropriation becomes problematic is because Pakeha weren't so happy to take on-board Maori things originally."



So the goal is to stop in order to get started again, Witehira says.



Biculturalism needs a formal base like the Wai 262 flora and fauna report to create an understanding of what matters historically to Maori. But the hope is that, in turn, it will act as a springboard to a new level of partnership.



Witehira says ta moko is a good example. Carving in general holds a special place in Maori culture, being permanent and steeped in ritual. So moko are worn as a record of tribal connection, not simply as body decoration.



"Stories about the origins of ta moko talk of the ancestor Mataora first receiving the knowledge of moko from Uetonga, who resided in Rarohenga (the underworld)."



But tattoos, being merely painting – albeit permanent – on the skin, are already a lesser order of thing – sometimes called kirituhi. And tattoos merely inspired by moko designs are even more distant from cultural concerns.

Witehira says the more ephemeral and earth-bound the art form – like painting or ornaments – the less it matters. And once Pakeha understand this, they can feel more confident about how to weave Maori influences into their own lives.

GILES BROWN/FAIRFAX Mountain Jade shop in Hokitika. Passing tourists are a big market for greenstone carvings.

Yet Witehira says Maori culture does need its protection as indigenous intellectual property. While the desire is for a free exchange, the reality is still that Pakeha represent the dominant culture.

"If Maori go and borrow things from Pakeha culture, like photography or whatever, we're not going to affect that larger culture itself. It's too massive. But if non-Maori start using Maori things in uninformed ways, then they're actually going to dilute that culture."



This is the problem with an example like Mike Tyson's facial tattoo.



"Tyson is someone with a large presence on the world stage – probably more than Maori do themselves. So if he has a tattoo which he's calling Maori, then you can see how that could change perceptions about what Maori things really are."



Likewise, says Witehira, the oft-heard comment that New Zealand should skip biculturalism because its real future lies in a multicultural identity involving Asians and Pacifica as well. The true melting pot.



However Witehira says multiculturalism is different because it is about an integration of cultures which retain a living connection with some other country.



"If you're talking about Indian, Chinese or Samoan cultures, they all still have a home somewhere else. But Maori culture doesn't have a home anywhere else. And that's the critical difference."



WHAT ABOUT TRADITION?



So the traditional should be protected in a way that fosters an understanding. In that way the outcomes will have meaningful roots.



But nothing is going to be comfortably cut and dried. Or at least that would be what some of the side stories, like the tourist trade in pounamu, might suggest.



John Sheehan, a US immigrant who founded New Zealand's largest greenstone jewellery business, Rotorua-based Mountain Jade, in 1986, says the truth of cultural debates is always complicated.



"In the late 1950s and early 1960s, it was Pakeha carvers who brought the carving of pounamu back to an art form. Prior to that, it was pretty much a dead duck. Nobody was carving very much anywhere."



As a small community nobody was taking much notice of, Sheehan says it had to work out its own rules of respect.



"I had a conversation with this old guy in Rotorua. I asked if he was offended by my carving pounamu. He said the only rule you have to follow as a contemporary carver is never to copy any of the old work.



"If you copy, you're taking the mana away from that old piece. But you can use the old work as the basis for new work, and that new work is yours."



However Sheehan says there are only about seven traditional forms that would have this close protection. And also historically, some favourite pounamu objects like tiki were once traded as trinkets themselves.



Sheehan says production was cranked up in early settler times because something was needed to swap for the tools being offered by the whalers.

"And once you have your metal axe, what do you want with your pounamu adze? So Maori just started turning their adzes into tiki to trade for more axes. Its funny, but Maori were the first souvenir manufacturers in the pounamu industry."

The past may be less precious then it seems, he says.

But regardless, for New Zealand jade carvers, the whole argument is now having to be worked through again as part of a more formal bicultural debate.

Under its 1997 Treaty settlement, the South Island iwi Ngai Tahu gained tribal ownership of New Zealand's best quality pounamu deposits. Sheehan says the promise was that properly authenticated stone would create a market that better represented New Zealand to the world.

Instead, the pounamu became locked up for years because of internal divisions within Ngai Tahu. Head office supported commercial development, but the West Coast runanga – particularly Haast – wanted the pounamu kept as traditional property.

Sheehan says he has had to build up his business sourcing jade from China, Siberia and Canada. It is only this year that Ngai Tahu has begun to release New Zealand stone.

"They have a really good system. It's like Icebreaker. The stone is labelled so you can track it right back to its place of origin." So while it has taken a long time, there is the opportunity now for a pounamu trade that properly respects Maori values like a tribal attachment to place, Sheehan says.

The lack of local stone sent carving into reverse. "We had about 15 carvers in Hokitika but we had to let most of them go. The industry has shrunk by about 80 per cent in the past three years."

For its part, Ngai Tahu says the priority has to been to protect and manage its pounamu resource sustainably. And also, the supply of stone for ceremonial use has naturally had first call.

So for pounamu, there are still tensions playing out. Sheehan says the push for a biculturally acceptable formula has had its casualties. It is not all sweetness and light. However generally he is optimistic.

"In New Zealand we are lucky compared to Canada or where I came from in upstate New York, where the Mohawk Indians live. There, there is a wall, a big divide. You can't live in their world.

"We don't have that here. We do have two worlds, but we work together pretty well. And everything evolves. It's nothing to be afraid of," Sheehan says.