Response to Prime Minister's Statement to Parliament
Dr Pita R Sharples, Co-leader of the Maori Party
Tuesday, 12 February 2008; 4pm
Tena koe Madam Speaker.
Tena tatau katoa. I pose the question as to how it is, that State of the Nation addresses somehow leave references to
our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi – to the very end of the speech; or refer to the special characteristics of
tangata whenua under the mantle of ‘tackling inequalities’.
To address this constitutional imbalance, I propose instead, to place Te Tiriti o Waitangi, upfront, as the key to
advancing our nationhood; and to refer to tangata whenua in ways which recognise our unique status as the indigenous
peoples of Aotearoa.
Once again, and for the third year in a row we have now enjoyed trouble free celebrations at Waitangi. In addition, many
other centres throughout the country can boast successful celebrations of the birthday of the signing of the Treaty of
Waitangi. This is most certainly a positive for our continued development of our nationhood.
The question of the precisely where the Treaty sits in relation to our constitution– namely, our courts, our laws, and
to Parliament itself - however, is an issue which has never been discussed and debated at a national level.
There have been numerous suggestions, projections and speculations from various groups within our society, including a
strong call from Maori to have Te Tiriti-o-Waitangi ‘ratified’ in one form or another.
Successive governments, both Labour and National have identified the Treaty as the founding document of this country’s
nationhood.
So in the current positive climate towards Waitangi Day perhaps it is time for an inclusive and formal discussion to
take place on the status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to our constitution.
This is a proposal we introduced on Waitangi Day 2007 – the concept of a Treaty Commissioner to raise awareness and
understanding of the Treaty; to be an advocate for the Treaty; and to promote the proper application of the Treaty in
legislation.
A working Commission of sorts could commission research and discussion on the constitutional possibilities of the
Treaty.
Such a body could promote widespread hui amongst hapü, iwi and other forms of Maori authorities representing the chiefs
who were signators, and who comprised one partner of the actual event, the original event.
Such proposals would preserve this Maori partner status to the Treaty, but would also present a Maori ‘world-view’ about
how Te Tiriti might be formally ratified to suit our new society.
In turn, this Commission could receive formal submissions through government agencies representing the Crown as the
second partner to Te Tiriti.
Maori and government representatives could then hold a series of hui to attempt to find a way forward – and to perhaps
design a single constitution document for ratification and maybe even design a new form of governance for our young
nation here in New Zealand.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi was first signed at Waitangi by Maori chiefs and the representatives of Queen Victoria.
The document was then taken around the country where various other tribal leaders signed it.
We know that the Treaty was posited as a tool for aiding colonisation, nevertheless, it is intended that the articles of
the Treaty describe a blueprint, a formula for Maori and Päkehä to live together and share this country, respecting each
partners respective genre de vie. The Treaty in fact is this country’s first immigration document.
The path of implementing the conditions of Te Tiriti over the years has been anything but smooth. Maori feel aggrieved
that the promises contained within the Treaty with regard to Maori ownership and governance over our resources have not
been kept.
There is a strong sense of “we have kept our part of this bargain – the Crown has not”. This of course is a reference to
Maori fighting for the country in numerous wars of the world and contributing to the establishment of our society and
the development of our political, social and spiritual New Zealand culture.
The ‘rocky road’ of the treaty’s validation is well documented. Queen Elizabeth II visiting New Zealand on Waitangi Day
in 1990 told our nation, and I quote:
“Today we are strong enough and honest enough to learn the lessons of the last 150 years and to admit that the Treaty
has been imperfectly observed. I look upon it as a legacy of promise.”
And on the 6 September 2002, speaking at Cape Town University in South Africa, Prime Minister Helen Clark spoke of New
Zealand’s journey of nationhood – as a “multi-cultural nation with an explicitly bicultural foundation.”
In this address the Prime Minister spoke of the Treaty enabling the British to govern while guaranteeing Maori our
fisheries, forests, and lands, and rights of citizenship. The Prime Minister continued and explained how the Treaty also
acknowledged the chieftainship of Maori and confirmed our special place as the indigenous people of New Zealand.
Noting the events of our history the Prime Minister also said, and I quote, “as settlers poured into New Zealand, the
Treaty was honoured more in the breach than in observance”.
The point that I’m making is simply that unaddressed issues relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi are not just going to go
away, and that for the good of our nationhood we should perhaps face the challenge right now.
Recognising the multi racial nature of our country’s current population make-up, I believe it is pertinent here for me
to make the distinction between race and whakapapa.
A Maori claim for türangawaewae ‘a place to stand’ in Aotearoa is made not on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, or
citizenship, but upon whakapapa, a genealogy.
Genealogical descent over the past millennium describes a unique history, a distinctive cultural and spiritual past tied
intrinsically to the land and to the sea of these islands. A unique Maori history through which we claim the status of
he iwi taketake, ‘of this place’.
I make this distinction because the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledges this relationship and exists as a contract between
the colonisers (via the Crown) and tangata whenua (the occupants of the various rohe). The Treaty, therefore, does refer
to Maori and Päkehä partnership beginnings and in reality can serve to provide a sound basis upon which to grow our
multi-cultural nation.
The reference to Maori issues in terms of race, therefore, is a misnomer, and totally mis-represents the concept of
tangata whenua. Race talks about identity in terms of blood quantum. Tangata whenua on the other hand refers to identity
through whakapapa – genealogical links.
Recent references by the larger parties in this house, to proposed funding for Maori initiatives as ‘racial funding’ are
equally a misnomer. Maori issues are directly concerned with the rights and the opportunities and the aspirations of the
tangata whenua inhabitants of this country.
This was, and still is, the home of Maori – there is no other place where Maori culture can live, and Te Tiriti o
Waitangi guarantees that right.
Another issue which is relevant to this discussion around Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the definition, or the various
definitions of ‘Tino Rangatiratanga’, loosely translated as ‘self-determination’.
Self-determination is about ownership. The path for self-determination for Maori with regard to the Foreshore and Seabed
was deliberately obstructed by this government with the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Under this Act, the
opportunity to explore ownership through the Maori Land Court was extinguished and self-determination was replaced by
self-management.
I recall speaking in this house about government’s attempt at the United Nations to redefine ‘self determination’ as
‘self management’, and although this was overturned at Geneva in 2005, the government has continued to act in this way.
It is ‘self management’ that Dr Cullen is planning to give Ngati Porou over their foreshore and seabed deal.
No self-determination, no ownership, and not even governance over the foreshore is offered. Instead, Ngati Porou is
offered self management over the foreshore and in only a few selected areas.
Self-determination would have offered Ngati Porou customary title over their foreshore, but the government is offering
only ‘Territorial Customary Rights’, and those rights are totally restricted to the terms of the bill. Real customary
rights were extinguished by the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Clearly this poses a dilemma for the Maori Party – we have an obligation to support the tino rangatiratanga of each iwi,
and we recognise that Ngati Porou have sought certain benefits for their hapü under this act and accordingly we will
work with Ngati Porou to ensure that they get the best deal from the path they have chosen. Similarly, we will support
the claim of Tainui before government at this time even though it too, is concerned with part management of the river,
and not governance or customary title.
However, the Maori Party does have a mandate and a responsibility to pursue self-determination opportunities of the
fullest sense for Maori and will continue to do this.
And needless to say we look forward to working together with all parties of this house to further this objective, and to
advance our country’s nationhood in a spirit of understanding and unity.
Kia ora.
ENDS