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?