Bill English and Waitangi Day

elocal Magazine, ed. 191. 29 January 2017

Much was written about the Prime Minister’s refusal to attend Waitangi Day ceremonies in Waitangi following his being “banned” from speaking at the powhiri.

Some expressed strong support for the Prime Minister’s decision: after all, why should the Prime Minister accept an invitation from anybody which is conditional on his not being allowed to speak?  This is particularly so given the long history of protest and abuse which has accompanied ceremonies at Waitangi, normally on the day preceding Waitangi Day itself, at the Te Tii marae.

Others (including the editor of the New Zealand Herald) deplored Mr English’s decision, and contrasted it unfavourably with Mr Key’s decision to attend almost all the ceremonies at Te Tii marae.

On balance, I suspect Mr English won more support than he lost by his refusal to attend the powhiri.

But in all the media discussion on this issue three things appear to have been largely ignored.

First, in inviting the Prime Minister to speak at the powhiri, the Waitangi Marae chairman and Waitangi Day 2017 coordinator Ngati Kawa Taituha wrote that “What would definitely help us in our endeavor is if the Government restrains itself from making controversial public announcements that could potentially provoke the Maori Nation and force our people into taking major protest action around the country, like the TPPA signing did on 4 February 2016.”

Not only was Mr Taituha seeking to control what the Prime Minister said at the powhiri, he was also trying to control what the Government said and did in the days prior to the powhiri.  And while the use of the phrase “our people” could perhaps be accepted as a reference to members of the Ngapuhi tribe, reference to “the Maori Nation” should surely be totally unacceptable.  There is no “Maori Nation”, and any talk of such is surely verging on treason.  People who have a Maori ancestor (and some non-Maori ancestors in all cases) do not have a separate nationality – they are New Zealanders, no matter what tribe they choose to identify with.

Second, while Ngapuhi leader Kingi Taurua was critical of the way Mr Taituha had handled the arrangements for the powhiri, he was also reported (New Zealand Herald, 10 January 2017) as saying that if the Prime Minister didn’t attend [the powhiri] he had no right to talk about the Treaty of Waitangi.  If Mr Taurua was correctly reported, what incredible arrogance!

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi was an event of enormous significance in New Zealand history – the time when most Maori chiefs accepted the sovereignty of the Queen, when, in return, their property rights were protected, and when “the rights and privileges” of British citizenship were extended to all New Zealanders.  To suggest that the Prime Minister of a democratically-elected government cannot talk about that Treaty unless he subjects himself to the constraints, and potentially the abuses, of a powhiri organized by one of many Maori tribes 177 years later is just utter nonsense, and that should have been pointed out to him in words of one syllable.

But third, in announcing that he would not be attending the powhiri at the Te Tii marae Mr English said that he was “looking forward to meeting with the leaders of the 60 iwi who comprise the Iwi Chair’s [sic] Forum, to progress a range of issues of importance to Maoridom and New Zealand.  The National-led government has formed a strong relationship with these leaders, which has led to significant progress in areas including Treaty settlements, fresh water rights and the development of the Maori economy.”

Personally, I welcome the progress which this National-led Government has made in settling historical grievances, though I deplore the fact that too often financial redress has been accompanied by giving particular tribes so-called “co-governance” – political rights based exclusively on the ethnicity of those involved.

But “fresh water rights”?  Isn’t this the Prime Minister of a government which has steadfastly maintained that nobody owns fresh water?  And yet we know from other documents issued by the Government that discussions are well advanced that would give tribes substantial influence over the allocation of water in their regions.

And how can it be a matter of no great significance when the Prime Minister and “a delegation of ministers” plan to meet with leaders of 60 iwi, continuing a pattern of such meetings extending back several years?  Such regular meetings between senior ministers on the one hand and tribal leaders on the other can only make sense if one accepts the nonsense that the Treaty established some kind of ongoing “partnership” between Maori on the one hand and the rest of us on the other, with the Iwi Leaders’ Forum speaking for “the Maori Nation” and the Government speaking for the rest of us.  It would surely be totally unacceptable were the Prime Minister and a delegation of senior ministers to meet regularly with, say, the board of Fletcher Building.  Why then is it acceptable for the Prime Minister and senior ministers to meet regularly with tribal leaders?  That surely gives them a status which was never contemplated by Governor Hobson in 1840.

When he was Leader of the Opposition in 2002, Mr English gave a remarkable speech in which he analysed in great depth what the Treaty meant in 1840 and how various attempts have been made to reinterpret its meaning.  He concluded that speech by saying that “the solution to the challenges that the Treaty presents to all New Zealanders lies in a single standard of citizenship for all”.   He was absolutely right.

Back to Top

Copyright © 2024 Don Brash.