A SACRED COVENANT

[1] Te Tiriti o Waitangi has always been considered by Māori as a sacred covenant with the Crown.     

In 1840, just as the English were expected to abide by French law in France, the same convention was expected here in Aotearoa by the Rangatira.  But Te Tiriti also offered the Crown something that would never have been granted willingly in France – the authority to continue governing its own citizens who lived in this country.

That offer was never accepted by the Crown, but it is absolutely consistent with the reality where the important question was not whether Māori understood sovereignty, but whether the Crown understood mana and the obligations that manuhiri were expected to honour. 

In one of the first written submissions received by Matike Mai in 2011, Erima Henare referred to this reality in quite specific terms –

“From our perspective there is only Te Tiriti … that is what was signed (at Waitangi) … The other text … is just the English version.  It is not the same as Te Tiriti o Waitangi and has no mana.  It … meant nothing to our tūpuna, nothing.  They signed only what they understood, Te Tiriti i te reo Māori … (and) because our tūpuna protected the foreigners who lived here at that time … the Māori way of life and … sovereignty were acknowledged as … axiomatic to Te Tiriti … Any other interpretation that would have us ceding our mana is a denial of historical reality.  It is a manipulation of the past to make it fit what exists now … Had ceding sovereignty been suggested at that time … all hell would have broken loose.”

Matike Mai also received a copy of the submission that Rima Edwards had made to the Waitangi Tribunal in the Paparahi o Te Raki hearing.  He began by noting that He Whakaputanga is a “Kawenata tapū” and

“a declaration of independent authority and an introduction to understanding Te Tiriti.”

He then stated that Te Tiriti is also a “kawenata tapū and that its terms are equally clear –

“I te tuatahi, horekau i tukua e ngā Rangatira o ngā Hapū to rātou mana ki a Kuini Wikitoria.  Te tuarua, horekau i tukua e ngā Rangatira o ngā Hapū to rātou mana whakahaere o to Hapū whenua ki a Kuini Wikitoria.  Te tuatoru i whakae ngā Rangatira o ngā Hapū kia whakatungia  he hononga tapū waenganui i ngā mana o Aotearoa me Ingarangi.”

In the first instance, the Rangatira of the Hapū did not cede sovereignty to Queen Victoria.  Secondly, the Rangatira of the Hapū did not cede their mana in relation to the land to Queen Victoria.  Thirdly, the Rangatira of the Hapū did agree to create a sacred relationship between the sovereign nations – that is Aotearoa and England.”

Next week we will continue to explore the context of this sacred covenant.

---

[1] Fourteenth edited extract from pp. 52 – 53 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa

TE TIRITI O WAITANGI IN 1840

[1] Like everything else in the Māori world, Te Tiriti o Waitangi has a whakapapa and a history.  While Matike Mai o Aotearoa do not detail that history in their report, they do briefly summarise several facts about the political understanding of Māori in 1840 that are especially relevant to the whakapapa and history of Te Tiriti.

In 1840, Te Tiriti flowed naturally from tikanga, He Whakaputanga and the understanding of mana as a distinct concept of power.

In 1840, Te Tiriti signified the same wish for the independent yet interdependent political relationships that are evident in He Whakaputanga. 

In 1840, all Iwi and Hapū continued to know and exercise their mana as culturally unique and independent polities.  In fact those who had signed He Whakaputanga had just recently reaffirmed that fact, some only a few months before the 6^th of February.

In 1840, every Iwi had a long history of treaty-making.  In Ngāti Kahungunu for example, it was a part of the diplomatic lexicon and was known as mahi tūhono, the work which brings people together.  It was an expression of mana, and every Iwi and Hapū has examples of treating with others, both before and after 1840. 

Treaty-making did not fall out of the sky on an unsuspecting people in 1840.

In 1840, in areas like the north, where the greatest concentration of Pākehā had arrived, the rangatira had been concerned for some time about the behaviour of those manuhiri.  But their increasing presence did not alter the fundamental legal and political perceptions which Iwi and Hapū had about their own authority and place in the world. 

In 1840 The Pākehā presence was still just a mere blip in time, and our people perceived them according to a view of the world determined by tikanga and the absolute certainty of mana as the concept of power.

In 1840, Iwi and Hapū wished to formalise the relationship with the British Crown for a number of different political and economic reasons, and they were clear about the tikanga, as well as the political criteria, which that relationship had to meet if it was to be legitimate in Māori terms.

In fact it is obvious that in 1840 the rangatira could only act according to tikanga and commit the people to a relationship with the Crown that was tika in Māori constitutional and cultural terms.  Logic, common sense and the simple realities of the time all confirm that.

Just as a marae expects the rangatira of any manuhiri to monitor the behaviour of his or her rōpu and ensure it behaves, so the Iwi and Hapū in 1840 treated with the Crown in the expectation that it would bring order to the Pākehā manuhiri who had come, and were still coming, onto the “marae” that is Aotearoa.

---

[1] Thirteenth edited extract from pp. 50 – 51 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa

HE WHAKAPUTANGA AS THE PRECEDENT

[1]When the Waitangi Tribunal released the First Part of its Paparahi o Te Raki Report, it reaffirmed the long-held general Māori understanding that He Whakaputanga was

“a declaration that Māori authority would endure … When rangatira asserted their mana i te whenua there can be no doubt that they intended this as an expression of the highest authority within their territories.  They furthermore asserted their rangatiratanga – their rights as leaders subordinate to noone else within their territories.  And they asserted their Kingitanga … that there could be no leaders above them.  Taken together these assertions of mana, Kingitanga and rangatiratanga undoubtedly amounted to an assertion of their authority to make and enforce law and therefore their sovereignty.”

The Tribunal further stated

”Its principal significance was as a written assertion of the mana rangatiratanga and independence of those who signed … and to ensure that no foreign law or government could be imposed on them … It was also important as a renewed declaration of friendship with Britain and its King based on mutual benefit through trade, mutual commitments of protection, and British recognition of rangatiratanga and mana i te whenua.”

The Tribunal conclusions underscore why He Whakaputanga is an important part of the constitutional transformation we are exploring.  Like tikanga it is regarded as a necessary and appropriate starting point for considering different constitutional systems.

In some Iwi there was concern about preserving the particular structures that they had developed, while others were keen to explore ways that could properly involve groups such as Urban Māori Authorities that do not function and are not constituted as the Hapū envisaged in He Whakaputanga.

However in all of the discussions, He Whakaputanga was seen as a precedent for how relationships among ourselves might be better organised. 

It cannot be stressed enough that there is a quite considerable degree of frustration and in some cases, anger, with the dominance the Crown has accorded Iwi in recent years.  Many people feel that policy has disadvantaged Hapū in ways that are contrary to tikanga, He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti.

But again most people also feel that He Whakaputanga provided a precedent about how the relationships between different Iwi and Hapū might be improved and given constitutional form.  The genuineness of those particular discussions and the continuing desire for unity which they encapsulated may be the greatest legacy that He Whakaputanga has left for our people.

Additionally it was felt that He Whakaputanga also provides a precedent for institutionalising our relationship with the Crown in the relational sphere. 

As He Whakaputanga suggests, the relational sphere could in fact be understood as a new site of power where Māori and the Crown make joint decisions while respecting the mana of each participating polity. 

That seems a worthy and practical precedent to everyone involved, whether their Iwi signed He Whakaputanga or not.

---

[1] Twelfth edited extract from pp. 48 – 49 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa

HE WHAKAPUTANGA OUTSIDE TE TAI TOKERAU

He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (1835) was not discussed often outside Te Tai Tokerau during the hui of Matike Mai o Aotearoa, but wherever it was discussed its kaupapa of different polities working together was acknowledged as important.  In many hui it was defined as the only tika way to establish the kind of constitutional relationship with the Crown that is contemplated in Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840). 

Those outside Te Tai Tokerau also felt that the traditional relationships between Whānau, Hapū and Iwi that had been undermined by the Crown in the course of colonisation, could only be rebuilt with the institutionalisation of some form of unity similar to that contemplated in He Whakaputanga.

 ^[1]“We never signed He Whakaputanga, but what it talked about are the same things that we have always talked about, especially our people finding a way to come together.”

“Everything that He Whakaputanga tells us about making decisions together … what they now call unity in action, was a warning really that with all these new people coming there would be threats to our way of life and our rangatiratanga … and that’s exactly what happened.”

“Our tūpuna Te Hapuku signed He Whakaputanga, and it has always been part of the understanding that rangatiratanga is not about being beholden to anyone else … not something dependent on the Crown like the Crown seems to think.”

“Te Wherowhero signed He Whakaputanga and then later became the first king, so I have imagined that the aspirations of the two are the same.  They wanted … expected their authority and, yes, their independence to be acknowledged and respected.  That’s got to be the base for any constitution for our people, then we can go and get some sort of kotahitanga with the Crown.”

“I find it really inspiring that our old people could have foresight like that and build upon ideas they already had about politics to evolve something different in He Whakaputanga.  It must have been a big ask in those days, and I’d only hope we can do that if we look at a new constitution.”

“Our rōpū thinks that the idea (in He Whakaputanga) that different Iwi or Hapu can come together is a really good one.  It was an attempt at Kotahitanga that would be really crucial in any new constitution today.”

“There were some practical difficulties with He Whakaputanga like the infrequent assemblies, but that was the circumstances of those times … the ideas were amazing.  Our old people were visionaries, and that’s what we need now.”

“We see Kingitanga as our idea of unity, bringing together our marae in allegiance as well as in practice … and He Whakaputanga has that same idea. So the values are there but we have to work out how to translate that into something workable for our people today, because unity can be so hard to achieve.”

“The key of He Whakaputanga … is where it says that we will recognise no other legislative authority but our own.  That’s the only basis upon which a new constitution should be developed … recognising our self-determination as well as the kāwanatanga that gives Pākehā the right to do the same thing … then we have to work out the boundaries between them and make rules about how that would work in practice.”

”[He Whakaputanga] guarantees Hapū representation, and that’s what a constitution should do … Things are different now, but if constitutions are about first principles, then that should surely be the first … while also allowing Māori the right to debate what the representation might look like and whether it might include other roopu.”

“We sometimes forget that it was all about Hapū back in the day … He Whakaputanga is all about Hapū, and working out how we manage that now is going to be a real challenge.”

“Both the Declaration and treaty talk about Hapū, but that’s always been too hard for the Crown to deal with.  But we have to be honest with ourselves and find our own ways to rebuild those relationships among ourselves.”

In one sense, He Whakaputanga is the prelude to a longer debate about the difficulties that need to be overcome if any form of unity is to be achieved in Aotearoa in a constitutional sense.

 

Next week we will begin to consider Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the context of constitutional transformation.

---

[1] Eleventh edited extract from pp. 46 – 48 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa.