Thursday, May 05, 2005



Treaty Symposium Report

Today I attended a symposium hosted by the Human Rights Commission and MUSA titled "Human Rights & the Treaty of waitangi: Its Relevance Today & in the Future". This was part of the HRC's programme of regional symposia as part of its efforts to meet its statutory requirement to promote a better understanding of the human rights aspect of the treaty. The meeting was chaired by Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres

The first speaker was Stephen Paewai of Tamaki-Nui-a-Rua, on "The Tangata Whenua Experience". He talked about his iwi's treaty claim, and the claims process in general. His general assessment was quite upbeat; while it had taken fourteen years to get to a hearing, the process had been "user friendly" and "an uplifting experience", and the requirement for claimant, crown and Tribunal to document and research the case meant that one of the key aims - telling the iwi's story of how they had been wronged - was mostly met before the hearing. he did note however that the need to research claims meant that there was little hope of settling everything before 2015, as even if the money was available, there simply weren't the historians available to do the job (something which may disrupt the plans of both government and opposition to set a final settlement date). Steve also noted the lack of media coverage of the Tribunal hearings; he was strongly of the view that anyone who heard his tribe's story would regard their claim as justified (and I agree), but that the lack of coverage allowed claims to be seen as unjustified (something made worse by the media usually only reporting the dollar figure).

MUSA President Iain Galloway spoke on "What it means to be a New Zealander". The usual tale of discovering kiwiness on his OE, followed by a powerful defence of a liberal, tolerant and inclusive New Zealand. "We are not a seamles monocultural group of people - and we should never seek to be"; instead, we should seek a sense of national identity based on cultural borrowing ("especially of food"), mutual respect, and the recognition of a mutual claim to call Aotearoa home. The best way to work towards this is to learn more about each other - starting with each other's language (leading to the inevitable question of why Maori, as one of our official languages, is not compulsory in schools).

Jeff Slukka, a social anthropologist, delivered a lecture on "Human Rights, the Treaty of waitangi & Indigenous Rights". He talked like he was on speed most of the time, and focused on the international history of treaties with indigenous peoples, particularly in the US - and in the process missed what was unique about the New Zealand situation. While Slukka asserted that no indigenous people has signed a treaty yielding sovereignty without having a bayonet in their back, I think New Zealand is a definite counterexample of this; oh, sure, you can quibble about the balance between kawanatanga and te tino rangitiratanga, but something was very definitely being given up, and there wasn't the level of coercion seen in (for example) the US. There was some interesting material in this (which I may comment on later), but it was hampered by Slukka's delivery.

After lunch (catered courtesy of the HRC), we had Dr Farrah Palmer (captain of the Black Ferns) speaking on "Human Rights & the Treaty of waitangi: My Story". Dr Palmer received a "race-based" scholarship from the Hillary Commission aimed at encouraging more maori to become PE teachers; in a real sense she wouldn't be where she is today if it hadn't been for that opportunity. It's a good example of how such things can empower people to pursue opportunities and thereby contribute to society as a whole. There was also some discussion about the Treaty and sport (and the unequal relationships among various sporting bodies), and the lack of recognition given to "Maori sports", such as kapa haka, Taiha, and waka racing (though this is gradually changing due to the Maori Renaissance).

Finally, Michael Powles, Human Rights Commissioner, gave a presentation from the HRC on the Commission's Te Mana i Waitangi project. This was mostly an overview of how New Zealanders felt about the Treaty (overwhelmingly that it belongs to all of us) and the general principles that it laid out (including the government's right to govern, the right of Maori to be Maori, a shared citizenship, and a commitment to equality). It closed with Bishop Manu Bennett's view of the Treaty as a covenant:

a covenant is an agreement based on the promises of two people to take the best possible care they can of each other

The metaphor of the Treaty as a marriage is probably overused, but it still seems to be the best one. Though given the increasing diversity of new Zealand society, we should make it clear that it's a big, happy, group marriage, rather than one which seeks to exclude newcomers to our shores.

Discussion was led by Joris. There was some worry about the divisiveness of some discussion around the Treaty and whether this was the responsibility of the media; Steve responded that Maori had to work harder to get their stories out there. There was also a discussion about the lack of teaching of New Zealand history (something I've commented on here), and a general sense that this ignorance of our own past helped contribute to present problems. But the most interesting question was about the permanance of treaty settlements. What is to stop Maori in twenty or fifty or a hundred years from saying that there was no way they would have settled for the small fraction of their ancestral property they are presently accepting? Steve's answer was quite interesting; his great-great grandfather (I think) was involved in some of the disputed land sales, and he is in a sense second-guessing his ancestors (but also pointing out the level of bad faith and broken promises involved). How can we prevent this from happening again? "We try the best we can", by working hard to involve people in the process. There are no guarantees, but one way the government can ensure that the process never ends is by continuing to foster grievance by violating the Treaty. Maybe that's something Don Brash should think about?

9 comments:

The durability of the settlements is key.

Pakeha/government are willing to give a maximum of about 1-2% of the real value of the confiscations/swindles/injustice etc. every generation. Maori would like full compensation immediately but realise this is almost impossible without the consent of Pakeha who insist that the 1-2% be permanent. How can they be? That is why there are stand-offs and conflict between hapu. I say 100% over 100 years. Maori have very long term outlooks and Pakeha are tight (correct? am I grossly oversimplifying?).

Every Crown deal at the moment is a frog march with limited mandates and the usual playing sides off against each other. Maori find it hard to have a united front when told "You fall into our abitrary $40m category and you can sort it out amongst yourselves - take it or leave it. If no, you go back to the end of the queue (the "Whakatohea shuffle" as it is called) and get nothing." Is that not duress?

This is one Whakatohea member who is glad that we did not sell out. We signed the Treaty in May 1840, they invaded us in September 1865. The next key date is our settlement - we can wait.

My recent post on immigration may be of interest to you.

Posted by Bomber : 5/06/2005 12:41:00 AM

I take it that 'tim selwyn' is Maori, which in many ways insulates him from the accusations of xenophobia etc that would arise if he were pakeha, given the issues raised in his piece on immigration. This does seem to raise questions about immigration and the views of both treaty partners. If, as you say, I/S, our mutual identity is analogous to a marriage, which party of then drives immigration policy? What do we have a right to expect of immigrants to NZ? My own liberal views on the subject were curtailed somewhat a few years back when teaching English in Korea - a country where a foreigner could NEVER become a citizen or buy land. Westerners who marry Koreans still have to apply yearly for residency there, and children of these unions remain non-citizens. I would be curious to know to what degree I/S thinks we should allow immigration from countries with such xenophobic and racist policies on immigration themselves.

Cheers from New Jersey, USA

Posted by Anonymous : 5/06/2005 03:32:00 AM

I got a crash course in Treaty settlements some years ago; enough to change my attitude radically but, alas, not enough to leave me with clear summaries of facts that I can pass on to my Mother, who still wonders why any settlements are being made. I'd love to have that information easily to hand so I can point at it and say "Look! See this confiscation? See this loan of land for the war effort that wasn't returned afterwards? See how much the land is worth in simple dollar terms, let alone the sense of empowerment, control and identity that goes with it? Think about how we might settle these claims fully and fairly, and what the consequences would be? Would it hurt to be gracious -- and grateful! -- when most claimants are willing to leave the majority of their rightful property claim as an investment in the future of the country? (Which might, agreed, have to pay continued dividends on that investment, but hey...)"

Posted by Anonymous : 5/06/2005 07:04:00 AM

Who is the pakeha face to sell the Treaty process to middle New Zealand? Think of the images associated with the Treaty process - lawyers in suits, radicalised Maori, Kaumatua and Kuia, and hippy students and long-haired Greens. None of that appeals to who it really needs to - where is the reasoned, well-spoken, non-threatening, middle-class white boy or girl to sell it to the masses??

Posted by Anonymous : 5/06/2005 08:54:00 AM

Bloodthorn - I recommend "Bullshit, Backlash and Bleading Hearts" by David Slack as a quick, accessible primer for your Mum.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/06/2005 09:14:00 AM

Huskynut - Thanks for the recommendation. I did David Slack's quiz, but hadn't followed up with the book. Just bought the last copy from Bennetts.

Posted by Anonymous : 5/06/2005 09:58:00 AM

Bloodthorn: I'd second the recommendation of Bullshit, Backlash, & Bleeding Hearts, but it doesn't have much that is specific. What we need is a nice, clear history of the injustices that were conducted against one iwi - unfortunately I don't know of any (my reading has tended to be towards the legal aspects). I do know however that the crown apologies which accompany Treaty settlements tend to list what was done in the past, so you could start there. Or you could wade through Waitangi Tribunal reports (most of which are on the web).

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/06/2005 12:39:00 PM

Sock Thief: One thing knowledge of history will lead to is an understanding that wrongs were committed. Many people are suspicious of Treaty settlements because they don't know why they are happening; the jokes you hear are about whether they'll be handing the government its blankets back and things like that. There's often no understanding that the land was often stolen rather than purchased, that purchases were frequently fraudulent (being from people who had no right to sell), and that even in cases where land was purchased legally from a willing seller with the right to sell, the government often didn't keep to its side of the bargain anyway (as seen in the case of the Wellington Tenths Trust, IIRC).

When people hear about what actually happened, they tend to be shocked, and angry, and accept that a wrong was committed. And that's the bit that's important. You can quibble about the best way to redress that wrong, but from Steve's talk, a large part of what is important is that acknowledgement that what happened in the past was wrong, and that it should not happen in the future.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/06/2005 12:52:00 PM

I/S, I don't know if you're looking for something more substantial than this, but for a concise story of one iwi's experience, I recommend this post last year by Pat Snedden, which ends with a story about Ngati Whatua.

http://publicaddress.net/default,1074.sm#post

If anyone else wants a copy of Bullshit to give to their Mum, and can't find it in the shop, just drop me a line at Public Address and I'll fix you up.

Posted by Anonymous : 6/02/2005 01:59:00 PM