KEY POINTS:
Whoever came up with the idea of defacing the curvature of the Auckland Harbour Bridge with twin national flags should have seen it coming: the arrangement could hardly be more suited to a nation of two sovereign peoples, as some now conceive "Aotearoa/New Zealand".
Transit NZ, which rigged
the flagpoles without warning a few years ago, should have been ready with a better reason to refuse the request it has received to fly a symbol of Maori sovereignty from one of the poles on Tuesday, Waitangi Day. Transit's excuse - that it flies only the flags of officially recognised nations on their national days - might not stand up. Maori have reminded the bridge managers that they readily hoisted the Team NZ petard during the America's Cup.
The real reason for Transit's reluctance is that the notion of dual sovereignty is not accepted by most in this country and the red, black and white symbol of tino rangatiratanga, while attractive as a flag, would be a red rag to a bull if prominently raised alongside the national ensign on that day.
Those who made the request, a little-known group called Ata Tino Toa, can rest content that it has put their cause, if not their flag, in the face of the nation. Maori nationalist aspirations are always evident at Waitangi on February 6. There the red, black and white banner with its koru motif is always strongly visible, fluttering in number from the nearby marae and usually carried by a protest march on to the Treaty Grounds.
Nearly every year there is an attempt to run it up the mast on the Waitangi lawn, and every time it is foiled by a line of police. The face-off always looks tense on television but it has become ritual. It will continue to happen until a way is found to answer the underlying aspiration.
But to answer it we need first to understand what it is. If Maori sovereignty means an expression of dual nationality in all the symbols and ceremonies of the state, that is one thing; if it means complete self-government, it is plainly impractical.
Autonomous schools, health services, welfare agencies and the like can be beneficial. But can anyone seriously conceive of a self-governing state-within-a-state?
It would need to survive on the taxation of those who subscribed to it and were prepared to forgo the benefits of the cohabitating state. Then there are difficulties of administering justice, and many more.
The impracticality of a separate sovereign state is obvious but the desire for one arouses resentment in the majority and a well-justified fear of the tension and violence secession sentiment can bring. That's why an independence flag on the Auckland bridge would antagonise so many.
Before any such flag can be flown, we all need to know more precisely what it means. If it signifies no more than the Maori need to express a distinctive identity in the only place they can, that surely is reasonable and possible.
That means recognising that Maori are a "nation" in the sense of ethnic self-determination. Their place in a postcolonial state must be as self-chosen as the Treaty their forebears accepted, and the constitutional details of a shared state must be reasonably negotiated. That state may be a long way off yet.
Until Maori present a clearer conception of their sovereignty, its flags and symbols cannot be honestly placed alongside those of the state we have good reason to celebrate. It is liberal, rich, compassionate and fair, and may find unity lies in respected distinctions under an honoured Treaty.
