The Rua Rautau Lecture 2005, Rangiätea Church, Otaki, 30 January 2005
Reconciliation of Käwanatanga and Tino Rangatiratanga
Professor Whatarangi Winiata, Ngäti
This lecture is
given 35 years ahead of the 200th anniversary of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty
of Waitangi. It is about the major
and natural source of tension between the two signatories.
We will refer to this as the co-existence between käwanatanga and
rangatiratanga. This relationship has been under strain from the early days of
the Treaty until now with the latest point of contention being the claim of
rangatiratanga over the foreshore and seabed and the assertion of käwanatanga
over the same spaces.
This was the second
confiscation this century, the first being the usurpation of radio spectrum
management rights. A majority of
the Waitangi Tribunal members declared that Mäori have an interest in these
rights but the Crown turned its back on the recommendation.
This paper offers
comment on contrasting views on the käwanatanga-rangatiratanga relationship and
follows this with some thoughts on the Mäori world view and the role of Mäori
survival experience in forming their outlook.
We will give some time to the forming of intellectual property and
suggest that the protection of intangible taonga will give impetus to debate on
the subject of this presentation.
We will revisit,
briefly, the 1835 He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni/A Declaration
of the Independence of New Zealand and the 1840 document, Te Tiriti o Wäitangi/The
Treaty of Waitangi to find evidence on the importance of rangatiratanga in Mäori
thinking and then move on to rangatiratanga in the Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of
is a section on the growing enlightenment as more New Zealanders come to
understand the Treaty of Waitangi and the particular importance of Article Two
to the long term survival of Mäori as a people.
The concluding paragraphs are on the relevance of the Mixed Member
Proportional, MMP, system of voting to the reconciliation of käwanatanga and
Käwanatanga and Rangatiratanga: British constitutional theory
and law and a view from the Mäori side
tells us that
sovereignty (or käwanatanga) of the Crown ceded by Article One of the Tiriti/Treaty
is exclusive and exhaustive except for rangatiratanga when this is seen as
political sovereignty; which in turn may be manifested in at least two ways,
namely, through constitutional conventions and the electoral process.
An example of a constitutional convention would be an understanding that
any proposal affecting guarantees under Article Two of the Tiriti/Treaty would
require approval of Mäori. There
are instances of this in our history but there are stunning exceptions too.
An example of an electoral process is the use of the Mäori electorates.
Should the Crown consider action to disestablish these, compensating
constitutional arrangements would need to be implemented.
In contrast to the
influence over Mäori that this position gives to käwanatanga we have a view
attributed to Ani Mikaere
to the effect that rangatiratanga
constitutes a substantial sphere of power and immunity
which sits comfortably with the following statement from Richard Hill
considerable evidence to suggest that Mäori have frequently regarded the
Treaty’s endorsement of rangatiratanga as a guarantee to Mäori of the type of
sovereignty that the Crown saw itself as holding.
It seems, at the very least, that for Mäori Article Two was in effect an
affirmation that two sets of sovereignties could co-exist in some kind of
partnership arrangement, a ‘declaration of interdependence’.
presentation has a closer association with the latter view as we rely on the
notion of co-existence between two quite different world views.
passage of nearly 200 years, the constitutional arrangements of our Nation have
not provided mechanisms to predict the outbreak of tensions in this relationship
and to facilitate resolution that is orderly and acceptable to both the Crown
There have not been any winning prescriptions in this direction.
This lecture anticipates that a permanent solution to protect the Nation
against the Crown or Mäori crossing the boundaries of legal sovereignty or
political sovereignty will emerge before the 200th anniversary of Te Tiriti/The
Treaty. Tension in the relationship
will remain for as long as there are tangible and intangible taonga Mäori and Mäori
insist on rangatiranga over these.
Mäori world view
As voyagers in the
Pacific our people traveled light. We
can surmise that on the waka of our tüpuna were the essentials for survival;
and, we know that this included the intellectual capacity to observe and
conceptualize what their eyes, senses and emotions were recording. They were empiricists with the ability to order and catalogue
what was being recorded; moreover, they had the intellectual capacity to store
their accumulating knowledge with integrity and to broaden and deepen the mätauranga
continuum, a vital item in the taonga set embraced by Article Two.
On these islands, principally Te Ika a Mäui, Te Waka a Mäui
and Wharekauri, under vastly different climatic and other conditions they
learned how to accommodate to their new surroundings to advantage.
They developed a new maramataka, varied their practices accordingly and
named every landmark, waterway, rakau and wild life to facilitate their
occupation of this part of the globe. This
activity is evidence of the empiricist with plenty of intellectual storage
capacity that was essential to their physical survival a primary source of self
perception and idea formation.
There was more than sustenance and protection from the
elements to occupy the active minds of our tüpuna. With the ability to conceptualise one set of phenomena,
namely, the environment, an irresistible activity for our tüpuna was to apply
their minds to other domains including the world at large in all of its
dimensions from creation to extinction. With the technique of whakapapa having
been conceived, the possibilities for the accumulation of knowledge was
unlimited. This technique
proved to be extendible beyond the human family to everything, animate and
inanimate, and our people did just that.
With a language available to them to convert concepts (and
conceptualisations) into words then waiata, karakia, whakatauki and so on, a
huge oral literature, became outlets for the fertile mind triggered by
experience and invigorated by its own latent energy and creativity – reflected
in the emergence of the reo itself as a critical element of the mätauranga
The exercise of
tino rangatiratanga over taonga, including the tangible and the intangible is
central to the survival of Mäori as a people.
The risk of
extinction is familiar to Mäori and a confident response to this is reflected
in the pepeha E kore au e ngaro; he käkano i ruia mai i Rangiätea.
This is a statement about the survivability of Te käkano i ruia mai i
Rangiätea. The Mäori world view
has been shaped by having
traversed Te Moananui a
Kiwa for centuries
settled a new land,
Aotearoa-New Zealand, with all of the differences from their previous kainga
(and the challenges to survival inherent in these differences
escaped the dying pillow
predicted for them at their entry to the 20th century
after experiencing a population
decline of at least half in the fifty years following the signing of the Tiriti/Treaty
retained only a small
proportion of their taonga
been subjected to
powerful, incessant and subtle assimilative initiatives of the Crown
population fifteen times in the last one hundred years despite their
occasionally devastating, experience with the käwanatanga-rangatiratanga
relationship on which this paper dwells.
Mäori are aware
that their survival as a people is not guaranteed.
This awareness is
not about toto Mäori. That was the
concern either side of the year 1900. At
this time there are more people of Mäori ancestry than ever before.
Moreover, we are distributed all around the world and, statistically
speaking, as long as there are humans on this earth there is the prospect that
there will be some with Mäori ancestry, toto Mäori.
notion of survival is about there being a substantial number of Te käkano i
ruia mai i Rangiätea living according to kaupapa and tikanga tuku iho that are
distinctive in the global cultural mosaic.
It is right here that we observe the importance of Article Two of Te
Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi. Its
expression is central to the survival and prosperity of Mäori as a people.
Every time the fulfillment of the guarantees given by the Crown in
Article Two are diminished so is the prospect of survival of Mäori as a people.
It is likely that Mäori participation in the knowledge society will mean
that intangible taonga will grow faster than the tangible.
Intellectual property is already a matter of contention between käwanatanga
Each generation of
Mäori must make their contribution to the long term survival mentioned here.
Integral to the effective discharge of this obligation will be effective
Mäori retention of tino rangatiratanga over taonga Mäori, including mätauranga
Mäori which has emerged from unique experience and unique conceptualisation. Appropriate constitutional arrangements that ensure the
compatibility of käwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga have to be found.
Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni/A Declaration of the Independence of
New Zealand and
Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi
Whereas in 1835, He
Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni/A Declaration of the Independence of
New Zealand described a Nation to Nation relationship between 34 rangatira
(subsequently 52) and William IV, King of England,
five years later Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi proposed a
different relationship between William’s successor, Victoria, and 550
representatives of Mäori. Käwanatanga/sovereignty
and tino rangatiratanga within the one Nation is the understanding in the 1840
document. Both documents
anticipated that the Crown would provide protection for these islands and for
the small but growing population, including the rangatiratanga of the Mäori
signatory to each of these documents.
With the passage of
time He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni/A Declaration of the
Independence of New Zealand lost its prominence in the minds of Päkehä and Mäori
although some people, particularly in Te Taitokerau, continue to hold that it is
pre-eminent as the parent document.
lingers in the hearts and minds of mokopuna of the chiefs who, jointly with
William IV, consummated it. There
is the view that He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni/A Declaration of
the Independence of New Zealand has not been formally set aside; it has not been
put to sleep; it has been ignored but not floored.
Others, the more pragmatic, would say that a knock out punch landed a
long time ago.
There is the view
within Te Röpü Kaumätua o Ngä Puhi Nui Tonu
that the offspring of the 1835 document, namely, the Tiriti/Treaty, is a lesser
document that has not superseded He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni/A
Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand under which there is the
understanding that each signatory would respect the others flag; each signatory
would protect the citizens of the other in their respective jurisdictions; and,
each signatory would govern their respective lands.
With the inclusion of rangatiratanga in both documents we have a clear
hint about the importance to Mäori of rangatiratanga.
It is obvious that
the protection and exercise of tino rangatiratanga as defined by Richard Hill
has not been the experience for going on 200 years, and Crown attempts to
suppress Mäori autonomy and Mäori resistance to this
most fundamental and ongoing relational nexus between state and indigenous
people in New Zealand. The Waitangi
Tribunal, in its account of the relationship between the state and the Taranaki
people, has in effect summed up the thrust of modern historiography on Crown-Mäori
dynamics as follows: the ‘single thread that most illuminates the historical
fabric of Mäori and Päkehä contact has been the Mäori determination to
maintain Mäori authority and the Government’s desire to destroy it’.
Given my earlier
proposition concerning the central role of ‘survival as a people’ in the Mäori
world view, I find it easy to understand the disappointment of Mäori about the
status to which tino rangatiratanga has been relegated and the continuing
advocacy by Mäori for its restoration.
As an aside, the
status of He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni/A Declaration of the
Independence of New Zealand in the constitutional arrangements of this Land does
need to be addressed. It is
possible that the more effective expression of its child, Te Tiriti o
Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, will take us in this direction.
Rangatiratanga under Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Land, Mäori signatories and their descendants have maintained their commitment
to seeking the full expression of the Tiriti/Treaty while the Crown and the rest
of the population have waxed and waned on its relevance to the Nation's future.
For much of the first century of the existence of the Tiriti/Treaty,
disregard and disrespect by other than Mäori was in the ascendancy; and for a
century up to the 1980s the legal profession, the judiciary and the Crown gave
precedence to the questionable judgement by Chief Justice Prendergast whose
ruling that the Tiriti/Treaty was simply a “legal nullity”
consigned it to a state of insignificance in the minds of many, but not Mäori.
Sustained by a
pre-occupation with survival, it has never been in the Mäori mind to give up,
such is the importance to Mäori of rangatiratanga. The message in the pepeha E kore au e ngaro, he käkano i
ruia mai i Rangiätea is deeply imbedded in their mind as a forever
statement. It is a central idea in
the knowledge continuum of Te käkano i ruia mai i Rangiätea of whom there were
42,000 in 1891 and who numbered 586,000 in 2001 and who are expected to reach
750,000 by 2021.
behaviour of the Crown toward the Tiriti/Treaty, Mäori have continued to
proclaim their rangatiratanga over their taonga. At Ratana Pä earlier this week we were reminded that it is
seventy years since the Ratana Movement came to political prominence with the
Bible in one hand and the Tiriti/Treaty in the other. Those present at Ratana Pä
heard about the Crown’s neglect of the pleadings of the Movement’s
founder, Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana, regarding the Tiriti/Treaty.
A focal point, in the orations was the recurring encounter between käwanatanga
and tino rangatiratanga. The use of
force, the manipulation of the law and the influence of the electorate are
prominent explanations for the subservient place of tino rangatiratanga in this
Treaty-based relationship. We know
that it is now seven decades since Eruera Tirikatene, the first person in the
Ratana Movement to be elected to Parliament, called for the full expression to
the Tiriti/Treaty in the affairs of the Nation.
Included in this was käwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga in a state of
co-existence and equality of treatment for all in pursuit of the aspirations set
out in the preamble.
In her book, The
Treaty of Waitangi, Claudia Orange in speaking of the government in the
1930s and Tirikatene’s initiative tells us
New Zealand governments before and since, it would not advance Mäori interests
at the expense of electoral support. One
casualty was Tirikatene's petition on the Treaty.
The original intent, to enforce treaty promises by having it incorporated
in legislation, was supplanted in 1945 by a government decision to print the
treaty and hang copies of it in every school and Mäori meeting place in the
country, 'as a sacred re-affirmation' of the 1840
recommendation had come from the Mäori Affairs Committee of the House, which
had finally considered Tirikatene's petition (and two similar petitions) after a
thirteen year delay.
Growing enlightenment and understanding
The outcome of the
foreshore and seabed collision between the signatories to the Tiriti/Treaty is
the latest sign that the käwanatanga-rangatiratanga relationship is being lived
out to the continuing disadvantage of the Mäori partner.
Only a year or two ago, the Crown showed little regard for the Mäori
partner by simply dismissing the recommendations, favourable to the Mäori
claimant, of the Waitangi Tribunal in regard to Mäori interest in radio
spectrum management rights. Käwanatanga
walked over tino rangatiratanga and what should be available to Mäori as a
right is having to be bought. Though only five years old the 21st century has
seen two denials of rangatiratanga. We have witnessed the inability of Mäori to persuade the
other signatory to not abuse their authority so as to impose käwanatanga on
rangatiratanga. Sovereignty has
been claimed and asserted. The
electoral support on which käwanatanga has relied has multiplied and the less
numerous partner has become more vulnerable and its abuse by käwanatanga more
The latest National
hïkoi protest was over the foreshore and seabed.
Estimates of between 25,000 and 45,000 participants including many Päkehä
have come from police and other sources. For
many this was a show of disapproval of the
abuse of käwanatanga in
contravention of Article 1,
denial of tino
rangatiratanga in contravention of Article 2, and
rejection of equal
treatment for Mäori, notwithstanding the promise of Article 3.
The breaking of one
condition of a deal is often sufficient to render the arrangement null and void.
Acting in ways that demean all three articles of the Tiriti/Treaty will
be cause for revisiting the 2004 experience for decades to come.
Despite the hïkoi
and 4000 submissions on the foreshore and seabed bill, including 90 percent
opposed to the legislation, the bill proceeded and is now law.
The Mäori partner led the protest; the General Synod of the Anglican
Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and others opposed the bill as did
many individual Päkehä. There are
signs that the community at large will become the source of energy for the more
considerate expression of the Tiriti/Treaty.
A most important
phenomenon that could add strength to this is the concern expressed by Päkehä
New Zealanders that the foreshore and seabed action by käwanatanga was simply a
denial of justice: denial of the opportunity to be heard in court despite a
judgement of the Court of Appeal that this should occur.
Heightened interest in the Tiriti/Treaty has been a consequence and the
search for ways to demonstrate disapproval is likely to be in the minds of
caring New Zealanders.
An Auckland Päkehä
accountant and consultant has been in heavy demand as a speaker on the subject
“Päkehä and the Treaty – Why it’s our Treaty too”.
In a widely circulated address accountant Pat Snedden invites his
audience, after saying why he is not tangata whenua even with 140 years of
whakapapa in this land (none of it Mäori), to contemplate the following:
As tauiwi, we
have an obligation to recognise rangatiratanga, because it provided us with the
corresponding right of citizenship of this country. Clearly, a subsequent denial of this legitimacy is not what
any of us want. Nor should we be
afraid of the implications of such recognition, which requires first and
foremost acceptance and understanding, not the wholesale transfer of resources.
A comment by Pat
Snedden concerning Mäori sovereignty and Crown sovereignty provides insight
into the potential of the käwanatanga and rangatiratanga relationship:
times it has been usual to juxtapose Mäori sovereignty with Crown sovereignty,
both in direct competition for precedence.
It does not have to be so. There
is evidence that the original intent of the parties to the Treaty allowed for
joint protection under the law but separate sovereignty over assets and taonga.
If this was the case are there contemporary examples of this working
today? The answer is yes.
And, Pat Snedden
goes on to describe an example:
record that Ngati Whatua o Orakei, the once proud people of the Tamaki isthmus,
at 1840 holding sway over the whole of Auckland; the people who invited and
induced Hobson to Auckland to form the seat of government; were reduced in
precisely 112 years to a landless few living off the state.
By 1951 they were without a marae on which to fulfil their customary
obligations and were left with a quarter acre cemetery being the last piece of
land they could tribally claim as their own.
In his second
claim before the Waitangi Tribunal Joe Hawke outlined the case relating to the
disposal of the Orakei Block, the land ordered by the court in 1869 to be
forever inalienable. The outcome
was unequivocally in their favour and Bastion Point in 1991 was finally
transferred back into Ngati Whatua’s hand by Act of Parliament. The area vested included the whenua rangatira now known as
Takaparawhau park and the smaller Okahu Park comprising the original papakainga
and the foreshore.
thing [Ngäti Whätua]
did was to give a huge chunk of Bastion Point back to Aucklanders.
That’s right, they gave it back to you and me for our unimpeded use.
I refer to the most expensive land with the best views in all of
Auckland. The land where Michael
Joseph Savage rests. Ngati Whatua
agreed to manage this jointly with the Auckland City Council for the benefit of
all the people of Tamaki Makaurau.
is it that enables a people who sought for 150 years to get some form of justice
that recognised their cultural destitution, to react in their moment of triumph
with such generosity to those who had dispossessed them?
such an act of munificence? To put
it simply; the recovery of the hapu rangatiratanga.
In the middle
years of the 1980s, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia,
reminded by its Mäori arm (Te Pïhopatanga o Aotearoa) of the trust placed by Mäori
in the missionaries in the drafting and signing of the Tiriti/Treaty, chose to
assess the Church’s own performance with respect to this historical document.
It concluded that
partnership and two
cultures development were embodied in the Tiriti/Treaty,
these features of the
Tiriti/Treaty are Christian and
the Church should take
steps to embrace these dimensions of the Tiriti/Treaty in all of the Church’s
to the General Synod, the Commission formed to consider the Church's role in
giving expression to the Treaty, identified käwanatanga and rangatiratanga as
two distinct sources of authority for the ordering of future relationships.
Consideration of the Commission's report led to much work and the
capturing, in 1992, of the Commission's recommendations through revisions to the
1857 Constitution of the Church. A
form of tino rangatiratanga, acceptable to Te Pïhopatanga o Aotearoa, is
provided for. The partners to the
Tiriti/Treaty agreed that there would be space for each to travel their own
cultural route in their lives within the Church where there is no impediment or
disadvantage created for the other; and, that when there are implications for
the other, the partners would not move without the approval of both. There were worries that in the decision making of the
legislative body of the Church, namely, Te Hinota Whänui/The General Synod,
bottlenecks would result. However,
since the constitutional revisions have taken effect, there has not been one
division (and the associated voting procedures) instituted in seven sessions of
the General Synod at which have been present between 70 and 80 Mäori and Päkehä.
Tikanga Mäori and Tikanga Päkehä
come face to face over operational matters.
One such gathering that was revealing for Päkehä and Mäori was when Päkehä
joined Mäori to discuss the sharing of the annual educational funding of about
$7,000,000 from the St John's College Trust Board.
Comment from Tikanga Päkehä was that they had dominated the allocation
for many decades and that now they should stand back (not ask for any funding)
for ten years and in that time look for a system that was fair, just and
appropriate. The Mäori response
was that they wanted tino rangatiratanga (which they now had under the revised
constitution), manaakitanga and whakakotahitanga.
They concluded that the Päkehä proposal was unacceptable in light of
two of these three kaupapa. In the
Päkehä proposal, Mäori saw manaakitanga not being expressed (if Mäori were
to accept funding while Päkehä stood back from the distribution) and, also in
the Päkehä proposal, the reverse of whakakotahitanga would be occurring.
The parties came to a mutually acceptable arrangement that sees both Mäori
and Päkehä at the table annually. This
would not have occurred with such ease and sincerity without having in place the
expression of rangatiratanga in the affairs of the Church.
Mixed Member Proportional, MMP, Voting System
Dominant in the
voting system of the Nation is the number of votes attracted by political
parties. For the most part the 120
seats in Parliament are allocated to political parties in accordance with the
number of party votes received by each.
A consequence is that a party, that has appeal to voters for what its
membership believes, can win seats without “first past the post” victories
in electorates providing the party meets certain criteria, namely, winning one
electorate seat or attracting upwards of 5 percent of the total number of party
votes exercised across the Nation.
voting system provides the opportunity for a modest percentage of the voters to
gain seats and create the situation where käwanatanga must be attentive to the
party holding these seats. A party
with 15 percent of the total party vote would be entitled to close to 20 seats.
Such a collective in Parliament can be very influential.
käwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga occupy the same space, and I have in mind
Parliament, co-existence of these two phenomena and their reconciliation will
receive daily attention. Reconciliation,
including opportunities for the full expression of rangatiratanga has not
occurred outside Parliament, nor is it likely to, given what we know from nearly
200 years of käwanatanga-rangatiratanga engagement. The Crown and a majority of the population has not shown any
disposition toward supporting the kind of relationship described by Ani Mikaere
and Richard Hill early in this paper.
It is my
prayer that, well within the next 35 years, significant numbers across the
electorates will recognise, and want to express support for, the legitimacy of
the determination of their whanaunga Mäori and their hoa tata Mäori to achieve
the tino rangatiratanga over taonga provided for in Article Two.
They will discover that through the exercise of their vote under the
current voting system they are able to give support to any political party that
is committed to bring to an end the disadvantage suffered by Mäori since the
Tiriti/Treaty; in particular, the denial of rangatiratanga.
The Nation will discover that relief for rangatiratanga can be delivered
without the initiative coming from käwanatanga.
Moreover, they will see that the action to achieve the relief will not
require a majority of voters to lead it. A critical ingredient in here is the
MMP voting system that the Nation adopted slightly less than a decade ago. Regrettably, there could be attempts on its life because of
the opportunity that it offers rangatiratanga.
It is clear
to a significant number of citizens of this Country, including accountant Pat
Snedden, that the käwanatanga-rangatiratanga nexus has, too often, produced a
denial of the Tiriti/Treaty. At
best embarrassment for many citizens and at worst a travesty of justice for Mäori
has been the experience. It will be
on the minds of an increasing number of voters that the pursuit of käwanatanga
cannot be allowed full and unfettered freedom to act devoid of the tino
rangatiratanga constraint prescribed by the Tiriti/Treaty.
consequence of the recent and major repudiation of the guarantee and tino
rangatiratanga promises of the Tiriti/Treaty was the resignation from Parliament
(and subsequent re-election) of Te Awa o Whanganui in the person of Tariana
Turia, and the formation of a new political phenomenon, namely, the Mäori Party
with eight kaupapa Mäori, including rangatiratanga, imbedded in its
Constitution. Should the favourable
reception extended to this Party at Ratana Pa a few days ago be a foreshadowing
of the way in which a significant proportion of the Ratana Movement (of 40,000
to 60,000 people) and other voters will express themselves at the polls later
this year, we will see tino rangatiratanga enter Parliament and occupy the same
space as käwanatanga. If the Mäori
Party were seen to be attractive with its kaupapa Mäori orientation and its
commitment to the Tiriti/Treaty, then it would carry rangatiratanga into the
debating chamber and its surrounds. The
reconciliation process that this presentation addresses will have taken a
How does this
relate to the 3-house model for parliamentary arrangements that you have been
encouraging discussion on for a decade or more?
The 3-house model
was developed here (at Te Wänanga-o-Raukawa) by the iwi of this region in 1984
as a contribution to a hui at Türangawaewae that year on the Treaty of Waitangi
called by the New Zealand Mäori Council and Te Rünanga Whakawhanaunga i ngä Hähi.
The big issue that came out of that gathering was the unanimous call for
the Waitangi Tribunal to be given statutory authority to extend its coverage of
claims from 1976 onward to 1840 onward.
In a review
of their 1857 Constitution, The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and
Polynesia adapted the 3-house model to their use. Their revised Constitution became effective in 1992.
In the last six years Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa has encouraged the Church
to present the 3-house model to the Nation for its use.
The Päkehä side of the Church has been hesitant to take this step,
believing that the Nation “is not ready” and that an initiative in this
direction would lead to adverse effects on the Church and could be damaging to
prescription that I have offered today would put the two “lower” houses of
the 3-house model into one house that we know as Parliament.
This prescription is being opportunistic in light of the new phenomenon
on the political scene – a distinctly Mäori political party with a
constitution, policies and practices that are kaupapa driven with the real
possibility of having sufficient representation in parliament to be influential
in that context. The Mäori Party,
jointly with all other parties, would be responsible for käwanatanga and
rangatiratanga, with the latter having a greater presence than it has had for
nearly two centuries.
of Information Sources
Treaty of Waitangi and the Control of Language, Institute
of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 2001
E.T.J. “The Treaty in the Constitution” Building
the Constitution Edited
by Colin James Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington,
Richard S. State
Authority, Indigenous Autonomy: Crown-Mäori Relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa
University Press Wellington, 2004
McHugh, P.G. “Constitutional Theory and Mäori Claims” Waitangi: Maori and Pakeha Perspectives of the
Treaty of Waitangi Edited by I.H. Kawharu Oxford University Press Oxford 1989
Claudia The Treaty of Waitangi
Allen and Unwin New Zealand
Limited Wellington 1987
Pool, Ian Te
Iwi Mäori: A New Zealand Population Past, Present and Projected Auckland
University Press Auckland
Secretary of the Church of the Province of New Zealand Te Kaupapa Tikanga Rua:
Bi-cultural Development Provincial
Secretary of the Church of the Province of New Zealand Auckland 1986
Roberts, Roma Mere, and Peter R. Wills “Understanding Maori
Epistemology: A Scientific Perpective” Tribal
Epistemologies: Essays in the Philosophy of Anthropoly Edited by Helmut Wautischer Ashgate
Publishing Hants 1998
Slack, David Bullshit, Backlash & Bleeding Hearts Penguin Auckland 2004
Snedden, Pat “Pakeha and the Treaty: Why it’s Our Treaty
too” An address given at Tairawhiti Polytechnic Gisborne 16 June 2004
Zealand “Media Release” Wellington 15 May 2003
Wood, G. A., and
Chris Rudd The Politics and
Government of New Zealand University
of Otago Press Dunedin 2004
 Provincial Secretary of
the Church of the Province of New Zealand, pp 18-19
 McHugh, pp 42-43
 McHugh, pp 43-44
 Kaihautü of Mäori Laws
and Philosophy at Te Wänanga-o-Raukawa. Ani Mikaere, MJur, has published on theTiriti/Treaty and
 Dawson, p 170
 Historian with extensive
publications spanning the Tiriti/Treaty and related areas.
 Hill, pp 13-14
 Justice Edward Durie
offers a note on “whether the Treaty of Waitangi should be mentioned in a
new constitution and if so, how” in James, pp 201-204.
Justice Durie does not offer a prescription; rather he suggests
“principles and issues that continue to confront constitutional
 Roberts and Wills in
Wautischer, p 45 offer the following insightful meaning of whakapapa: ‘to
place in layers, one upon another’.
 Slack, David, pp 65-66
 Pool, p 55, provides
estimates to the effect that the Mäori population in 1840 was in the region
of 70,000 to 90,000; on p76 is his estimate of 42,000 in 1891. Other
estimates for 1840 reach as high as 200,000.
See Orange, p 7
 Orange, 0pp 255-256
 These are my impressions
from a hui on 13 October 2004 at Pupuke Marae in Te Taitokerau that I
attended. It was facilitated by
Nuki Aldridge, Chair of Te Röpü Kaumätua o Ngä Puhi Nui Tonu, to discuss
He Wakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni.
 Hill, pp 15-16
 Dawson, pp 80-82
 On the marae at Te Wänanga-o-Raukawa
on 30 January 2005, at the reception of, among others, members of the
standing committee responsible for organizing this annual lecture, we were
reminded by one of the speakers, Shane Jones, nephew of the priest and
philosopher Mäori Marsden, of his uncle’s instruction to all of us: Me
ako ä tätou tamariki he kawenata te Tiriti o Waitangi, öna pütaketake he
rangatiratanga, he tohungatanga, he manaakitanga, he ükaipö, otirä, kei
tua ko te aka matua, töna ingoa ko te kotahitanga.
 Statistics New Zealand,
Media Release 15 May 2003
 Orange, p239
 This paper is in the
library of Te Wänanga-o-Raukawa in Ötaki.
 Brackets mine to
displace, for clarity, the word “it”.
 Provincial Secretary of
the Church of the Province of New Zealand.
 A convention developed
within the Church is to use the capital “T” when referring to a cultural
group and the lower case “t” when a culture is being identified.
 Wood and Rudd, pp
210-212, has an explanation on the Mixed Member Proportional, MMP, voting
 Wood and Rudd, p 211.
 Two “lower” houses,
one for each partner to the Treaty wherein each shapes legislation within
their respective tikanga and competence and a third “upper” house that
ensures that legislative proposals emanating from the “lower” houses are
consistent with the Treaty. Following
the adoption (with variation) by The Angican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand
and Polynesia it became known as the Raukawa-Mihingare model.
 This was done in 1986.