June 5, 2024 • 24 mins
Tensions between Māoridom and the coalition Government have been bubbling up since the latter was sworn in last year.
Outrage over the Treaty Principles Bill and cuts to services for Māori has seen multiple protests, mostly recently the ‘Carkoi’ rally across the motu on Budget Day.
That same protest saw this animosity take on a new angle, with Te Pati Māori issuing a declaration of political independence and calling for a separate Māori Parliament.
So how serious are these calls, and is there any path back from the precipice?
Today on The Front Page, we discuss the details behind the tension with Dr Carwyn Jones, co-editor of the Māori Law Review and honorary adjunct professor in Māori Studies at Victoria University of Wellington.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer: Paddy Fox
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Gilder.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Tensions between
Maldidom and the coalition government have been bubbling since the
latter was sworn.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
In last year.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Outrage over the Treaty Principal's Bill and cuts to services
for malty has seen multiple protests, most recently the khar
Koi rally across the Mottu on Budget Day. That same
protest saw this animosity take a new angle, went to Patsi.
Maldy issued a declaration of political independence and called for
(00:46):
a separate Moldi Parliament. So how serious are these calls
and is there any path back from the precipice. Today
on the Front Page, we discussed the details behind the
tension with doctor Carwan Joe, co editor of the Malti
Law Review and Honorary Adjunct Professor in Maldi Studies at Victoria.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
University of Wellington.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
First off, Cawen, we've heard a lot about tataritio y
Tanngi this year and lots of different interpretations of it.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
How would you define it well?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
So for me to be to your waite, tangy is
the Maori text of the treaty, and for me, that's
really the authoritative text because that's the text which all
the rangatira who signed find And so when we're talking
about t Tarditi, we're talking about that agreement signed in
eighteen forty between Maori leaders rang A Tita and the
(01:45):
British Crown.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
On the other side, there are differences in meaning between
the English and Malti versions of the treaty, and interpretations
on what they actually mean have differed throughout history. Is
there a lot of debate over what those interpretations are.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
There has been some significant debate around the meaning interpretation
of the English text and the Trio text and what
they might mean in relation to one another. So the
treaties a kind of short document. There's only three written articles.
There's often a fourth art and we talk about as
being part of the agreement that was formed on the.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Sixth of February and forty.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
The first article is really about the authority which is
being granted to the British Crown in the Trio text
that's talked about as Karwanatunga. And from the record that
we have around the debates that took place, it seems
pretty clear that that karawana tanga, that authority was intended
to be authority over the settler population who was here.
(02:41):
So for the British crown to have authority over its
own people who were here in Alta or and that
seems consistent with what then guaranteed and Article two of
Tetaviti and the Trio text, what's guaranteed is rang a
teta tanga, which the base word is rang a tetras
or chief leader, rang.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
A teta tanga.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
It's all those things to do with the chief or
teta tanga often described as the absolute chiefly authority. So
that's being guaranteed to Maudi the English text in those
two articles. What's being granted to the British crown the
term that's used as sovereignty. And you know, when we
think about sovereignty today, we think about it as often
(03:20):
being a kind of exclusive kind of authority, and that
would be inconsistent with a guarantee of tetatanga an Article two.
But actually there's been a lot of work done, particularly
by Leacher, who's written a significant book around the English
text of the treaty, who says, actually, when you look
at the correspondence that was taking place amongst colonial officials
(03:43):
and how they were understanding this term sovereignty at the time.
It seems as though the Western idea of sovereignty doesn't
really harden into an absolute and exclusive form of authority
until a bit later in the nineteenth century or around
the middle of the nineteenth century. So you know, according
to New pleicture, you look at the English text what
people were saying at the time, you can read that
(04:04):
is still allowing for another form of authority to exist
at the same time. So that does allow for Crown
to exercise their authority, Maui to continue to exercise the authority.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
A lot of tensions we've seen, especially this year, started
with the act Party's Treaty Principles Bill, and they say
that's to define what those principles are in the treaty.
It wants a treaty to apply to all New Zealanders,
while some Maori leaders say such changes would amount to
a modern day confiscation of treaty.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Right, who is right here? What do you make of
these arguments?
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Well, I think it's pretty clear that the treaty was
signed between Maudi and the British Crown, so where the
exchanges between those rights that are guaranteed by the Crown
and those rights that Maoria allowing the Crown to exercise,
those are not guarantees to all New Zealanders, are guarantees
to the parties, to Tatitati.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
So, Marii Ewe and hapu So.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
For me, one of the fundamental problems about the way
in which the proposed Act Party policy, which would underpin
the proposed Treaty Principles Bill, is that it completely erases
Maori from Tetriti, and that's obviously completely detached from the
reality of what Tetarti is and who it was a
(05:23):
treaty between.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
It really is a question of what does our founding
document mean? Does it mean that we are divided into
tongue of the Fellower and tongue of Ta Tarti, two
people's apart, or does it mean that we are citizens
of New Zealand with the same rights and duties or
nati kangakato rita tahi, as the treaty itself says.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Would I be right in saying that saying all New
Zealanders would be akin to saying all lives matter?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
In reference to the Black lives matter protests.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
Yeah, I think that's quite a good analogy, because you're
absolutely right in terms of the government has responsibility for
all New Zealanders, and what Tetariti does is think about, well,
what are the particular ways in which the Crown has
guaranteed to respect Maori authority amongst that So to erase
Maori from the treaty principles and from Tetariti, that is
(06:23):
kind of the equivalent of taking the focus off where
the issues really.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Sit in terms of Tatarrito or White Tongy and the
debate around this bill in particular, what do you think
people fear from it from both sides?
Speaker 4 (06:38):
I guess yes, So certainly.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
One of the things that I'm concerned about, and I
hear a lot of Maori talking about, is the fact
that you know, we've had this mechanism the principles of
the Treaty that's been used by the White Tungu Tribunal
in legislation and so being implied in the courts for
decades now, for fifty years in terms of the White
Tangy Tribunal, and we've seen it being used in the
(07:03):
courts for almost as long as that, and it's already
a kind of compromise on what's in Tetillti itself. It
doesn't give full expression to in tongue up because it
all sits within a framework which is set by the Crown,
but even within that, it has meant it's been a
(07:24):
mechanism which has been used to enable to make some
really important gains for Maori in terms of whether it's
protection of teri or Maori, or recognition of the historical
wrongs that have occurred and try and find ways to
acknowledge those and provide some redress, or simply as a
mechanism that ensures that Maori have input in participation into
(07:47):
matters which have an impact on us. So the concern
for many Maori is that that mechanism will be taken away,
that the gains that we have made over decades thought
over decades will be lost, that it will have a
detrimental effect on it, or Maori will have a detrimental
effect on the health and well being of milder communities
(08:10):
in many other ways, because the principles of the treaty
has been a key mechanism which has supported Maori to
have input and exercise some level of control leadership in
those spaces for people on the other side of the debate,
I know, the reason why acts say that they're opposing
(08:30):
this Principle's Bill is because they're concerned that Parliament hasn't
had an opportunity to define these It's been left to
the courts and the tribunal. And that's true, although it
is Parliament that has set up that framework and has
made a decision that the application of the principles.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
Ought to be left to be worked.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Through in specific circumstances. And that's not an unusual thing
to do. And also we do have quite a lot
of certainty now around what treaty principles are or how
a they're going to be applied, because we've got forty
or five years of jurisprudence case law which talks about that.
So you know, one of the other concerns about this
bill would be that all of that gets disrupted and
(09:08):
unsettled if this phrase the principles of the Treaty, if
its interpretation has changed in this fundamental way that is
being proposed. I guess the other concern that many people have,
no matter what their kind of view about the principles themselves,
is that having a referendum on this issue is not
going to be a way in which to engage in
(09:30):
any kind of constructive conversation about the meaning of tetarditi
or its principles, or how we ought to relate to
each other, or what the roles of karawanatungue to tongue.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Might look like.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
A referendum isn't a useful way to try and conduct
a conversation like that, particularly without the grind of groundwork
of making sure that there's good information around about what
tatitity is, what it sees, what the principles are, and
how they've already been interpreted. And so a lot of
people I think would be rightly concerned about the kind
(10:02):
of impact the social disruption that the visisness that are
referendum on this topic would bring without any real benefit.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
We've seen mobilize multiple times since this government was elected
last year. How significant is this action?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Well, I think it's very significant because the numbers have
been extremely large and there's been a real sense, I
think of Maori being quite united in the face of
the many issues that the government has progressing, which are
already designed to roll back gains made in the last
(10:48):
twenty thirty years.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
So for many Maldi and I include myself in this, that.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Does feel like a real attack by the government on
all aspects of our lives. And what I think we've
seen through these actions is how really united Maria. And
this was I think a really strong sense that I
got from being at White Tangy around the White Tangy
Day celebrations was huge numbers there, record turnout and lots
(11:14):
of anger, yes at the government, but actually a really
positive sense about being united and resisting this. And also
at all of these activations as they've been called, there's
been a really strong presence of Pakier non Marii as
well in support and participating and choosing to be quite
active in that support in a way in which maybe
(11:36):
in previous times we've seen quite a lot of passive
support from amongst the park Our community. Now I think,
you know, there's a real sense that in order to
demonstrate that this is not something that the majority of
parker want, I seen many non Maori coming out to
take active steps to oppose what the governments is doing.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Well, just last week we saw another large protest across
the country, thousands protesting the government's policies.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Towards Maori.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Protesting against how this government has totally failed, totally failed,
not just Mariu, but anyone struggling, anyone down at the bottom.
Speaker 6 (12:13):
Everything that the government is doing is against Mali and
we are not standing for it.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
And it was there that Tepati Mali declared its plans
for a declaration of political independence and to establish a
Maori parliament. Firstly, what does that declaration of independence actually
mean to you?
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I haven't seen the text really of what the Maori
Party have proposed there, but certainly the kind of sense
of declaring political independence is something which Maori have done
since Tatariti, since eighteen forty.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
But even before that.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
One of the important precursors of Tatariti itself was the
eighteen thirty five Declaration of Independence Hakaputanga, which made it
very clear that those Unga Teta who signed they were
making a statement the Declarations to the rest of the
world saying that New Zealand is.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
An independent state.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
He Fenota is the term they use, which I think
is a really powerful term. New Zealand's independent and who
exercises authority here? It's us that Unga Teta and nobody
else and so I think that's an important statement of independence.
It's a declaration of independence, is the documents called. And
it's part of the reason why actually Tetti becomes so
(13:38):
important because the British Crown has been involved in encouraging
Mali to sign this declaration of independence to put off
other colonial powers. And then when the crown itself decides
it wants to exercise some authority here, well it has
to do that via some diplomatic agreement, via a treaty,
(13:58):
because there's already been the statement that nobody else exercised
authority here except Maori. Well, Tetariti says, actually will create
the space for Kawana tanga with a crown to exercise
authority over its own people who are here, and we
will have Maori authority continuing, but the crown also exercising
its own authority here as well. And so those statements
(14:19):
of independence, as I say, they predate Tatarriiti and have
continued on. And you know, even the recognition of Ta
Tanga in Tatariti itself as a real statement of continuing
Maori political authority and independence, and that's what the relationship
in Tatariti was supposed to reflect.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
So this declaration from Tepatimuri. Could it just be a
show of defiance against this government or do you actually
think ta Patimuri actually wanted a physical separate parliament.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Well, they have talked about having a separate parliament, and
some of the discussion that we had at the National
Hui that was held at wilmahum what I last Friday
was sort of thinking about models of ways in which
there might be something like a Maori parliament. Again, there
have been Maori parliaments in the past as well, so
(15:11):
this is not something new, But a lot of the
discussion too on Friday focused around thinking about, well, if
Titi talks about these two spheres of authority, this Maori
authority as to not unger Teta Tanga and the authority
of the crown as kawana tanga, and we need to
think about how those two spheres are going to relate
to each other. And part of thinking about that is
(15:33):
thinking about, well, how do we want that nor unger
teta tanga sphere to look, How would we exercise Maori independence,
What kind of structure or institution would we have on
that side? And some of the conversation on Friday was
saying well, actually we ought not to be thinking about
a parliament that just kind of looks like the house
the representatives we have now, but actually thinking about well,
(15:56):
how do we reflect the kind of authority and autonomy
of Ewe and Hapu and maybe even far Noo and
thinking about that to create a someone referred to it
as a House of unity rather than a house of
parliament that might organize that tanga sphere, that sphere of
Maori authority, this.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Idea that Tipati Maori have brought forward and are working on.
Do you have any fears it's creating an us in
them kind of scenario in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Well, so, one of the things when we look at Tatariti,
we can see that are these two spheres of authority
that are recognized, this authority of Karwanatanga, of the crown,
authority of the tang of Maori. What Tetariti does is
put those into a relationship with one another and say
that we're going to coexist here in Alto or these
two spheres of authority, and we're going to relate to
(16:49):
each other. There's going to be a relationship and there's
a partnership that's set out in Tatariti.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
That's what Tetariti talks about.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
But what that partnership does also require and fair is
the kind of ongoing distinctiveness of those two spheres of authority,
because if one is absorbed by the other, then there's
no more relationship. It's just a kind of assimilation. And
so I don't think there's anything to fear from the
idea that we can have a relationship which recognizes that
(17:19):
difference and acknowledges that distinctiveness in these distinctive forms of
political authority that go along with that. In fact, I
think it's a really important mechanism one that we can
think about how we can share with other places around
the world, to think about how you can manage difference
and accommodate difference and enter into relationships while maintaining distinctive
(17:43):
ways of doing things within your own sphere of authority
or influence.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
And it's also a.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Way in which you can better engage with all kinds
of different distinctive communities of interest and authority and influence
as well.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Now correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Just from our conversation now, my interpretation of what we've
spoken about is that when say Rahwiti Wa Titi calls
the coalition government a Parkiha government, and that's despite the
fact that there are eight od nps and two leaders
of the opposition that are in fact Maldi.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
He's not saying it literally.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
He might be saying it or interpreting it as it
is a Pakihar government because it is a Parki Heart institution.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely so.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
And you know, I think the other important thing to
remember is that to party Maori is those MP's they
sit within that park Out institution at the moment as well.
So yes, it's the institution that you'd be referring to
and saying it's a park institution, even though there might
be Mali within that. It's organized in a way and
structures power in a way that comes from the kind
(18:57):
of Westminster tradition. You know, all communities always develop legal
systems and rules of organizing themselves and governing themselves, and
they all come out of particular history, both cultural history,
but social and environmental histories as well all shape those
kind of things. And we have a kind of Westminster
style parliament, So it comes from that kind of park
(19:20):
Our tradition and perhaps a European tradition of how that
might be organized, whereas what might be thinking about in
terms of we can call it a Malori parliament, but
I think useful to get away from thinking about it
as a parliament, thinking about a house of unity and
what that might look like, and what Maori communities wants
that House of unity to look like, how to organize
the Tenaea Tannga sphere in a way that can engage
(19:43):
appropriately and effectively with the Kawana Tannga sphere.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
In terms of explaining this to the general public, I
guess because there's Winston Peters calling to Pati Maori a
party of radical extremists and that they're trying to stoke
this racial division.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
I heard from the Murray Party.
Speaker 6 (20:01):
We've heard from a party of radical extremists.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
And then you've got Tipati Maori bringing up apartheid and
calling out a Parkiha government.
Speaker 6 (20:09):
What this budget tells us is that Marty don't matter.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
So how do we explain or have a conversation with
everybody about what is really meant?
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Well, So partly it does come down to things like
ensuring that throughout our education system we have good information
around New Zealand history and what's happened, but also other
kinds of opportunities for people to discuss these issues as well.
And so you know, one of the things that Wanna
Jackson was really involved with was called the Martiqui Mayalta
(20:45):
or was the Working Group on Constitutional Transformation, which first
of all had a whole lot of meetings with different
kinds of MARDI groups around the country over a period
of three years to talk about Malori constitutional aspiration. But
then the next phase of that work that MIANA was
engaging and was saying, well, okay, here's the discussion that
(21:07):
we've had with MALDI. Let's take this to other parts
of the New Zealand community and see what are your
views on this, How do you think about this? Here
are our reasons why we've had this conversation, how this
is where these ideas for constitutional change have come out of.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
And so it's really about ensuring that.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
There's good information available and the kinds of forums that
allow people to have discussion. And that's why I think
it's problematic about the proposed referendum is that it's not
conducive to having useful discussion that draws out and teases
out information. It puts people into a very positional stance.
(21:45):
But also what we've seen already from the act Party's
website around treaty principles is that there's a lot of
misinformation that they are promoting around what t says and does.
So it's about trying to think about how we provide
those spaces for good information, for constructive and caliborative discussion,
(22:06):
because I mean, that's really what Teteriti itself talks about.
Teterriti provides a framework for the engagement of those two
spheres of authorities in constructive and collaborative conversation.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Do you think the comments and vitriol from both sides
of the political spectrum are doing damage to the conversation
as a whole?
Speaker 1 (22:25):
And I'm talking about everyone here.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
I'm talking about Winston Peters calling out Tabutti Malti for
racial division. I'm talking about Tabutti Maldi calling the government racist.
Do you think that's all stoking flames rather than promoting conversation.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
I guess yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
I mean, I do think that the nature of our
Parliament at the moment is not really set up to
be a place for good conversation, particularly in the kind.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Of theatrics in the House itself.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
There may be some opportunities through other mechanisms of parliament,
through select committee processes, where those provide better spaces for
encouraging those conversations. And so I do think a lot
of the rhetoric about a whole range of issues in
our parliament is not really very helpful, doesn't take us
very far. I do think that there has to be
(23:16):
the ability to call out racist behavior and policies as well.
And one of the things that we've seen with the
policy program of this government is that there have been
a number of things which have been directly aimed at
reducing Maori representation, at measures which we know will have
(23:39):
detrimental effect on Maori health. For example, in the case
of the disestablishment of the Maori Health Authority, the government
doesn't even have an alternative approach. It simply wants to
go back to largely the situation we had before the
Maori Health Authority, which we know had a disproportionate impact
on Maori health. And so I think there does need
to be an opportunity to actually point those things out
(24:02):
and say that you know, those impacts are going to
have an impact on.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Maldi as a population, and if.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
You know that and you're still going ahead and doing it, then,
I think that does demonstrate that it's a racist policy.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Thanks for joining us, Cowen.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzed Herald dot co dot z. The Front Page
is produced by Ethan Siles with sound engineer Patty Fox.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Gilder.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Tensions between
Maldidom and the coalition government have been bubbling since the
latter was sworn.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
In last year.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Outrage over the Treaty Principal's Bill and cuts to services
for malty has seen multiple protests, most recently the khar
Koi rally across the Mottu on Budget Day. That same
protest saw this animosity take a new angle, went to Patsi.
Maldy issued a declaration of political independence and called for
(00:46):
a separate Moldi Parliament. So how serious are these calls
and is there any path back from the precipice. Today
on the Front Page, we discussed the details behind the
tension with doctor Carwan Joe, co editor of the Malti
Law Review and Honorary Adjunct Professor in Maldi Studies at Victoria.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
University of Wellington.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
First off, Cawen, we've heard a lot about tataritio y
Tanngi this year and lots of different interpretations of it.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
How would you define it well?
Speaker 3 (01:22):
So for me to be to your waite, tangy is
the Maori text of the treaty, and for me, that's
really the authoritative text because that's the text which all
the rangatira who signed find And so when we're talking
about t Tarditi, we're talking about that agreement signed in
eighteen forty between Maori leaders rang A Tita and the
(01:45):
British Crown.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
On the other side, there are differences in meaning between
the English and Malti versions of the treaty, and interpretations
on what they actually mean have differed throughout history. Is
there a lot of debate over what those interpretations are.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
There has been some significant debate around the meaning interpretation
of the English text and the Trio text and what
they might mean in relation to one another. So the
treaties a kind of short document. There's only three written articles.
There's often a fourth art and we talk about as
being part of the agreement that was formed on the.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
Sixth of February and forty.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
The first article is really about the authority which is
being granted to the British Crown in the Trio text
that's talked about as Karwanatunga. And from the record that
we have around the debates that took place, it seems
pretty clear that that karawana tanga, that authority was intended
to be authority over the settler population who was here.
(02:41):
So for the British crown to have authority over its
own people who were here in Alta or and that
seems consistent with what then guaranteed and Article two of
Tetaviti and the Trio text, what's guaranteed is rang a
teta tanga, which the base word is rang a tetras
or chief leader, rang.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
A teta tanga.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
It's all those things to do with the chief or
teta tanga often described as the absolute chiefly authority. So
that's being guaranteed to Maudi the English text in those
two articles. What's being granted to the British crown the
term that's used as sovereignty. And you know, when we
think about sovereignty today, we think about it as often
(03:20):
being a kind of exclusive kind of authority, and that
would be inconsistent with a guarantee of tetatanga an Article two.
But actually there's been a lot of work done, particularly
by Leacher, who's written a significant book around the English
text of the treaty, who says, actually, when you look
at the correspondence that was taking place amongst colonial officials
(03:43):
and how they were understanding this term sovereignty at the time.
It seems as though the Western idea of sovereignty doesn't
really harden into an absolute and exclusive form of authority
until a bit later in the nineteenth century or around
the middle of the nineteenth century. So you know, according
to New pleicture, you look at the English text what
people were saying at the time, you can read that
(04:04):
is still allowing for another form of authority to exist
at the same time. So that does allow for Crown
to exercise their authority, Maui to continue to exercise the authority.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
A lot of tensions we've seen, especially this year, started
with the act Party's Treaty Principles Bill, and they say
that's to define what those principles are in the treaty.
It wants a treaty to apply to all New Zealanders,
while some Maori leaders say such changes would amount to
a modern day confiscation of treaty.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Right, who is right here? What do you make of
these arguments?
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Well, I think it's pretty clear that the treaty was
signed between Maudi and the British Crown, so where the
exchanges between those rights that are guaranteed by the Crown
and those rights that Maoria allowing the Crown to exercise,
those are not guarantees to all New Zealanders, are guarantees
to the parties, to Tatitati.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
So, Marii Ewe and hapu So.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
For me, one of the fundamental problems about the way
in which the proposed Act Party policy, which would underpin
the proposed Treaty Principles Bill, is that it completely erases
Maori from Tetriti, and that's obviously completely detached from the
reality of what Tetarti is and who it was a
(05:23):
treaty between.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
It really is a question of what does our founding
document mean? Does it mean that we are divided into
tongue of the Fellower and tongue of Ta Tarti, two
people's apart, or does it mean that we are citizens
of New Zealand with the same rights and duties or
nati kangakato rita tahi, as the treaty itself says.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Would I be right in saying that saying all New
Zealanders would be akin to saying all lives matter?
Speaker 1 (05:55):
In reference to the Black lives matter protests.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
Yeah, I think that's quite a good analogy, because you're
absolutely right in terms of the government has responsibility for
all New Zealanders, and what Tetariti does is think about, well,
what are the particular ways in which the Crown has
guaranteed to respect Maori authority amongst that So to erase
Maori from the treaty principles and from Tetariti, that is
(06:23):
kind of the equivalent of taking the focus off where
the issues really.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Sit in terms of Tatarrito or White Tongy and the
debate around this bill in particular, what do you think
people fear from it from both sides?
Speaker 4 (06:38):
I guess yes, So certainly.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
One of the things that I'm concerned about, and I
hear a lot of Maori talking about, is the fact
that you know, we've had this mechanism the principles of
the Treaty that's been used by the White Tungu Tribunal
in legislation and so being implied in the courts for
decades now, for fifty years in terms of the White
Tangy Tribunal, and we've seen it being used in the
(07:03):
courts for almost as long as that, and it's already
a kind of compromise on what's in Tetillti itself. It
doesn't give full expression to in tongue up because it
all sits within a framework which is set by the Crown,
but even within that, it has meant it's been a
(07:24):
mechanism which has been used to enable to make some
really important gains for Maori in terms of whether it's
protection of teri or Maori, or recognition of the historical
wrongs that have occurred and try and find ways to
acknowledge those and provide some redress, or simply as a
mechanism that ensures that Maori have input in participation into
(07:47):
matters which have an impact on us. So the concern
for many Maori is that that mechanism will be taken away,
that the gains that we have made over decades thought
over decades will be lost, that it will have a
detrimental effect on it, or Maori will have a detrimental
effect on the health and well being of milder communities
(08:10):
in many other ways, because the principles of the treaty
has been a key mechanism which has supported Maori to
have input and exercise some level of control leadership in
those spaces for people on the other side of the debate,
I know, the reason why acts say that they're opposing
(08:30):
this Principle's Bill is because they're concerned that Parliament hasn't
had an opportunity to define these It's been left to
the courts and the tribunal. And that's true, although it
is Parliament that has set up that framework and has
made a decision that the application of the principles.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
Ought to be left to be worked.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Through in specific circumstances. And that's not an unusual thing
to do. And also we do have quite a lot
of certainty now around what treaty principles are or how
a they're going to be applied, because we've got forty
or five years of jurisprudence case law which talks about that.
So you know, one of the other concerns about this
bill would be that all of that gets disrupted and
(09:08):
unsettled if this phrase the principles of the Treaty, if
its interpretation has changed in this fundamental way that is
being proposed. I guess the other concern that many people have,
no matter what their kind of view about the principles themselves,
is that having a referendum on this issue is not
going to be a way in which to engage in
(09:30):
any kind of constructive conversation about the meaning of tetarditi
or its principles, or how we ought to relate to
each other, or what the roles of karawanatungue to tongue.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Might look like.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
A referendum isn't a useful way to try and conduct
a conversation like that, particularly without the grind of groundwork
of making sure that there's good information around about what
tatitity is, what it sees, what the principles are, and
how they've already been interpreted. And so a lot of
people I think would be rightly concerned about the kind
(10:02):
of impact the social disruption that the visisness that are
referendum on this topic would bring without any real benefit.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
We've seen mobilize multiple times since this government was elected
last year. How significant is this action?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Well, I think it's very significant because the numbers have
been extremely large and there's been a real sense, I
think of Maori being quite united in the face of
the many issues that the government has progressing, which are
already designed to roll back gains made in the last
(10:48):
twenty thirty years.
Speaker 4 (10:50):
So for many Maldi and I include myself in this, that.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
Does feel like a real attack by the government on
all aspects of our lives. And what I think we've
seen through these actions is how really united Maria. And
this was I think a really strong sense that I
got from being at White Tangy around the White Tangy
Day celebrations was huge numbers there, record turnout and lots
(11:14):
of anger, yes at the government, but actually a really
positive sense about being united and resisting this. And also
at all of these activations as they've been called, there's
been a really strong presence of Pakier non Marii as
well in support and participating and choosing to be quite
active in that support in a way in which maybe
(11:36):
in previous times we've seen quite a lot of passive
support from amongst the park Our community. Now I think,
you know, there's a real sense that in order to
demonstrate that this is not something that the majority of
parker want, I seen many non Maori coming out to
take active steps to oppose what the governments is doing.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Well, just last week we saw another large protest across
the country, thousands protesting the government's policies.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Towards Maori.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Protesting against how this government has totally failed, totally failed,
not just Mariu, but anyone struggling, anyone down at the bottom.
Speaker 6 (12:13):
Everything that the government is doing is against Mali and
we are not standing for it.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
And it was there that Tepati Mali declared its plans
for a declaration of political independence and to establish a
Maori parliament. Firstly, what does that declaration of independence actually
mean to you?
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I haven't seen the text really of what the Maori
Party have proposed there, but certainly the kind of sense
of declaring political independence is something which Maori have done
since Tatariti, since eighteen forty.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
But even before that.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
One of the important precursors of Tatariti itself was the
eighteen thirty five Declaration of Independence Hakaputanga, which made it
very clear that those Unga Teta who signed they were
making a statement the Declarations to the rest of the
world saying that New Zealand is.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
An independent state.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
He Fenota is the term they use, which I think
is a really powerful term. New Zealand's independent and who
exercises authority here? It's us that Unga Teta and nobody
else and so I think that's an important statement of independence.
It's a declaration of independence, is the documents called. And
it's part of the reason why actually Tetti becomes so
(13:38):
important because the British Crown has been involved in encouraging
Mali to sign this declaration of independence to put off
other colonial powers. And then when the crown itself decides
it wants to exercise some authority here, well it has
to do that via some diplomatic agreement, via a treaty,
(13:58):
because there's already been the statement that nobody else exercised
authority here except Maori. Well, Tetariti says, actually will create
the space for Kawana tanga with a crown to exercise
authority over its own people who are here, and we
will have Maori authority continuing, but the crown also exercising
its own authority here as well. And so those statements
(14:19):
of independence, as I say, they predate Tatarriiti and have
continued on. And you know, even the recognition of Ta
Tanga in Tatariti itself as a real statement of continuing
Maori political authority and independence, and that's what the relationship
in Tatariti was supposed to reflect.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
So this declaration from Tepatimuri. Could it just be a
show of defiance against this government or do you actually
think ta Patimuri actually wanted a physical separate parliament.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Well, they have talked about having a separate parliament, and
some of the discussion that we had at the National
Hui that was held at wilmahum what I last Friday
was sort of thinking about models of ways in which
there might be something like a Maori parliament. Again, there
have been Maori parliaments in the past as well, so
(15:11):
this is not something new, But a lot of the
discussion too on Friday focused around thinking about, well, if
Titi talks about these two spheres of authority, this Maori
authority as to not unger Teta Tanga and the authority
of the crown as kawana tanga, and we need to
think about how those two spheres are going to relate
to each other. And part of thinking about that is
(15:33):
thinking about, well, how do we want that nor unger
teta tanga sphere to look, How would we exercise Maori independence,
What kind of structure or institution would we have on
that side? And some of the conversation on Friday was
saying well, actually we ought not to be thinking about
a parliament that just kind of looks like the house
the representatives we have now, but actually thinking about well,
(15:56):
how do we reflect the kind of authority and autonomy
of Ewe and Hapu and maybe even far Noo and
thinking about that to create a someone referred to it
as a House of unity rather than a house of
parliament that might organize that tanga sphere, that sphere of
Maori authority, this.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Idea that Tipati Maori have brought forward and are working on.
Do you have any fears it's creating an us in
them kind of scenario in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Well, so, one of the things when we look at Tatariti,
we can see that are these two spheres of authority
that are recognized, this authority of Karwanatanga, of the crown,
authority of the tang of Maori. What Tetariti does is
put those into a relationship with one another and say
that we're going to coexist here in Alto or these
two spheres of authority, and we're going to relate to
(16:49):
each other. There's going to be a relationship and there's
a partnership that's set out in Tatariti.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
That's what Tetariti talks about.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
But what that partnership does also require and fair is
the kind of ongoing distinctiveness of those two spheres of authority,
because if one is absorbed by the other, then there's
no more relationship. It's just a kind of assimilation. And
so I don't think there's anything to fear from the
idea that we can have a relationship which recognizes that
(17:19):
difference and acknowledges that distinctiveness in these distinctive forms of
political authority that go along with that. In fact, I
think it's a really important mechanism one that we can
think about how we can share with other places around
the world, to think about how you can manage difference
and accommodate difference and enter into relationships while maintaining distinctive
(17:43):
ways of doing things within your own sphere of authority
or influence.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
And it's also a.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Way in which you can better engage with all kinds
of different distinctive communities of interest and authority and influence
as well.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Now correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Just from our conversation now, my interpretation of what we've
spoken about is that when say Rahwiti Wa Titi calls
the coalition government a Parkiha government, and that's despite the
fact that there are eight od nps and two leaders
of the opposition that are in fact Maldi.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
He's not saying it literally.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
He might be saying it or interpreting it as it
is a Pakihar government because it is a Parki Heart institution.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely so.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
And you know, I think the other important thing to
remember is that to party Maori is those MP's they
sit within that park Out institution at the moment as well.
So yes, it's the institution that you'd be referring to
and saying it's a park institution, even though there might
be Mali within that. It's organized in a way and
structures power in a way that comes from the kind
(18:57):
of Westminster tradition. You know, all communities always develop legal
systems and rules of organizing themselves and governing themselves, and
they all come out of particular history, both cultural history,
but social and environmental histories as well all shape those
kind of things. And we have a kind of Westminster
style parliament, So it comes from that kind of park
(19:20):
Our tradition and perhaps a European tradition of how that
might be organized, whereas what might be thinking about in
terms of we can call it a Malori parliament, but
I think useful to get away from thinking about it
as a parliament, thinking about a house of unity and
what that might look like, and what Maori communities wants
that House of unity to look like, how to organize
the Tenaea Tannga sphere in a way that can engage
(19:43):
appropriately and effectively with the Kawana Tannga sphere.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
In terms of explaining this to the general public, I
guess because there's Winston Peters calling to Pati Maori a
party of radical extremists and that they're trying to stoke
this racial division.
Speaker 4 (20:00):
I heard from the Murray Party.
Speaker 6 (20:01):
We've heard from a party of radical extremists.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
And then you've got Tipati Maori bringing up apartheid and
calling out a Parkiha government.
Speaker 6 (20:09):
What this budget tells us is that Marty don't matter.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
So how do we explain or have a conversation with
everybody about what is really meant?
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Well, So partly it does come down to things like
ensuring that throughout our education system we have good information
around New Zealand history and what's happened, but also other
kinds of opportunities for people to discuss these issues as well.
And so you know, one of the things that Wanna
Jackson was really involved with was called the Martiqui Mayalta
(20:45):
or was the Working Group on Constitutional Transformation, which first
of all had a whole lot of meetings with different
kinds of MARDI groups around the country over a period
of three years to talk about Malori constitutional aspiration. But
then the next phase of that work that MIANA was
engaging and was saying, well, okay, here's the discussion that
(21:07):
we've had with MALDI. Let's take this to other parts
of the New Zealand community and see what are your
views on this, How do you think about this? Here
are our reasons why we've had this conversation, how this
is where these ideas for constitutional change have come out of.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
And so it's really about ensuring that.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
There's good information available and the kinds of forums that
allow people to have discussion. And that's why I think
it's problematic about the proposed referendum is that it's not
conducive to having useful discussion that draws out and teases
out information. It puts people into a very positional stance.
(21:45):
But also what we've seen already from the act Party's
website around treaty principles is that there's a lot of
misinformation that they are promoting around what t says and does.
So it's about trying to think about how we provide
those spaces for good information, for constructive and caliborative discussion,
(22:06):
because I mean, that's really what Teteriti itself talks about.
Teterriti provides a framework for the engagement of those two
spheres of authorities in constructive and collaborative conversation.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Do you think the comments and vitriol from both sides
of the political spectrum are doing damage to the conversation
as a whole?
Speaker 1 (22:25):
And I'm talking about everyone here.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
I'm talking about Winston Peters calling out Tabutti Malti for
racial division. I'm talking about Tabutti Maldi calling the government racist.
Do you think that's all stoking flames rather than promoting conversation.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
I guess yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
I mean, I do think that the nature of our
Parliament at the moment is not really set up to
be a place for good conversation, particularly in the kind.
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Of theatrics in the House itself.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
There may be some opportunities through other mechanisms of parliament,
through select committee processes, where those provide better spaces for
encouraging those conversations. And so I do think a lot
of the rhetoric about a whole range of issues in
our parliament is not really very helpful, doesn't take us
very far. I do think that there has to be
(23:16):
the ability to call out racist behavior and policies as well.
And one of the things that we've seen with the
policy program of this government is that there have been
a number of things which have been directly aimed at
reducing Maori representation, at measures which we know will have
(23:39):
detrimental effect on Maori health. For example, in the case
of the disestablishment of the Maori Health Authority, the government
doesn't even have an alternative approach. It simply wants to
go back to largely the situation we had before the
Maori Health Authority, which we know had a disproportionate impact
on Maori health. And so I think there does need
to be an opportunity to actually point those things out
(24:02):
and say that you know, those impacts are going to
have an impact on.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
Maldi as a population, and if.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
You know that and you're still going ahead and doing it, then,
I think that does demonstrate that it's a racist policy.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Thanks for joining us, Cowen.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzed Herald dot co dot z. The Front Page
is produced by Ethan Siles with sound engineer Patty Fox.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.