CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS

[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

THE HOPE OF TE TIRITI

During the many hui that Matike Mai o Aotearoa held, everyone they heard from acknowledged how difficult it would be to effect constitutional change.  But nevertheless they remained keen to explore what a Tiriti-based constitution might mean, and in a quite inspiring way they imagined solutions[1] –

“My aunties and uncles always talked about the treaty being the only hope they had whenever they had to fight for something.  They were disappointed lots of times and had their hopes dashed because the treaty was never seen like this sort of constitution would see it … like the foundation of everything.” 

“I was really disappointed but not surprised when the Crown just rejected the (Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Paparahi o Te Raki Stage 1) Report … That was really arrogant and flies so much in the face of all the evidence let alone what is right that I wonder how long it can be sustained.  I hope that this mahi might help us all move away from those sorts of arguments and accept that Te Tiriti gave us the foundations for a different constitution … a better way of doing things.”

“It’s not a valid argument against constitutional change just to say that it won’t happen because the Crown is in charge … it’s not any sort of argument and doesn’t detract from what Te Tiriti says.”

“Normally I don’t use words like ‘constitution’ but I talk about Te Tiriti … and I think that in that relationship between us and the Crown there was never any intention that the Crown would be our sovereign … and without the Crown assuming it’s in charge we have the seeds of a much different constitution.”

“I am confident that the only real constitutional solution lies in what Te Tiriti guaranteed, a place for everyone and an absolute place for mana and rangatiratanga … but how to do that in  light of our history since 1840 I can only hazard a guess, although for my mokopuna’s sake I hope we will try.”

“Our group agreed that this will be really hard because there will be all kinds of practical problems like voting and setting out the different areas of responsibility, but … we agreed that with time and good will, we will get there.”

“It will be difficult to change things but it won’t be impossible because Te Tiriti shows us the way … to a different political order where we actually find a better way of making law that benefits everyone.  It’s an exciting challenge really and the next step in getting the treaty honoured.”

“Te Tiriti has still not been honoured by government, but that doesn’t mean its real promises no longer exist.”

“I wish my old people would still be alive if we get there, when we get there, because that would give them hope.”

---

[1] Sixteenth edited extract from pp. 55 – 57 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa

THE PROMISE OF TE TIRITI

At every hui of Matike Mai o Aotearoa where Te Tīriti o Waitangi was discussed, there were three main kōrero.  First was the kōrero that consistently referenced what the old people had passed down. 

[1]“Knowing what our old people have told us, it just seems logical that we would never have ceded anything to the Crown.  But the old people also said that we offered Pākehā a place to stand, and that seems logical as well because it’s about manaakitanga … it’s not about them trampling on our manaaki and us trampling on their right to be here which Te Tīriti gave them … that was the bargain really, only it never worked out the way that the rangatira intended … and probably not the way some Pākehā might have wanted at that time either.”

 “It is important that if you are to write about a constitution based on Te Tīriti, that you stay focussed on what our tūpuna said, and not what generations of Crown officials and lawyers have told us.”

Second was the korero that reaffirmed Te Tiriti maintained our mana and did not cede it. 

“Understanding Te Tīriti means understanding … that our old people only talked about and signed the words in te reo, because that was it at that time, and … we didn’t give away our mana to be in charge of ourselves, but kept it and asked Pākehā to look after themselves too, according to certain tikanga.”

“When Te Tīriti is seen as maintaining our mana rather than giving it away, it is easy to see it like two lots of different mana coming together, us and Pākehā, and all of us having to work out a proper relationship where one doesn’t boss the other around.”

Third was the korero that understood that Te Tiriti is fundamental to any future constitution.

“Te Tiriti as a base (for a constitution) is a no-brainer … It will finally settle the past and provide … a good blueprint for the future.  But as always the devil will be in the detail.”

 “Te Tīriti has everything a constitution needs – the recognition of each community’s mana, the preservation of each community’s decision-making authority, and the recognition that there are things everyone has to come together to make a decision about.”

“I have always believed that Te Tiriti is a constitutional agreement.  It said that we were to carry on making law for ourselves while the Crown was to organise Pakeha.  That is what a treaty-based constitution means.”

As can be seen, these korero come from people who believe in the constitutional promise of Te Tiriti, and are realistic but undeterred about the difficulties of bringing that promise to fruition.  In coming weeks we will share some of their thinking on those difficulties.

---

[1] Fifteenth edited extract from pp. 53 – 54 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa

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.

HE WHAKAPUTANGA IN TE TAI TOKERAU

Last week’s BREXIT vote result in the United Kingdom took most markets, media commentators and government leaders (including John Key) by surprise.  They have all badly misjudged the mood of their peoples.

However for Iwi and Hapū engaged in constitutional transformation, the British vote to exit the European Union aligns with their own constitutional right to independence as first declared by Te Wakaminenga to the world in He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (1835).

[1]Given that it was drafted and first signed in Te Tai Tokerau, He Whakaputanga figured largely in that region’s feedback on constitutional transformation.  In Waiomio, we heard –

“…In my view every discussion of this nature has to begin with tikanga and He Wakaputanga.  They define our independence and predate Te Tiriti … Te Tiriti actually makes no sense unless you understand that ... He Wakaputanga says rangatiratanga is independence, and that makes it like our preamble to Te Tiriti ... a statement of intent that every rangatira would have understood no matter where they lived or whether they signed He Wakaputanga or not.”

“We have lived and breathed He Wakaputanga … we have seen the Crown reject it, laugh about it … we have read historians saying it doesn’t mean anything, but we know our tūpuna thought about it and solemnly put their marks to it because they wanted the world and the King in England to know we were independent … We know that, we hold to that.”

“He Wakaputanga was seen by our old people as a form of protection because they could see what was coming and wanted to make it known that we had mana and were sovereign.  We knew all those things from our own history and from the travelling that many of the old people were doing at that time to England and elsewhere.  So in some ways it was kind of new, but it was also a really old tradition ... like an evolution to meet challenging times, just like we have to do today.”

“Just the fact that our tūpuna were smart enough to think about such things is important.  They weren’t afraid to talk about their power because they had it, and in Wakaputanga they told everyone what that meant … When we look at it like that, it was our first written constitution and it is still relevant today.”

In Kaikohe –

“The Wakaminenga that is in He Wakaputanga and Te Tiriti is a body unique to us.  It met and was in existence years before 1835 and provided a model for all Hapū to work together and make joint independent decisions.  Our people have never lost sight of it, and neither have we forgotten what it promised.”

“It [He Wakaputanga] has been such an important part of my life and the life of my whānau.  Our tūpuna was there in 1835 and we grew up hearing stories about he Wakaminenga and the hui about (James) Busby … I think it is important because of all that history and what it says about us ... politically as well as historically.”

At Whatuwhiwhi –

"I know not many Iwi outside the North signed He Wakaputanga, but its kaupapa is something everyone can understand.   It’s the same kaupapa about our mana that the old people took to Waitangi five years after He Wakaputanga was signed, and it’s still our kaupapa today.”

At their hui-a-marama on Saturday, the members of Te Rūnanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu considered last week’s BREXIT vote.  They see what is coming and, in the context of He Wakaputanga, empathise with its drive for independence and against globalisation.   

Next week we will consider feedback from other regions on He Wakaputanga.

---

[1] Tenth edited extract from pp. 45 – 46 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa.

HE WHAKAPUTANGA AS A BASELINE

One outcome of the work done since 2010 by Matike Mai o Aotearoa has been the establishment of the baselines on which constitutional transformation may be brought to pass. 

The first baseline is tikanga, which we have already covered in previous posts.  The second is He Whakaputanga, or the Declaration of Sovereignty and Independence, which was signed by our tūpuna rangatira in 1835.[1]

Any consideration of He Whakaputanga begins with understanding both its unique origins and the practical limitations of its reach after 1835 due to the pressures of colonisation which inevitably affected people’s understanding of it.

During its many hui, Matike Mai o Aotearoa found that in Te Tai Tokerau, where He Whakaputanga was drafted and signed, it was discussed at length.  But it was mentioned only briefly in Tainui where people knew that one of the later signatories was Te Wherowhero who would subsequently become the first King.  And in other rohe, where it was not a direct part of their history, it was only mentioned in passing or not at all.

Yet the ideals it expressed were acknowledged and respected by all because they saw it as a novel and brave articulation of an old concept and site of constitutional power that had allowed an adjustment to changing circumstances, but remained consistent with traditional legal, philosophical and religious thought.

Essentially He Whakaputanga proposed that a collective of Iwi and Hapū polities should regularly come together in a Whakaminenga, or assembly, to make joint decisions on matters of common concern, while respecting the mana of each participating polity.  That joint decision-making power is defined in Article Two of He Whakaputanga as a “Kingitanga” where “all sovereign power and authority” is

“… declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes … who also declared they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves.”

At the Waitangi Tribunal hearings into He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti, the kaumātua Nuki Aldridge stated that

“The purpose of Te Wakaminenga was for Māori to control their own changes in the ‘new world’ … [it was] about how Māori were able to think and put themselves into the future.”

In the same hearings, Professor Patu Hohepa described it simply as

“a declaration of our independence and sovereignty as a nation of independent rangatira.”

Professor Dame Anne Salmond also stated at those hearings that under He Whakaputanga

“the rangatira … foreshadowed the possibility that they might delegate kāwanatanga or function of government to someone whom they themselves had appointed.  In such an arrangement however, they would retain their rangatiratanga or independence, and their mana and Kingitanga or sovereign authority and power.  The Declaration is unambiguous and the relationship between these key terms is clear.”

Because of its core ideals and clear expression of an existing constitutional authority, He Whakaputanga is a necessary baseline for our ongoing constitutional transformation discussions.

[1] Ninth edited extract from pp. 44 – 45 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – Report of Matike Mai o Aotearoa.

TIKANGA AS LAW

[1]  Under Māori constitutionalism, mana and tikanga are like the maihi and amo of a whare tūpuna – they hold the “house” of the people together. 

Historically, tikanga was both the law and a discrete set of values by which mana was given constitutional structure and expression.  It still is.

"… tikanga Māori controls interpersonal relationships, provides ways for groups to meet and interact, and even determines how individuals identify themselves.  It is difficult to imagine any social situation where tikanga Māori has no place.” [Professor Sir Hirini Moko Mead – in his work “Tikanga Māori – Living by Māori Values”]

“Tikanga may be seen as Māori principles for determining justice … The principles of tikanga provide the base for the Māori jural order.”  [Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie – former Chair of the Waitangi Tribunal]

As a practical law, tikanga still influences every aspect of Māori constitutionalism, from the political organisation of our Hapu and Iwi to the social interactions of individuals.  As a set of values it … is the “ought to be” of Māori existence.  Together, both aspects of tikanga mutually reinforce mana. 

 “Mana was always about political power or personal status, but it was always about protecting the whakapapa and the whenua too … that was its tikanga, the whole idea of relationships and making sure they were in sync.”

“… we’ve got trapped in the last few years to only see rangatiratanga as a right or some sort of power … and sometimes we think it’s just about making money.  But it was always a legal authority more than anything else … just like sovereignty is, except it rests on tikanga …”

“If we look at what or how mana was exercised … nothing could be done unless it was done in the name of the law … tikanga was like a precondition for mana … and there is no doubt that mana or rangatiratanga was always meant to be exercised in a tika way.”

While some Tauiwi fear a strong Māori constitutionalism, many more do not.

“… for a long time [some] Pakeha said we didn’t have real law, and now they just say their law should prevail … their law should be the one law for all …”

“Saying you can have a Māori constitution without tikanga is like Pakeha saying they can have their constitution without the Magna Carta … It doesn’t make sense.”

Although we come from different constitutional and cultural traditions and have a way to go yet, we and our Tauiwi allies are already modelling the kind of tikanga relationships upon which practical constitutional transformation is already happening.

“… Tikanga was created because our old people knew humans were prone to make mistakes or act in a non-tikanga way … it’s where we need to start.”

Ka haere tonu tātou.  We will continue.

[1] Eighth edited extract from pp. 41 – 43 of He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mō Aotearoa – The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa – The Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation.