How far we’ve come

“The treaty cannot be any kind of founding document. The court of appeal once, absurdly, described it as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not. The signatories are, on one side, a distinctive group of people, and on the other, a government which established itself in New Zealand and whose successors represent all of us, whether we are descendants of the signatories or not. The treaty cannot even resolve the argument among Ma¯ori themselves, in which one side maintains that that you’re a Ma¯ori if you identify as such, and the other claims that it’s your links to traditional forms of association which define you as Ma¯ori.

“As our increasingly dismal national day continues to show, the treaty is no basis for nationhood. It doesn’t express the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and it doesn’t have any unifying concept. The importance it has for Ma¯ori people is a constant reminder that governments in a democracy should meet their legal and moral obligations, but for the country taken as a whole, that is, and must be, the limit of its significance.

“The treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts. It is a bald agreement, anchored in its time and place, and the public interest in it is the same as the public interest in enforcing any properly-made agreement. To go further than that is to acknowledge the existence of undemocratic forms of rights, entitlements, or sovereignty.

“The treaty is a wonderful stick for activists to beat the rest of us with, but it could never have assumed the importance it has without the complicity of others. It came to prominence in liberal thought in the 70s, when many who were concerned about the abuse of the democratic process by the government of the day began to see the treaty as a potential source of alternative authority. It’s been the basis of a self-perpetuating industry in academic and legal circles. Many on the left of politics who sympathise with Ma¯ori aspiration have identified with the cause of the treaty, either not knowing or not caring that its implications are profoundly undemocratic.”

Imagine the furore that would be unleashed today on someone committing the cultural heresy of saying the Treaty of Waitangi is not our founding document, that it did not establish a partnership between Ma¯ori and the Crown, and that it has been transformed into a lucrative gravy train to enrich those who use it.

Yet when former Prime Minister David Lange made those comments in November 2000 they barely caused a murmur. That’s because back then, everyone was at liberty to speak the truth. Free speech was respected — even on controversial matters.

When David Lange delivered his speech no one would have imagined that renaming New Zealand to become Aotearoa New Zealand would even be possible, let alone probable — with barely a whimper of opposition.

Yet here we are. Everything David Lange warned against has come to pass.

"When David Lange delivered his speech no one would have imagined that renaming New Zealand to become Aotearoa New Zealand would even be possible . . . "