United Future
Larry Baldock

Baldock: Waitangi Day is here again and here we go again

I had to revisit my own knowledge of New Zealand history gained from my school days, by reading Claudia Orange, Ranginui Walker and James Belich and listening to Treaty seminars by Mason Durie and others helped bring my understanding forward somewhat.

Over this summer, I have been engrossed in Michael King’s, A Penguin Guide to New Zealand History and have found that has also added to my growing yet still imperfect knowledge of what has happened in this great land over the past 1000 years that I am proud to call my turangawaewae.

Recommended reading

I appreciated King’s humility in acknowledging that we often do not know with absolute certainty what has happened in New Zealand even as recently as 700-1000 years ago, and history does undergo revision from time to time as new information comes to hand.

It would seem to be a fairly well established fact now that Maori were the first inhabitants of this land that we know of; that they did not eat the Moriori to extinction, although they certainly did so with the moa, which shows that their journey to becoming a culture with deeply held beliefs about sustainability and stewardship of natural resources was a journey of learning just as is the case with the Pakeha.

I am grateful for the Waitangi Tribunal and claims process, be it ever so slow at times. It is helping us understand and verify exactly what has taken place over the past 164 years since the signing of the treaty, and United Future is committed to the addressing of past injustices.

In comparison to other nations, we can be proud as New Zealanders of the progress made so far, and we look forward with hope and expectation to the end of the process of settlements as soon as is practically possible, not just because of what John Tamihere calls treaty fatigue amongst non-Maori, but more importantly because Maori have been waiting up to 150 years for wrongs to be made right.

By the time we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the treaty signing in 2040, we will still be a young nation and, God willing, I trust we will be healthier in our racial and cultural harmony.

The Brash speech

The now famous ‘Don Brash speech at Orewa’ has some pretty mixed messages in my opinion.

I watched him also last night on television with Kim Hill and choked when he conceded that Maori language should be protected, and yet at the same time he recommended that every one in New Zealand should receive the same treatment from the Government.

Does that mean he supports Maori being an official language of New Zealand, and if so, on what basis does he agree to that? Was he therefore suggesting that Chinese or Korean immigrants have a right to support for their language as well, and if that is the case, Maori are not receiving special treatment after all, so what’s the problem? He objects to local government being required to consult with Maori, advocating they be treated like any other individuals, which proves the point that he doesn’t understand Maori at all, for their culture is not an individualistic one.

He lacks the courage to be consistent and promise to scrap the Waitangi Tribunal process, not realising that when he advocates for the completion of the Waitangi Tribunal process to complete all the settlements he is in fact acknowledging that the treaty is now recognised in law since there would be no basis for any grievance by Maori and subsequent settlements if the treaty was not a lawfully recognised document.

So Don and the National Party want one rule of law for all, and they acknowledge that the treaty is part of that law, but once the settlements are complete, they advocate changing the law without consultation or agreement with Maori.

We should all be very concerned about this, because if we allow the rights of a minority that have been established in law to be extinguished with the stroke of a pen by the majority, then our turn may be next.

It is difficult to see the difference between his approach and that of the administrations of the 1850s and 1860s who created the very problem that society is trying to remedy today through the Waitangi Tribunal and such tools.

Can anyone explain to me how you can agree to compensation for past wrongs but then continue to perpetuate those wrongs? Doesn’t sound like one law for all to me. It sounds like a dictatorship.

Maori representation

National’s plan to abolish Maori seats in Parliament when he has effectively silenced National’s only Maori MP is also disconcerting. As the seats were created to correct the lack of representation of Maori, it would surely be fair to allow Maori to have a say in the decision concerning replacing them.

On the issue of Maori representation in local government, I believe the Maori voice needs to be heard as councils make so many decisions on land use and environmental consents which must consider Article two of the treaty.

The fact that Maori concerns have not been listened to has been due, at least in part, to the fact that a very small number of Maori have managed to be elected to local government. However since even two Maori councillors on every councils still means their concerns can be ignored by the majority voting, I opposed the concept of special Maori wards in the Local Government Act 2003.

United Future was convinced that requiring councils to consult with local iwi and hapu was a better and less divisive approach in our modern multicultural society.

Councils are also required to consult with any distinct community within their boundaries and if this were a Chinese or Korean community, they would be required to consider the affects of any proposal on them as well.

However, as those communities and other special interest groups are not organised around communal ownership of land in the same way that Maori are, and since they were not already there in 1840 when the Crown began governing our great country, it is reasonable to suggest, I believe, that councils may need to give greater consideration to Maori concerns at times.

Was the treaty a marriage?

There is no question that it is difficult in 21^{st century New Zealand to adequately interpret the treaty in modern law, which is why the somewhat undefined term "principles of the treaty" has been creeping into law under recent governments.}

^{The treaty was a legal agreement between two cultures. Some refer to it as a covenant intended to establish a partnership in New Zealand between Maori and the Crown. Perhaps in a similar fashion to a marriage covenant, where two distinct individuals, male and female, like different cultures really, (men are from Mars, women are from Venus) would live together in mutual, love, honour and respect, each contributing to the other’s well being and in turn, receiving benefit.}

^{A lovely picture, but unfortunately in our treaty context, the hopes of a partnership were dashed very quickly when the numbers of settlers began to outnumber Maori less than 20 years after the signing at Waitangi. Just like in healthy marriages, this relationship works best when there is a balance of power and equitable access to resources and opportunities.}

^{Our history as a nation is a bit like the couple pronounced as one on their wedding day, then sorting out a week later which one they would become, as the old joke goes.}

^{History has abundant evidence that too often it was the male culture that dominated until the rise of feminism last century.}

^{History also reveals clearly that in New Zealand after the so-called marriage at Waitangi in 1840, it was the European settlers’ culture, which dominated, even to such an extent that many thought by the end of the 19th century the Maori race and culture was in terminal decline.}

^{Melting pot philosophy}

^{When some, like Don Brash, talk of being one nation, I am left with the distinct impression they mean one like them, not the oneness possible when we celebrate our uniqueness and differences, yet embrace our common humanity and nationhood.}

^{In fact he said he saw New Zealand as a ‘melting pot’ in his interview with Kim Hill. Don, and others like him, are trapped in the sixties vision of "a great big melting pot, big enough to take the world and all its got," as the song said," keep it stirring for a hundred years or more, and turn out multi coloured people by the score."}

^{That cultural blend would be a failure just the same as the unisex fad was a failure. Its proponents have spent too long amongst a monocultural majority.}

^{If we are to believe the very best of all the intentions of those who were players in this unfolding drama, we can see the wonderful intent of the treaty, the aspirations for an agreement between two cultures, that were in many respects two groups with many similarities yet with many sub-cultures within, and the desire to develop, settle a colony and form a society that did not do to its indigenous people what had occurred in many other colonies of European nations around the world.}

^{But there are some facts, some historical realities we have to accept and come to terms with.}

^{Treaty not a 50/50 partnership.}

^{Firstly, as we all know the treaty was pretty hastily drafted, translated and explained. We certainly would not be so hasty today with a document of such importance and with such long lasting implications for a nation.}

^{Secondly, there are the simple demographics of the whole thing. When the treaty was signed in 1840, it was signed initially by 45 chiefs and subsequently afterwards by about 500 more chiefs representing approx.70,000-110,000 Maori, and Governor Hobson on behalf of the crown who was representing the Crown and the approximately 3000 settlers who were living in New Zealand at the time.}

^{What the chiefs may not have fully appreciated as they signed was that Hobson represented not just the 3000 settlers but a vast number of people in Britain and eventually Europe as well, that meant an equal partnership would never be possible in reality.}

^{I believe few, indeed if any, of those signing on February 6, 1840, would have expected that the ratio of Maori to Pakeha would have altered from the around 80,000 Maori to 3000 Pakeha in 1840 to 56,000 Maori to 59,000 Pakeha by 1858 - a mere 18 years after the treaty was signed, and increased even more rapidly to outnumber Maori by 15 to 1 by the end of the century, in just 60 short years.}

^{In my opinion these demographic facts, render the dream of a partnership in a modern democracy impossible, if that was the intent of the treaty.}

^{The demand for land for the new arrivals alone made it an impossible task to maintain the spirit and principles of the treaty, let alone every written word of the document, made even more difficult with its differences in translation. And that is not in any way to offer any excuses for the injustices caused by greed, violation of the treaty by subsequent governors and rejection of the treaty by the early settler government.}

^{It is simply a statement of fact. Perhaps things may have gone slightly better had not the author of the treaty and first governor not died within two years of the signing.}

^{Now, 164 years later, our population of four million is 75% of European descent in one way or another, 15% Maori, 6.5% Pacific islands and 6.6% Asian, made up of many smaller groups of Chinese, Indian, Korean, Filipino, Thai and others.}

^{The truth is if it were easy to solve the dilemma we face, past governments would have done so already. Simple slogans don’t get to the heart of the issue.}

^{What are the Principles of the Treaty?}

^{As a Member of Parliament tasked with making law, I want to do all I can to uphold what is generally understood to be the intent and purpose of the treaty, often now referred to as the principles of the treaty. However, I do not believe it is possible to accept it as a foundational document to be observed to the letter, to govern life in New Zealand in the 21st century.}

^{Perhaps it is a bit simplistic, but it can be suggested that the intent of the treaty was to establish the Queen’s sovereignty by article one, to protect Maori culture and way of life by article two, and guarantees British law for all individual Maori and non-Maori by article three. No problem on the last point, we all seem to agree on article three, ‘one law for all’.}

^{While there are some Maori who wish to contest whether the chiefs ceded their absolute sovereignty, or a lesser governorship, (kawanatanga), I think most would accept that you couldn’t really have one without the other. Or should I say, article three without article one.}

^{The challenge has always been, in my opinion, and still is, in understanding all that was meant by article two, and not just what was meant, but what is practical and possible given the new demographics, and modern society and technology.}

^{Individual Maori should not have any more rights or receive any benefits more than any other New Zealander (article 3). They are of course entitled to receive scholarships from trusts set up by Iwi with tribal resources, and I wonder sometimes if there is confusion over this. Perhaps not all the benefits some object to Maori receiving are coming from taxpayer funds. And let’s not forget that during the great depression Maori were paid less unemployment benefit because the government assumed they could go back to the Marae and needed less to live on. That was a clear violation of the treaty also.}

^{Article Two was a commitment by the crown to respect the Mana of the chiefs in their own Iwi or Hapu, and to honour the corporate collective rights of communal Maori society. The Crown had no previous experience of dealing with groups. British common Law was great for dealing with individuals in an individualistic society. We are still struggling with this challenge today and I am not suggesting we should ignore article two, but I do believe Maori and non-Maori need to have a constructive discussion about how we work this out in the 21st century. I believe we can both benefit from pursuing the relationship and we have much to offer the rest of the world with the solutions we discover and work out together.}

^{Can a Constitution offer a way forward?}

^{My ancestors arrived here in the 1860s. Whether we have recently arrived or have ancestors who came with the first whalers, sealers, missionaries or escaped convicts from Australia, I believe we should all, in the spirit of the treaty, give honour and recognition to the role of our tangata whenua as the first people, our older brothers and sisters so to speak.}

^{They are the host people of the land and another 300 or 3000 years won’t change that.}

^{Bearing that in mind, and with an attitude of honour and respect for their role in our land, we must, together with them, soon begin to take the steps necessary to write a constitution for our nation, so we can have certainty about what our foundations are.}

^{We must encapsulate the intent of the treaty to the best of our ability, within that constitution, particularly article two. However, a constitution must also establish the rights of all those who have chosen to come here more recently, and those who will choose this great place as their home in the years ahead.}

^{We must not leave this important task to those in the judiciary to interpret by constitutional creep or stealth, as issues arise that focus our attention; nor should it be done ad hoc by Parliament from legislation to legislation.}

^{It is a process all New Zealanders should be engaged in, guided by the executive, debated by Parliament, and watched over by the judiciary.}

^{It requires that we keep talking, working through issues as they arise, doing all we can in a spirit of humility to avoid taking confrontational positions that leave us with no options but destructive division.}

^{Maori have taught us lot about patience in the last 150 years. I am glad they have chosen the courts as the place for their appeals for their rights, and not the methods of terrorism as seen in other national conflicts.}

^{I believe a constitution offers us a way forward, but it will be no quick fix.}

^{In the meantime, until we embark on that great task, legislation like the current proposal dealing with the foreshore and seabed can only be our best attempt to achieve a compromise position for Maori and non-Maori.}

^{There are some great stories of progress, development, and harmony. Let us not risk the peace of our nation by being to hasty, too simplistic in our solutions. I know I do not have all the answers.}

^{God of nations at thy feet, in the bonds of love we meet,}

^{Hear our voices we entreat, God defend New Zealand.}

^{From dissension, envy, hate, and corruption guard our state …}

^{Make our country good and great, God defend New Zealand.}