The treaty is a potent symbol

Tu Tangata, Issue 16, 1 March 1984, Page 34

The treaty is a potent symbol

By Michael King

For those who believe in the document’s value, it is a symbol of New Zealand’s commitment to racial equality. For those who condemn it, the treaty is a symbol of Pakeha duplicity and oppression this is the basis for the accusation that “the treaty is a fraud’’.

But, from both differing points of view, the treaty is a potent symbol.

I happen to hold the first view. According to this view, the treaty is not a fraud but it has been defrauded by the behaviour of Pakeha governments and individuals. These bodies seek to deprive Maori People of much of their territorial and cultural resources.

I do not believe however that the differing viewpoints on the nature and value of the treaty can be reconciled. Former arguments have not been reconciled, but they are more sharply stated in the 1980’s more than ever before. Consequently, the mere notion of celebrating the Waitangi anniversary is under more threat than ever before.

I propose that a new Waitangi agreement be drawn up. It would be called the Waitangi Covenant. This new document would embody the principles that all parties believed were, or should have been in the Waitangi Treaty. It would be signed by all Members of Parliament as the current representatives of Maori and Pakeha people.

It should include the name Waitangi, to remind us of the promises made and accepted in good faith in the Bay of Islands and elsewhere in 1840. And also to remind us that these initial promises were frequently dishonoured.

And it should be called a covenant because it is a morally forceful agreement on principles, rather than a legal document subject to narrowly legal interpretations and subsequent litigation.

It should be signed by Members of Parliament, because Parliament’s elective foundation is more representative of the values and aspirations of New Zealand life than any other single body.

However, after a solemn and ceremonial Parliamentary signing, or more suitably, a Maori ceremony, there is no reason why the covenant should not be signed by other organisations and individuals, Maori and Pakeha.

This agreement would not be a legal document. The effects of the legal treaty on existing and future laws would lead to interminable and non-produc-

tive argument. Instead, it would be a solemn statement of principles governing cultural and race relations to which New Zealanders through their elected representatives wish to commit themselves in the interests of fair play and genuine equality. It should include wholehearted acceptance of the Maori right to retain the Maori language and Maori culture; acceptance of the Maori right to control and dispose of remaining Maori land and its resources according to Maori wishes; and recognition of traditional practices associated with land ownership, such as food gathering and the protection of sacred places.! It

should also affirm the right of people to identify as Maori or Pakeha citizens of New Zealand, and the right of access to all the cultural resources and legal remedies which such an affirmation implies. I have put this proposal forward because I believe that the need to resolve racial issues is a race against time. I believe it is one that could find acceptance from all parts of the political and ideological spectrum. I believe it does reconcile current points of contention. And because I believe, that more than ever before, we all want racial harmony as a foundation for a fruitful national life in Aotearoa.