THE TREATY OF WAITANGI: UNITY BUILT ON DIVERSITY
The speech to the Orewa Rotary Club in 2004 by Dr Don Brash, leader of the National Party at the time, triggered a major public debate and temporarily catapulted the party up in the polls. But Dr Brash’s views had the potential to undo much that was good in race relationships, as this article which appeared in the New Zealand Herald on Waitangi Day 2004 outlines.
On the wall at Ngai Tahu headquarters in Christchurch hangs a document of formal apology by the New Zealand Government for the wrongful alienation of Ngai Tahu land in the 19th century. The document is signed by Jenny Shipley, Prime Minister of the day.
The apology followed a finding by the Waitangi Tribunal that the claim by Ngai Tahu to the greater part of South Island was legitimate. But with that acknowledged, Ngai Tahu said they recognised the place of the many other settlers who had come subsequently to New Zealand, and did not want all of the land for themselves.
Instead an agreement was reached whereby the Crown allocated $170 million to Ngai Tahu, money which has been invested for the provision of health, education, housing and the general well-being of the tribe. Ngai Tahu were also affirmed as the guardians of 130 species of native flora and fauna, and of sacred sites such as Aoraki/Mt Cook. The mountain was deeded back to Ngai Tahu, who then formally returned it to the nation.
A basic dynamic of human relationships underlies this process. When a wrong has been done the wrong-doer is called on to acknowledge and repent of the wrong, and to make appropriate reparation. The act of repentance in turn frees the wronged party to act generously and, in a spirit of reconciliation, a new partnership is established.
We understand this dynamic at a personal level, but to see it as equally valid at the collective level between different groups, nations and races is a more recent insight. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South Africa is based on this same understanding. In Australia the 1997 report on the stolen aboriginal generations significantly raised the awareness of Australians, although it took ten years and a change of government for an official apology to be offered.
While National Party leader Don Brash said in his speech to the Orewa Rotary Club that he would continue the process of settlements under the Waitangi tribunal, his comments are destructive of much that is good. His pledge to do away with many Maori structures and institutions, and restore unitary systems of administration, takes us back 50 years to a time when New Zealanders harboured the romantic notion that this country was a model to the world of racial harmony.
It is easy enough to point to excesses by individuals within Treaty processes, but what race or institution is free of corruption or excess? To add emotive terms like ‘grievance industry’, ‘deeply corrupt’ or ‘pecuniary gain’ panders to populism at the cost of substantial progress made in recent years by both Labour and National governments.
Dr Brash’s words are a sad contrast to those of Ngati Whatua chairman Sir Hugh Kawharu who, in speaking of Bastion Point, said that Maori title to land bestows mana, and mana requires sharing with all. Sir Hugh says that the concept of exclusive possession of land was alien to Maori before 1840. Today as a nation we have a choice between a spirit of sharing and trust, as outlined by Sir Hugh, or one that undermines the Treaty and leads to alienation and division.
At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 Governor Hobson said to each chief: “He iwi tahi tatou” (we are all one people). The words are capable of different meanings. They could mean, as Dr Brash interprets, that all race-based differences should be abandoned, and everyone treated the same. In reality, they mean something else.
Article 1 of the Treaty (acknowledging the kawanatanga/governorship of Queen Victoria) and Article 3 (according British citizenship to Maori) support a concept of one nation/one citizenship. But Article 2 acknowledges a special oversight (rangatiratanga/chieftainship) by Maori over their lands, fisheries and forests.
The Treaty thus offers a vision of unity between two peoples, but does not obliterate the differences. Instead it requires a careful dialogue between the parties to ensure the promises of Article 2 are achieved. The interplay between kawanatanga (Article 1) and rangatiratanga (Article 2) is complex, but successful dialogue is leading to win-win situations such as that between the Crown and Ngai Tahu.
It is this process which Dr Brash undermines with his dismissive comments on the Treaty, and his pledge to abandon many of the institutions designed to achieve justice and well-being for Maori. It is not a question of special rights and privileged treatment based on race. It is a matter of honouring promises made by our ancestors, and correcting injustices of the past in order to lay the groundwork for an equitable future.
Dr Brash is correct in saying that not only Maori are poor, but the fact is that Maori are disproportionately poor. Maori initiatives in crucial areas such as health and education do not mean neglecting the needs of non-Maori. Rather such initiatives acknowledge that policy-making for Maori by Maori will lead to better outcomes than if Maori are no more than a minority client-group in a one-size-fits-all structure dominated by Pakeha. Tailor-made Maori solutions can also prove more cost-effective than institutional ones.
It was precisely such an awareness that led to a constitutional change in the Anglican Church in 1991. The Church replaced a unitary system whereby Pakeha could always outvote Maori with one where any matter affecting both races must be mutually agreed. This arrangement ensures that what Maori judge appropriate for the advancement of mission among their own people is not subject to control by the rest of the Church. It is an exercise in self-determination, not ethnic privilege.
Dr Brash’s policies would have precisely the reverse effect. In abolishing Maori structures they would destroy not privilege but self-determination, and return Maori to a Pakeha-dominated colonialist framework.
The Treaty of Waitangi envisages a community which is diverse in composition, but able to work together to achieve outcomes that ensure the well-being of all peoples. True leadership is not that which obliterates racial awareness so that one race dominates another. True leadership is marked by the ability to develop structures that reflect diversity but blend for the common good.
To Discuss
- Do you see the Treaty of Waitangi as a source of division within the nation, or does it have a positive role to play?
- What would need to happen for the Treaty to be a source of positive outcomes in New Zealand?
- What is your understanding of the three-tikanga (Maori, Pakeha, Pacific Island) model of governance adopted by the Anglican Church in 1991? Has this been helpful to the Church’s life? What might be done to enhance partnership across tikanga within the Church?
