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