The Treaty or te Tiriti: call it what you will, the obligations remain
We live in an age obsessed with “narratives” and language, in the mistaken belief that if you change the words you can change the world, writes UK journalist Nick Cohen. It’s an appealing theory of change for the wordy university graduates who populate Parliament, the media and the head offices of the public service.
Government departments give themselves Māori names without measurably improving the lives of those Māori who use their services. Other than people who receive a government salary, few of us call “Kainga Ora” and “Oranga Tamariki” by their reo names. Known on the street as “KO” and “OT”, the departments of housing and children would not sound out of place as the warmup acts at a Beyonce concert.
The stories we tell ourselves about “the Treaty” have changed in my lifetime.
In the 1970s, “The Treaty Was a Fraud'. In the 1980s, we decided to ”Honour the Treaty”.
Then the English Treaty was a fraud again, while “te Tiriti“became the only version to be mentioned on the dinner party circuit of central Wellington.
I’ve been thinking about this since talking on the radio with Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan about Māori wards. “What’s the case for them?” Heather asked on air. So animated was our discussion, we carried on off air.
Some supporters of Māori wards believe their opponents are racists who don’t want to share control with Māori.
While there are always some racists and they can be vocal, it’s doubtful our community that is happy to return to Māori control over their land, fisheries and forests becomes anti-Māori when it comes to having a say about what happens to “my community”, or “my water”.
It’s understandable, not racist, to ask why representatives who are not accountable to me should have a say in services for me.
Heather is right that the case for powersharing has not been convincingly made.
If I had to make the case, I would start with what it is not.
It is not about “diversity”. If it were, an equally strong case could be made for Pasifika wards in Pacific communities, or Indian wards in suburbs where Indian families live.
Nor is it about addressing the disparities between Māori and non-Māori. Those should be a priority regardless of the Treaty.
The case for Māori wards comes directly from our constitutional obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Our law features many treaties affecting trade, visa-free travel, maritime rules, postal services and much more. All contain rules and rights. If we ignore them in one treaty, someone else will ignore them in another.
A treaty is like any legal contract, with rights and obligations on both sides.
Author Ned Fletcher has demolished the last iteration of our Treaty story – that there were two unreconciled versions of it, and the English version can be ignored.
His important book, The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi, shows that the English version says exactly what it was meant to say. The Crown was not trying to trick Māori. Trickery came later.
Māori would retain rangatiratanga and live under their own systems of government, while building a new national government to deal with issues beyond individual capacities to address: trade, foreign affairs, serious crime.
The original signatories had in mind a better model for helping Māori children than giving Oranga Tamariki a te reo name: “Let Māori look after their own affairs.”
Treaty settlements address the theft of property that came after the Treaty, but do not fulfil that promise made in the Treaty.
Modern New Zealand is much more complex, and it is probably impractical to separate Māori systems of governance entirely. We need to find arrangements that honour the spirit of our 1840 agreement. Māori wards attempt to do that.
Nearly half of councils have Māori wards alongside general wards. They are democratically elected by voters on the Māori roll. Those worried about selfappointed elites taking over can relax.
If the Government forces councils to hold referenda, then the question cannot be “Māori wards – yes or no?” It has to be a choice: “Māori ward, or the alternative which satisfies our obligation to Māori to have a say in the administration of their possessions.” If you try to wish our obligations away, then it might be unfulfilled but it will still be an obligation.
Tell us what the alternative to Māori wards is. If it is more devolving of housing, health care, or environmental management to Māori providers, then put that on the ballot.
Changing the words doesn't change the thing. Te Tiriti or the Treaty, we have the same obligations. If we stop policing language and changing the story, we might focus on the problem we're trying to fix.
The case for power-sharing will only gain support when it engages with the reasonable concerns of the critics, who are Treaty partners too.
The path that could have been taken nearly 200 years ago is still there.