Sharples: Answers to the Treaty Question
te-pati-maori
Thu May 24 2007 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
Sharples: Answers to the Treaty Question
Thursday, 24 May 2007, 1:23 pm
Press Release: The Maori Party
Speech: Eureka - I've found it: Answers to the Treaty Question
Perennial Political Questions and Attempted Answers:
POLS 111; Victoria University, Wellington; Kelburn Parade
Dr Pita Sharples; Co-leader, Maori Party
Thursday 24 May 2007; 10.30am
I want to thank Professor Margaret Clark for the opportunity to return to my first love – the study of anthropology.
As I pondered on what one could possibly say to such an impressive gathering of political analysts about New Zealand politics, I had what one could call a moment of epiphany. That’s the ‘Aha’ factor; or as Archimedes exclaimed when he realized how to estimate the volume of any given mass; Eureka! I’ve found it!
For 24 May; today, is a most auspicious day to be considering the nature of politics in Aotearoa.
On 24 May in 1819, Queen Victoria, was born.
The Monarch who would sign the document which gave birth to Aotearoa as a nation, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was Queen Victoria that would enter into an honourable contract; respecting Kawanatanga or governorship; while ensuring, through Article Two, that tangata whenua retained their own tribal sovereignty or rangatiratanga.
A few years later on, again on the 24 May 1854, the very first meeting of the House of Representatives took place on the birthday of the reigning Sovereign, Queen Victoria.
From the accounts of the day, a 21 gun salute heralded the start of the first Parliament, meeting in Auckland, our capital city of the time, and home to Parliament for its first ten years.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
Over a century later, the country recognized another historic event of lasting significance as on 23 May 1966, Princess Piki, the daughter of King Koroki was named as the first Maori Queen, selected during her father's tangihanga in accordance with the protocols of the Kingi movement.
And of course the importance of this time is never far from our thoughts as we remember the loss of a leader so loved, and so significant in the story of our nation.
But so it was, on this auspicious day, that another birth would take place. For on the 24 May 2004, gathered at the celebrations in Turangawaewae marking the Coronation of Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu, we joined with over 1300 people in the whare, to celebrate the birth of the Maori Party.
Is it any wonder I feel like shouting Eureka!
The birth of the British Monarch; the birth of the New Zealand Parliament; the coronation of the first Maori Queen; and the birth of the Maori Party – in my view - are all crucial poupou in our whare, Aotearoa. If you like, they are fundamental pillars – moments in time - for considering the very foundations of our nationhood.
The birth of a new political party, founded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and driven by the kaupapa (values) and tikanga (policies) drawn from Te Ao Maori, the Maori World, is indeed something which in my thinking, is a moment of epiphany for this nation.
Its establishment represents an illumination, a discovery, which enhances the essence of nationhood. We believe that in our policies and practices, we act as an avenue to the expression of Māori values for the benefit of all who reside in this Nation.
Our philosophy is underpinned by an absolute belief view that Māori values and models can be applied universally for the benefit of all in Aotearoa. Our motto is, if it’s good for Maori it’s gotta be good for you!
Although the party is unashamedly Māori in its outlook, it is inclusive. We truly believe that a strong and independent Maori voice with influence, can offer values and frameworks that will ultimately be in the best interests of Aotearoa.
But perhaps the crunch in any epiphany lies, in having the vision to see the big picture; the willingness to comprehend the meaning; the generosity to recognize what are the right times to listen, to learn, to laugh, to lead.
I think about this will to succeed, when I contemplate how we, as a nation, have embraced the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
In 2004, UMR research, carried out a quantitative survey of some 750 New Zealanders, asking them what did they know about the Treaty. The results were far from impressive. Only 34% of respondents even knew that the Treaty was signed in 1840; with some 30% unsure when it was signed.
But what interested me was that Maori declared greater knowledge about the Treaty than non-Maori with 71% of Maori declaring that they knew a lot or a fair amount about the Treaty compared to 51% of non-Maori.
And I have to wonder why there is such a stark difference between Maori and non-Maori, when I recall the words of the late Matiu Rata; leader of the political party, Mana Motuhake.
Matiu said, in 1989, “You and I, and I mean every New Zealand citizen, is a beneficiary of the Treaty of Waitangi”.
Matiu Rata was largely responsible for the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975; in itself establishing a process by which the history that shapes this nation is laid bare for all to see.
The process of examining injustices, providing the backdrop to long-standing grievances, the opportunity to hear the stories that fill in our historical landscape, is a key mechanism for movement.
The Treaty at its essence was a document designed to take the nation forward. That movement forward depended, however, on creating the opportunities for conversations to develop, for New Zealanders to engage in deep dialogue about our shared aspirations for equality of citizenship, for mutual respect, for justice, for sustainable environmental management, for fairness.
So I return to the difference between 71% of Maori and 51% of non-Maori, knowing about the Treaty.
What is it that prevents more non-Maori from wanting to know about the significance of the Treaty?
The UMR Research I cited earlier, gives some clues as to the different meanings and values Pakeha ascribe to the Treaty. For one Pakeha man, it was a commercial transaction:
I've always viewed it, rightly or wrongly, that the Europeans could have taken the country by force if we'd wanted to but it was cheaper and maybe more ethical to take it by the pen than by the sword. I've always considered that if they hadn't signed the Treaty they would have just eventually gone through and butchered their way through the country.
Negotiations with iwi were seen by one participant as a way to “stop bickering”; another respondent saw them as necessary :
“so there wouldn’t be any fights. A peaceful settlement. It shouldn’t flare up. To avoid civil war”.
The saddest thing for me in looking at the UMR survey was the sense of unrest and conflict that seemed attached to understandings of the Treaty. One young man from Auckland summed it up:
It always seems like they talk about how it was not honoured rather than honoured. I haven’t really heard anything about how they honoured it.
And yet for many Maori, the Treaty is cherished for the promise it represents of preserving and protecting Maori self-development and revitalization.
We have to remember the Treaty was signed at a time when iwi thrived under a prosperous entrepreneurial economy; demonstrated by the historical records of flour mills, trading vessels, commercial markets for pigs, fish, agricultural produce and other resources.
Ironically, it is only in these recent years, as the Crown has sought to offer admittedly meagre compensation and redress for the centuries of expropriation, confiscation and theft; that Maori are once again reclaiming our natural place in commercial and entrepreneurial activities.
And yet whilst moving towards settlements on one hand, the Crown with another, throws a vicious backhand in repeating the history of extinguishing inherent indigenous rights.
And so we have the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, or even just this week, developments in the Fisheries sector, which in changing the rules on how fish-catch limits are decided; have the potential to threaten the opportunities offered in the 1992 Treaty fisheries settlement.
The constant reshuffling of the cards, the shifting uncertainties, serve both to undermine Maori confidence in the Crown, but also erode any expectation from New Zealanders that the Treaty which Maori and the Crown signed up to, carries any weight.
I was interested in looking at an article by Tim Rice, called, ‘White Wine: Reflections on the Brain-rotting properties of privilege” in which he described that for any relationship with a nation, a culture, or its people to be effective, it helps to know what they take for granted. He explained it further as:
It's the ability to presume that your reality is the reality; that your experiences, if white, are universal, and not particular to your racial identity.
It's the ability to assume that you belong and that others will presume that too; the ability to define reality for others, and expect that definition to stick (because you have the power to ensure that it becomes the dominant narrative).
I do not want to recount the depressing chain of statistics which illustrate the disparities in social and economic outcomes between Maori and non-Maori.
Nor do I want to engage in a defence against the claims of racial separatism or Treaty gravy trains that some parties like to play with.
But I do want to throw open the opportunity for considering, deeply, these challenges about how we build nationhood, which is not based on the presumption that your reality is my reality; that our experiences are universal.
Perhaps ultimately, the solutions will lie in the personal relationships we build as starting points to create enduring conversations.
Dr Paul Callister, from this fine University, produced some research which shows that half of all Maori living as a couple have a non-Maori partner. That’s nearly 70,000 New Zealand couples in Maori/non-Maori relationships.
One of my favourite reads that I would recommend to this class is Carol Archie’s book, Skin to Skin, which fleshes out the realities of Maori –Pakeha relationships in a way which both paints the obvious but also creates some true moments of illumination as to how we address racism, celebrate cultural diversity and move forwards in becoming a nation.
One of the whanau featured in the book is the Walker clan. Dr Ranginui Walker, a former colleague of mine at Auckland University, describes his family as comprising an Irish son-in-law; a Thai daughter-in-law; a Maori daughter-in-law, and nine mokopuna. Five of the adult mokopuna have Pakeha partners.
The relationships of race relations may indeed start to make the difference in closing the gaps between the 71% and the 51%.
The relationships that lead to the browning of Aotearoa, provide us with the hope that Te Tiriti o Waitangi; the birth of the Maori Party; the significance of the Crown and our own Maori rangatira, will one day be celebrated as the hallmarks of our nationhood.
It is a promise that we look to embrace Maori people across the whole spectrum of political opinion; alongside all people who call this land home, and who seek to move the Nation forward.
Forward to a time when we all, Tangata whenua and Tangata tiriti alike; can say, ‘aha – I’ve found it’ : Aotearoa – the land of our home.
ENDS
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from The Maori Party on InfoPages.