spinofflive
Jacinda Ardern and her college friend Colleen in Whanganui. Photo: Toby Manhire
Jacinda Ardern and her college friend Colleen in Whanganui. Photo: Toby Manhire

ĀteaJanuary 24, 2018

Why Jacinda Ardern’s decision to spend five days at Waitangi is a really big deal

Jacinda Ardern and her college friend Colleen in Whanganui. Photo: Toby Manhire
Jacinda Ardern and her college friend Colleen in Whanganui. Photo: Toby Manhire

Rangatira ki te rangatira: Ardern’s approach to Waitangi commemorations offers the chance to break from the bad old days under PMs of both parties, writes Annabelle Lee 

Every Waitangi it’s the same.

The lack of gratitude shown by Māori at being among the poorest, sickest, most unemployed and incarcerated people in Aotearoa is an ongoing source of consternation for a long white crowd of politicians.

When asked by Radio New Zealand why he won’t be in attendance at Waitangi this year former prime minister Bill English had this to say.

It’s pretty much been marred by some kind of controversy. Just remember how wider New Zealand has often see this. They get a bit apprehensive if not a bit bored by the build up to Waitangi Day and the unnecessary controversy around it. It would be much better if the build up to our national day was positive.

Māori are such party poopers. English goes on to say:

What I would like to see at Waitangi is that thousands of New Zealanders see it as a place they should go to as a place to celebrate their national day, that’s currently not the case.

For anyone who has actually spent February 6 at Waitangi, you would know that this statement is patently untrue.

In fact it’s a testament to the generosity and optimism of Māori that despite nearly two centuries of treaty breaches that have left them at the bottom of every statistical barrel you care to look in, thousands of Māori still turn up to honour the signing of the Treaty.

While politicians and mainstream media would have you believe that Waitangi is merely a dildo/mud-slinging contest, that’s actually not the case. From waka paddlers to kura kaupapa kids, Māori rights advocates to ringawera who feed the masses, every year thousands of Māori make the pilgrimage to celebrate, commemorate and to challenge.

Perhaps Mr English hasn’t noticed because the usual practice for politicians is to get there, avoid said mud, say a speech and beat a path back out as quickly as possible. Maybe that’s because sitting down and listening to how Māori are hurting is too uncomfortable.

The haste of these visits means most prime ministers don’t ever meaningfully engage with the numerous positive kaupapa that are held at Waitangi.

That’s why Jacinda Ardern’s decision to spend five days in Te Tai Tokerau is hugely significant. For the first time a prime minister will come to Waitangi and spend more time listening than talking.

Ardern’s time in the north is a critical opportunity for Labour to reset its tumultuous and at times exploitative relationship with Māori. During the same interview Mr English stated “Labour have a much more government dominated view of how Māori should behave.” He’s right. Case in point is the former Labour government’s decision to legislate away the right of Māori to test their claims to the seabed and foreshore before the courts. A decision that cost them five of the seven Māori seats.

Ardern now has the chance to show that her Labour government is not the Clark government of old.

There are two leadership concepts Māori place huge value on. The first is ‘kanohi kitea’ best translated as visible leadership. It was visible leadership that allowed the late Hon. Parekura Horomia to retain his seat in Ikaroa Rāwhiti despite the iwi of the east coast being among the worst affected by his government’s foreshore and seabed legislation. Whatever the hui, if it mattered to his people, Horomia made time to be there and he was loved for it.

Waitangi matters to Māori. Under the korowai of her key Māori advisors, five days in Te Tai Tokerau will demonstrate that Ardern understands the importance of kanohi kitea and is prepared to invest the time to practice it. Time will tell if the rest of Labour’s Pākehā leadership are too.

The second concept is ‘rangatira ki te rangatira’, meeting chief to chief. The best example of how Labour has failed to live up to this while in government was in 2005 when they appointed the then MP for Taupo Mark Burton as Minister for Treaty Negotiations. Under Burton, settlements pretty much ground to a halt until he resigned from cabinet in 2007 and was replaced by Dr Michael Cullen. Māori leaders didn’t appreciate dealing with someone who was seen as not being of sufficient rank for the job.

In this regard National have out performed Labour. Christopher Finlayson is held in the highest regard and under his stewardship the settlement process has taken a quantum leap forward.

But National has taken the concept of ‘rangatira ki te rangatira’ to the extreme, preferring the Iwi Leaders Forum as their primary point of contact with te ao Māori.

Like Key before him, English is a big fan of the forum thanks to what he describes as their “forward looking, business focus”. But to say that National has engaged meaningfully with Māori as a result of this relationship is like saying you’ve consulted with New Zealanders because you’ve had a hui with the Business Round Table.

Ardern’s five days means the prime minister will spend time among some of our most neglected communities as opposed to the conference centres often frequented by the forum.

The decision for Ardern to speak on the māhau at Waitangi’s top marae will not have been made lightly. Negotiations to hammer down the detail of how this will work are still ongoing. But that Ardern is willing to put herself out there is an admirable expression of rangatira ki te rangatira.

It’s not for me to comment on the tikanga implications of Ardern speaking on a marae, but in my experience Ngāpuhi are exponents of the saying huri te ao, huri te tikanga – as the world evolves, so too does tikanga.

Titewhai Harawira once famously challenged Helen Clark’s right to speak on her marae when she herself hadn’t been afforded the same courtesy. On February 6 she will escort Ardern onto the marae. That’s Ngāpuhi pragmatism in practice. There will be those who maybe offended by Ardern speaking on a marae and there will also be those who take offence to the people who are offended about her speaking on a marae. At the end of the day it’s for Māori to decide when and how our culture adapts and evolves. Not for Pākehā.

For those who will challenge Ardern’s right to speak, I think it’s worth remembering that when our tūpuna signed the treaty ‘The Crown’ was being worn by Queen Victoria.

Today another wahine represents the Crown and like most others I am curious to hear her vision for the future of our nation’s Treaty partnership.

For anyone who has ever done it, and for those who have watched on, you will know it takes courage to speak on a marae. Her desire to speak and more importantly to listen shows she has plenty of it.

Nōreira kia kaha rā e te Pirimia.

Keep going!
Protestors march towards the Te Whare Runanga on Waitangi Day February 06, 2007 (Photo: Phil Walter/Getty Images)
Protestors march towards the Te Whare Runanga on Waitangi Day February 06, 2007 (Photo: Phil Walter/Getty Images)

ĀteaJanuary 23, 2018

Why Ngāi Tahu and Tainui’s Treaty payment top-ups are fair and legal

Protestors march towards the Te Whare Runanga on Waitangi Day February 06, 2007 (Photo: Phil Walter/Getty Images)
Protestors march towards the Te Whare Runanga on Waitangi Day February 06, 2007 (Photo: Phil Walter/Getty Images)

On Sunday, Stuff revealed that Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui received Treaty payment top-ups totaling $370 million thanks to a ‘relativity clause’ in their original settlement. Language used in the report implied the payments were furtive and excessive. Here’s why they’re not.

Relativity clauses are in the news again, with the “revelation” by Stuff.co.nz that both Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu received additional cash payments under the terms of their respective settlements with the Crown in December. In total, $370 million was paid out, with Waikato-Tainui receiving $190 million and Ngāi Tahu receiving $180 million.

The opening paragraphs of last Sunday’s Stuff story about the Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui relativity clause payments

For those outraged by the fact that these iwi – the first to take the plunge and start the settlement process at a time when they were told the funds were small and the settlement period finite – are receiving top-up payments, I’ll explain a little bit about relativity clauses, and why are they going to continue to be a feature of the Treaty settlement process. To understand this issue we need to go back to the 1990s and the fractious debate around the ‘fiscal envelope’.

In tracing the genesis of issues such as these, it is tempting to go all the way back to 1840 and start recounting history from then through to the modern day. Every piece of our history provides the context for the discussions around the invocation of the relativity clauses. But for present purposes, let’s start in 1990 and the election of the National Party after a six-year absence from the Treasury benches. Included in the 1990 National Party manifesto was a commitment to settle all Treaty claims by 2000, an optimistic time frame given the ongoing settlement negotiations some 28 years later. In order to fulfil this commitment and to ensure that the costs of settlement were not exorbitant given the fiscal constraints of the early 1990s, a cap to the total value of settlements was proposed by the National government.

The announcement of a $1 billion ‘fiscal envelope’ for Treaty settlements in 1995 resulted in widespread protest from Māori around the motu. Ranginui Walker writing in Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou described the protests that followed. “Starting on the University of Auckland and Auckland Institute of Technology campus,” the protest quickly spread to hui in Turangi, Waitangi and to a series of consultation hui held by Te Puni Kokiri. In Turangi, the fiscal envelope was called “an affront to tino rangatiratanga.” In Tauranga the government’s proposal document was thrown on the ground and stomped on. In Te Kuiti a copy was shredded in front of the prime minister, and on the East Coast blankets were returned to the Crown in a symbolic exchange for the return of land to the tribes. The protests would later be characterised by Wira Gardiner (responsible for facilitating the consultation hui in his role as CEO of Te Puni Kokiri) as like being subjected to “the flames of hell”.

Evocative language, but even my recollections as kid at the time bring to mind a period of strong anger from Māori that the value of our losses and the 150 years of subjugation was worth only an infinitesimally small amount of what was taken from us.

If by discreet you mean “public knowledge for over 20 years”.

Nevertheless, two iwi proceeded to settlement. First, Waikato-Tainui in 1995 for $170 million and Ngāi Tahu in 1997, also for $170 million. These were to be the benchmarks on which all subsequent settlements were to be based. Both were settled on the basis of the fiscal envelope. Both were savvy enough to ensure that they were protected in case the government backed down from its adherence to the fiscal envelope in the face of overwhelming Māori protest against the policy, which it did. Thus, the relativity clauses.

These clauses are relatively straightforward, stating to the effect that should the total value of all Treaty settlements exceed $1 billion in 1994 dollar terms, the value of the Waikato-Tainui settlement would be revalued upwards by 17% of the total value above $1 billion, and for Ngāi Tahu, a revaluation upwards of 16% would occur. And so while the settlements were indeed “full and final”, the relativity clauses were part of those settlements to ensure that neither Waikato-Tainui or Ngāi Tahu were punished financially for being the first iwi to settle with the Crown. Think of the relativity clause payments as deferred payments that, but for the fiscal envelope, would have otherwise been received when the original settlements occurred.

But the relativity clauses are problematic in one respect. In quantifying the extent of the losses of Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu as a fixed percentage against the total losses experienced by Māori around the country, the settlements impose on Māori a sense of ranking of our losses, as if the hurt experienced by one iwi is somehow worth more than those experienced by others. Our pain cannot be quantified. It can not be reduced to a dollar amount, or a percentage. The relativity clauses caused disharmony between iwi in the mid-1990s as iwi felt cornered into fighting over the remaining $660 million of the fiscal envelope. They continue to cause disharmony today as every dollar of settlement money that an iwi receives costs the Crown $1.33, resulting in downward pressure on the value of settlements finalised in recent years.

The Treaty settlement process is far from perfect, and the relativity clauses are another flaw in the haphazard design of the system. But in all the noise around the additional money received by Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu, it needs to be remembered that the total cost to the Crown of settling Māori grievances arising from the loss of land, culture, and identity over the past 170 years will amount to less than $3 billion, paid out over 30 years. While Ngāi Tahu settled for $170 million in 1997, the Crown’s own research at the time indicated that the total value of the loss suffered by Ngāi Tahu amounted to $16 billion. The price of relativity is little more than a drop in the bucket when compared to the actual loss suffered by Māori.

 Joshua Hitchcock (Te Ātiawa) is a business advisor, accountant, and writer on Māori law, policy and economic development.