Time for Treaty discussion
Commentator on current affairs who works in geopolitics, aid and development, and governance
Iwouldn’t be surprised if Shakespeare returned to pay his respects to our Queen. Onlookers in the 21st century take photos on their iphones of men (it’s all men) dressed in gold braid, feather hats and ruff collars. The new King talks in verse.
The veneer of respect for the monarchy sits uncomfortably with our respect for the individual. If the head of state’s legitimacy depends on the Queen’s personal qualities, then merit takes precedence over hereditary title, which is the opposite of the point of monarchy. We are merely lucky to have had an individual as poised and decent as Queen Elizabeth II. Imagine if Andrew had been Prince of Wales, and now our King.
New Zealanders are pretty much 50-50 about whether to continue with an unelected British head of state, chosen by birth alone. We will therefore soon begin a conversation about monarchy.
But, to remind you, the Treaty was signed between the Crown and Māori. Before we begin to examine what constitutional arrangements will follow our mourning, we need to discuss the promises the Treaty makes.
A timely intervention has arrived in a new book by Ned Fletcher, The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi. It demolishes the argument that there were two unreconciled versions of the Treaty. He shows the English version is the same as the Māori version.
Pākehā who signed on behalf of the Crown were not trying to trick Māori. Sovereignty, or kawanatanga, meant the same to English signers as it did to Māori. The Crown would dispense justice, preserve
In his new book, Ned Fletcher demolishes the argument that there were two unreconciled versions of the Treaty, Josie Pagani writes.
the peace and good order, and regulate trade. The betrayal came later, thanks to the New Zealand Company.
Māori and the Crown both understood that Māori would be able to keep tino rangatiratanga over providing to Māori what today we see as the services of the modern state.
There will never be a better time for us to begin discussing where Fletcher’s research takes us. Our foundational constitutional document might be a blueprint for a state in which Māori take more responsibility for providing outcomes for Māori.
The state’s efforts to provide for Māori have been made in good faith for decades, but it has never performed well. Consider the Covid vaccine rollout, exceptionally welldelivered to neighbours of public servants in Karori, while Māori authorities had to take the Government to court to get information needed to vaccinate communities that don’t live the same way.
Last Friday, news of the Queen’s death obscured a Treasury report into Oranga Tamariki. A billion dollars put in by the ‘‘Wellbeing Budget’’ was wasted, Treasury says. The cost of putting kids into Oranga Tamariki increased without improving any outcomes for the children.
Meanwhile, the Government has spent more than a billion dollars on emergency housing grants since 2017. A Government elected to fix poverty and housing could have handed over some of that money to iwi authorities, urban Māori providers and the Salvation Army, and asked them to take responsibility for housing Māori.
This is why Fletcher’s fresh take on the Treaty is extraordinary. Almost 200 years ago, its signatories had in mind a better model for helping Māori children than giving Oranga Tamariki and Kainga Ora te reo names. The Treaty’s signatories contemplated Māori self-management of at least some money, decision-making and responsibility for Māori housing, healthcare and education services. Even economic development.
Devolution might be a better way of talking about the Treaty than partnership.
Decisions made closer to citizens are nearly always better decisions. Around 2015, the UK government gave Newcastle City Council the equivalent sum that it spent on at-risk families living in the city. Crime reduced, domestic violence fell. More kids showed up to school.
In 2004, the then mayor of Otorohanga, Dale Williams, set up a Taskforce for Jobs, offering education and apprenticeships locally. Completion rates across New Zealand for apprenticeships were less than 40%. In Otorohanga they rose to 96%. Youth unemployment was about 27% nationally and zero in his town, where youth crime dropped by 70%.
Whanau Ora was supposed to put community groups between the state and families and make services more responsive, finely tuned, and more effective.
As we mourn the Queen, symbolism from the past provides the ceremony that reminds us of the Crown’s sovereignty. As we prepare for what comes next, we should also therefore be reminded of the foundational agreement between the Crown and Māori.
The Treaty provides a radical and hopeful governing idea for better outcomes tomorrow. The representatives of our new King’s great-grandmother signed it.