Editorial: It's vital a last wish is very clear

If anything is to be learned from the James Takamore battle being waged in the Supreme Court, it is that we should all be explicit about our wishes for events should we die.

But even then, will that be enough?

The Supreme Court is the scene of the latest stoush in a five-year legal argument over where Tuhoe man Mr Takamore should be buried.

Mr Takamore died from an aneurism in 2007. Whanau members travelled from the Bay of Plenty to Christchurch for the tangi but, after a dispute with widow Denise Clarke at the funeral home, they took the body back to Kutarere, to the family urupa.

Ms Clarke has since fought to have Mr Takamore's body returned to Christchurch, where he lived with her and their two children for 20 years.

The High Court and Court of Appeal ruled that taking the body was unlawful. Now Mr Takamore's sister Josephine Takamore has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments centre on whether Ms Clarke, as executor of the will, was entitled to decide on where the burial would take place.

Legal eyes will be watching developments closely, as having come this far this case could have huge consequences for any dispute in which Maori custom collides with common law.

Earlier reports noted Mr Takamore's wish, according to Ms Clarke, to be buried in Christchurch. But latest coverage notes only that he had specified in his will that he wanted to be buried but did not say where.

The lawyer acting for Ms Takamore's sister Josephine, James Ferguson, told the Supreme Court that Tuhoe tikanga should be given weight alongside common law considerations. He said tikanga applied to Mr Takamore because he was Tuhoe and he could never "opt out" of the tikanga process.

With these words he makes clear the wishes of the individual weigh little against tikanga, and had Mr Takamore made clear he wanted to be buried in Christchurch, it may not have made a difference.

As we approach Maori Language Week, New Zealand is going through an interesting time when it comes to race relations. The Prime Minister has stirred the wrath of both Maori and Pakeha over the water rights/asset sales issue; opposition to compulsory use of te reo in court has arisen; and resentment continues to simmer over the trial of the Urewera four.

A New Zealand Herald editorial on the Takamore issue from 2007 said: "This is a case that could be happily resolved with good will on both sides, and it is important that it should be ... Carefully handled, this cultural dilemma could turn out happily for all."

Five years on, it's clear that a happy ending is still a long way off, if at all achievable.

What do you think?

Email editor@dailypost.co.nz, text DP then your message to 021 241 4568, or write to editor, PO Box 1442, Rotorua.