I never thought I'd say this, but I almost miss the days of John Key, Chris Finlayson and Bill English. I could hardly be accused, then or now, of being a National Party supporter, but at least those National stalwarts of the past had a rudimentary understanding of teTiriti o Waitangi.
Attending a Waitangi Day breakfast hosted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in 2017 I listened to then Prime Minister Bill English speak on the marae in fluent te reo Māori. His respect for mana whenua was clearly apparent. His commitment to learning the reo was genuine, and he was warmly received.
Chris Finlayson earnt the respect of a number of iwi around the country through his work to resolve Treaty settlements. In the difficult position of Treaty Negotiations Minister for nearly 10 years, he signed more settlements than any other Minister before him, developing a nuanced understanding of Te Ao Māori and the importance of the relationship between Māori and the Crown along the way.
And of course, John Key's government signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and brought the Māori Party into cabinet as coalition partners.
Key, English and Finlayson are proof that the National Party is capable of engaging with Māori in a respectful and productive way. In matters regarding the Treaty/te Tiriti, there will always be protest and disagreement. There will always be heightened emotions and no engagement will be perfect. But it is possible for Governments of all stripes to develop respectful relationships with mana whenua – if the agents of the Crown appreciate the importance of doing so, and do the hard work necessary to make it possible.
National leader Christopher Luxon. Photo / Jed Bradley
Christopher Luxon doesn't fill me with confidence that his National Party would have anywhere near the capabilities of Key's or English's. In an interview this week with Moana Maniapoto on Te Ao with Moana, Luxon seemed to me to lack any kind of meaningful understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi, co-governance or the depth of the relationship between Māori and the Crown.
Throughout the interview, Luxon drew a distinction between "everyday New Zealanders" and "Māoridom", creating two seemingly discrete groups that he posed in opposition to each other when discussing co-governance.
"I appreciate that in Māoridom there might be a really good understanding of what [co-governance] is all about," Luxon told Moana. Just a few minutes before, he'd said, "If you went out on the street and asked an everyday New Zealander what co-governance meant I don't think they'd be able to explain it to you."
If, according to Luxon, everyday New Zealanders don't understand what co-governance is, but Māori do, then doesn't it logically follow that he's suggesting that Māori aren't "everyday New Zealanders"?
Everyday New Zealanders. Who are these people? Am I an everyday New Zealander? Clearly not, because I am Māori, and I understand what co-governance means. Could it be that "everyday New Zealanders" are Luxon's shorthand for the non-Māori, middle-class voters whom he hopes will make up his base come election time?
National Party leader Bill English relaxing in his office after announcing he is to retire from politics. Photo / Mark Mitchell
If we, as Māori, aren't everyday New Zealanders, then what exactly does Luxon think we are? Some-days New Zealanders? It appears to me that we are a separate group of New Zealanders that don't fit into Christopher Luxon's mould of the kind of people he knows and associates with. How funny that he claims to be against separatism.
Māori are the original New Zealanders. The people who have been here every day since before this place was called New Zealand. The people who, in good faith, signed the ultimate co-governance agreement – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Luxon has views on that too, though it wasn't clear during the interview, despite Maniapoto's attempts to clarify, whether he's yet realised that Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi aren't the same document; that the te reo document signed by the vast majority of the signatory rangatira (chiefs) had an entirely different meaning to that of the English one.
It was also unclear to me whether he understands the most basic reason for the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal – that Māori, in the te reo text, did not cede sovereignty. Rather, Māori sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga) was affirmed, while Māori agreed to grant the Crown the power of kawanatanga (governance).
Luxon argues that this isn't a common understanding. "Why don't we make it clear to 5 million New Zealanders if that's the case?" he asked. I challenge him to talk to Year 10 Social Studies students and ask them about the two different versions of the Treaty/te Tiriti. It's been nearly 20 years since I studied te Tiriti during my early years at high school, and nearly 30 years since my wife studied the same. While some New Zealanders aged over 50 may have missed out on learning about te Tiriti at school, you can hardly argue that an understanding of the Treaty/te Tiriti is uncommon.
Chris Finlayson at Parliament shortly before retiring from politics in 2018. Photo / Mark Mitchell
As Maniapoto pointed out, Chris Finlayson has raised the importance of reappraising the relationship between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga. I doubt Christopher Luxon would know where to begin with that reappraisal if he understands the two concepts at all. I can only hope if Luxon ever becomes Prime Minister, that he picks up the phone to talk to Finlayson. For the good of all New Zealanders – every day, or not.
