Dialogue: Maori TV has great deal to offer society's growth

By MICHAEL SMYTH*

The great thing about being confronted with an argument that deeply offends your sensibilities is that you are compelled to clarify your own convictions. My thanks, therefore, to Maurice Williamson for his Dialogue piece headlined "Books, not a TV channel, needed for young Maori". I offer a different Pakeha perspective.

I have considered the possibility that Mr Williamson and Murray McCully voted against their own National Party caucus and the Government for cold-blooded, strategic political reasons. But even Richard Prebble is finally realising that gratuitous Maori-bashing has not improved poll ratings since our 1990 sesqui celebrations. So I will assume that Mr Williamson believes what he wrote.

His central argument is that those who focus on the Treaty of Waitangi are looking backward at something completely irrelevant to television, cellular spectrum or genetic modification. But that does not stop him offering the treaty as evidence that Maori signed up to discard their culture in favour of becoming British to the core.

My view is that the treaty can be interpreted as an agreement to allow Maori culture to continue evolving under the protection of the Crown, and that it is relevant to television.

Article the Second: "Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their ... properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; ... "

I have no difficulty in including intellectual and cultural property, including language, among the possessions. I am not aware that Pakeha have ever bought the Maori culture at an agreed price. Knowledge and culture are fluid and interactive and thus incapable of exclusive containment.

But to contribute effectively to the cross-cultural communication that enriches the world, each culture must be firmly grounded in its own space.

Article the Third: " ... Her Majesty ... extends to the natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects."

British subjects, including those in Britain, have always claimed the right to express their cultural identity, not as a privilege bestowed by some master race but as of right. Also, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the verb "privilege" as "to invest ... with special honourable distinctions". Distinction is the key in both senses: difference and excellence.

Maori cultural identity is not a relic to be preserved in museums and trotted out for special occasions. It is a living, growing culture that is the domain of existence for many New Zealanders.

As with all cultures, Maoritanga draws from and contributes to other cultures. It is increasingly valued as one unique way of distinguishing New Zealand. Even businessmen returned from the Helen Clark-led foray into Latin America extolling the benefit of the accompanying Maori culture group.

It is more than an exotic attention-getter. It provides a sense of occasion and a spiritual dimension appreciated by many. And it is done in the Maori language.

New Zealand has the responsibility to allow Maori culture to flourish in a hospitable environment. Presenting traditional Maori identity through its unique visual and performing art forms is well established. It is the expression of that culture in day-to-day contemporary terms that needs attention. Keeping the language alive and evolving is an essential element.

Mr Williamson has applauded the work of kohanga reo and kura kaupapa. Yet in his Dialogue piece he writes: "They claim that all we need to do is make young Maori confident in their culture and language and everything will be okay ... The knowledge economy of the future will cast them on the scrapheap if that mentality prevails."

I doubt that anyone has claimed that is all we need to do. It is simply the foundation for continuing growth.

Theatre reviewer John Smythe wrote of this year's Wellington theatre awards: "There seems to be a consensus among the six voting theatre critics that whether practitioners are performing, designing or directing, they do their best work with homegrown material. It is finding and using one's own voice that gives that special edge of authenticity to otherwise excellent technical craft."

Taki Rua Theatre (which won five awards with one production in a field of 75) demonstrated the outstanding work that can develop when authentic voices speak. If some of the many Maori creative professionals who are managing to subsist in live theatre can establish an enhanced career path through a Maori television channel, we all benefit.

If true leaders in their field like Merata Mita, Barry Barclay, Don Selwyn, Briar Grace-Smith, Hone Kouka, Nancy Brunning, Rachel House and Jim Moriarty have some influence on the channel, we can expect unique, powerful and relevant work of an international standard.

In news and documentaries, the approach that Derek Fox has taken to finding and presenting positive, interesting stories about successful Maori in his Mana Magazine and Mana News programme on radio has obvious role-model benefits.

If they can reach such standards using an imported language, imagine what these outstanding New Zealanders could accomplish in their indigenous language.

Bringing the cultural foundation to the lives of a wider audience through television can only be good. And if it motivates and assists more of us to learn te reo, we will be enriched intellectually and culturally.

Mr Williamson asks: "What will be used in five or 10 years to evaluate success?" If the opportunity is developed with the quality that Maori have demonstrated in the past, we will have a significantly increased percentage of self-assured, confident Maori contributing to the economic, cultural, social and spiritual growth of our country.

That seems like a good return on investment for those who must measure economic outputs. But when we apply values and value to the evaluation, the potential outcomes seem even deeper and richer.

* Michael Smythe is a designer and design manager.