The Treaty: how are we doing on our promises to each other
We did not spend much time on our marae growing up, as my Ma¯ ori mother wanted us to be the best Pa¯ keha¯ we could be – Englishspeaking and well-educated. She was so effective that I resisted being Ma¯ ori until I was 32. I am now 70 and well connected to my marae, hapu¯ and iwi.
When I was in my late 20s, my father took us back to our marae. As he drove past land blocks, he told me about the people who had lived on them, the way the land had been taken and who owned them now. I learnt about illegal purchases, confiscations, the Public Works Act, and regular breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.
As we prepare to commemorate another Waitangi Day, what do we know about our founding document? How do we feel about it? How many of us fear that, if the Treaty is to be honoured, we will lose our lands and properties, and ‘‘those people (Ma¯ ori) will be in charge’’? How many of us know very little about the Treaty, but still have strong views about it?
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement made between rangatira (indigenous leaders) and the Crown, representing the British nation and tauiwi (landed or landing people).
In article one, rangatira gave the Crown an authority to govern. The intention was that rangatira and the Crown would govern in partnership and that law (sovereignty) and tikanga (tino rangatiratanga) would work together. In signing Te Tiriti, rangatira guaranteed their protection of kawanatanga (government). This established a partnership.
In article two, the Crown promised to protect rangatiratanga (authority) over taonga (things that are precious). Taonga listed in Te Tiriti include land, forests and fisheries. Te reo is now recognised as a taonga. The intention was that wha¯ nau would keep what they owned, unless they willingly wished to sell. This affirmed protection of tino rangatiratanga (ownership and possession).
In the second part of article two, rangatira who wished to sell properties gave the Crown a preemptive right to purchase them. Before the Treaty, the relationship between wha¯ nau and their land was ‘‘we belong to the land’’. Now it also includes a concept that ‘‘the land belongs to us’’. This established property rights.
In article three, the Crown gave wha¯ nau the same rights as British subjects. This guaranteed Ma¯ ori equality and full participation.
We have come a long way since the Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975. Since then, my youngest son and seven mokopuna have been born, and they all know their marae and their whakapapa. My siblings and I didn’t.
Three of my mokopuna are fluent, and two are learners of reo. Our wha¯ nau lost reo for two generations. My mokopuna are all doing well in the education system and enjoy good health. They have the skills and knowledge to live as Ma¯ ori and be citizens of the world. There are increasing numbers of other wha¯ nau, Ma¯ ori and tauiwi, who are the same. The Treaty belongs to all of us.
One of the biggest changes in recent times has been wha¯ nau and community responses to te reo. The prime minister wants her daughter to be bilingual. Wairoa, O¯ taki and Tauranga have decided that they want to be bilingual towns by 2040. If my mother was alive today, I am sure she would smile and say, ‘‘This is great. I was wrong. I was influenced by the wrong people.’’
There are more attempts to respect tikanga Ma¯ ori (cultural practices), and for organisations to engage effectively with tangata whenua. It is becoming normal for buildings to be opened and events to begin with karakia. Many institutions have their favourite waiata which they use to support their manager or CEO who begins his or her address with a mihi.
The Crown has created post-settlement governance entities that corporate Ma¯ ori can work with to receive and administer funds and assets. Treaty settlement payments have made iwi significant commercial players in their communities. Most have invested carefully and their assets have increased. Everyone wants to do business with iwi. This has created opportunities for the Crown and iwi leaders to discuss how they can use the Treaty promises to improve outcomes for Ma¯ ori and all New Zealanders.
What Dad told me about the Crown’s misdemeanours of the past was correct. But public reactions to Treaty settlements are not as negative as they once were. People are learning more about our history and seeing the fairness of the settlement programme. It helps that iwi settle for about 1 to 2 per cent of what they are entitled to, and gift 98 per cent of their assets back to the state.
Crown/Ma¯ ori Relations Minister Kelvin Davis and Ma¯ ori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta are leading an initiative aimed at bringing clarity to the Tiriti partnership. If it gets there, it will fulfil the Tiriti promise of ‘‘two peoples to take the best care of each other’’.
TeHuia Bill Hamilton is a Nga¯ ti Kahungunu, Nga¯ Rauru, Nga¯ ti Raukawa New Zealander. He is a Treaty educator/facilitator with JMP Consulting.