[1]Whether their kōrero was with kaumātua or rangatahi,
or with those living in cities or rural areas, there was always acceptance from
those that Matike Mai o
Aotearoa spoke to that Te
Tiriti was the only possible starting point for any discussion about a new
constitution.
If a constitution without tikanga was
seen as not being tika,
then a constitution that did not derive from Te Tiriti was similarly seen as
contrary to both tikanga and any broader sense of justice. It was in a very real sense seen as another
breach of Te Tiriti.
It was
equally clear in their kōrero that basing a constitution on Te Tiriti was
indeed quite different from incorporating it into the existing constitutional
system. Te Tiriti’s reaffirmation of tino rangatiratanga
and its non-cession of mana
was constantly referred to as simple statements of fact which precluded its
incorporation into any other system.
Equally
importantly, Te Tiriti’s entrenchment of a place for Pākehā was also seen
as a statement of cultural reality in 1840 – that as tangata whenua, Māori were obligated
to allow manuhiri
certain entitlements as well as the authority to govern themselves, just as
that authority was acknowledged amongst Iwi and Hapū.
Reaffirming
the place of Pākehā and determining the tikanga which justified it was also
seen as a necessary basis for any treaty-based constitutional relationship.
Throughout
all of this process our people were passionate and committed to Te Tiriti. They had a broad historical sensibility about
the circumstances of its signing and its meaning for Māori as well as an
awareness of a differing Crown
perspective.
There was
also a consensus that it involved a special set of rights and obligations which
had not yet been completely honoured.
While
everyone was appreciative of the treaty-based changes that had been made in
recent years, they were also agreed that the treaty relationship involved more
than the kind of “partnership” that has been the dominant view in the recent
Crown Treaty policies and jurisprudence.
In fact it
was noticeable how often people used the term “treaty relationship” rather than
“treaty partnership”. It was also
noticeable how often it was remarked that the “partnership” was never equal in
the way that it was implemented by the Crown.
The
inevitable awareness of and debate about the Crown’s Treaty
settlement policies was shaped by those experiences.
Even when we spoke with people who
were proud of their involvement in settlement negotiations, there was an often
forcefully expressed sense that until the power imbalance in the treaty
“partnership” is addressed, there cannot be completely full and final
settlement.
In recent
months this column has laid out the importance of basing any new constitution
on He
Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti. Next week we will begin laying out the
international precedents that are also important to our constitutional
foundations.
[1] Seventeenth
edited extract from pp. 50 and 57 of He Whakaaro
Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa
No comments:
Post a Comment