With leadership comes responsibility
In 1987, Claudia Orange wrote ‘‘ the gap between Ma¯ ori and European expectations of the treaty remains unabridged’’. Some 30 years later, one would have thought that the gap in expectations would have moved a little closer but for the recent statements by Sir William Gallagher.
The central thesis of Sir William’s argument is that the Treaty of Waitangi is a farce, that there is no doubt that Ma¯ ori gave up sovereignty and he alludes to the irrelevance and the unimportance of the Treaty settlement process. Let us also not forget his doubtful claims on climate change.
Largely, the debate and confusion regarding the Treaty of Waitangi has been with us since its inception. This stems from the fact that the parties involved in its signing, namely the rangatira (chiefs) and Hobson on behalf of the British Crown, had differing understandings and expectations as to what they had signed to and therefore what authority they would exercise. To help to explain, there are two accepted versions of the Treaty of Waitangi; a Ma¯ ori text known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the English version hereon called the Treaty of Waitangi. Under law both of these are accepted as ‘‘The Treaty of Waitangi’’ however, they are significantly different in meaning. Te Tiriti speaks of the chiefs maintaining their tino rangatiratanga (authority) over their taonga (all that they hold precious including the Ma¯ ori language). The chiefs do allow the Queen to have ka¯ wanatanga, a nominal and delegated authority so that she can control her people. On the other hand, the Treaty in English tells us that the chiefs ceded their sovereignty to the Crown while retaining full exclusive and undisturbed possession over their lands, estates, forests and fisheries. Given that at the time of the signing, the dominant language was te reo Ma¯ ori and the majority of the discussions would have been conducted orally, the Ma¯ ori text of Te Tiriti is a critical reference point in informing our understandings reinforced by Ma¯ ori writers such as Dr Ranginui Walker and Moana Jackson, as well as the international convention of contra proferentem.
Over 500 chiefs signed Te Tiriti and 39 signed the English version, but it is now accepted that they understood it to be the same treaty as signed by their peers. How then can Sir William say that there is no doubt that Ma¯ ori gave up sovereignty when the vast majority of rangatira signed Te Tiriti? In addition, Claudia Orange, generally considered the most authoritative
Pa¯ keha¯ historian on the Treaty, states that ‘‘the treaty was presented in a manner calculated to secure Ma¯ ori agreement. The transfer of power to the Crown was thus played down.’’ Bear in mind also that the Declaration of Independence, the forerunner to Te Tiriti/the Treaty, signed in 1835, had affirmed the authority that chiefs already knew they had, mana and rangatiratanga, which meant all power and sovereign authority was held by them. This system of political authority had been in place for many centuries.
Fast forward to 2017 and what has been happening in the landscape of Treaty jurisdiction? During and after the cumulative impact of introduced legislation and policies which led to systemic colonisation, consistent and unwavering Ma¯ ori protest at violations of both treaties eventually led to the introduction of the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and its 1985 amendment. This gave us the Waitangi Tribunal, allowing for a process to hear claims about breaches of the Treaty, typically the taking of land and resources from Ma¯ ori. It also introduced a set of principles which embodied the intention of both treaties in an attempt to mediate the differences in the two versions.
A series of judgments and mandates by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal also ruled that the Crown has the right to govern (ka¯ wanatanga) subject to the protection of Ma¯ ori interests (rangatiratanga), a position which is not accepted by many Ma¯ ori who will continue to advocate for the supremacy of rangatiratanga over ka¯ wanatanga. The Hon Matthew Palmer QC, author of The Treaty of Waitangi in New
Zealand’s Law and Constitution, notes that ‘‘the Waitangi Tribunal developed the core of an interpretation of the meaning of the Treaty that could and should be applied in contemporary New Zealand. This was a forward- looking constructive approach to enhancing relationships between the Crown and Ma¯ ori.’’ Note the positive and futurethinking reach of his comments in contrast to those offered by Sir William.
Sir William does not have to look far to witness the success of what treaty settlements can do. After having their land confiscated for placing it under the protection of their King, the Tainui settlement of 1995 set a pathway for a constructive future relationship with the Crown. Positive economic, cultural and social developments within the Tainui region now abound which are transformative as is the dynasty of the Kı¯ngitanga or King Movement. Even in the Treaty settlement process, Ma¯ ori have agreed to settle for 1-2% the worth of what was taken.
What is good for Ma¯ ori must surely be good for everyone and Te Tiriti/the Treaty reinforces a sense of tribal identity as well as contributes to what Sir Doug Graham called a richer and stronger national life. All these considerations add up to a positive and enduring role for Te Tiriti/The Treaty in the social fabric of New Zealand.
On the subject of climate change which Sir William also doubted, evidence is overwhelmingly clear that human-induced climate change is occurring. A read of the Report on Climate Change Implications for New Zealand released in 2016 by the Royal Society of NZ affirms this position. Several Pacific nations face this reality daily. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has made this a top priority of her government. Ma¯ ori knowledge has much to contribute to adaptation and mitigation strategies through traditional knowledge and practices.
A highly regarded leader in any field, and one who is decorated, must bear the mantel of leadership with responsibility which means having regard for the history of this country, having regard for science and checking their privilege to ensure that they make a positive difference in the lives of their fellow citizens, morally, intellectually and spiritually. Sir William would do well to heed this.
Even in the Treaty settlement process, Ma¯ ori have agreed to settle for 1-2% the worth of what was taken. Sandy Morrison
❚ Associate Professor Sandy Morrison is assistant dean of Ma¯ori and Indigenous Studies at Waikato University, and is also Vision Ma¯tauranga Leader for the Deep South Challenge, a project focused on climate change.