Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Maori and the State: Crown-Māori relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa, 1950-2000

Scrutiny of the Official Maori National Voice

Scrutiny of the Official Maori National Voice

It would, of course, have been far easier for the Crown if it could deal with a single Maori organisation on issues affecting all of Maoridom. Many Maori felt that any such structure, if it were the bona fide voice of the people, might provide the negotiating muscle to procure a much larger Treaty settlement envelope and/or improved constitutional or other arrangements. For this and other reasons, groups and individuals continued – especially after the post-election disillusionment of 1996 – to seek a unified Maori body. Politicians and officials, together with many Maori, had concluded for quite some time that the NZMC system, useful as its ongoing work was for both tangata whenua and the state, had essentially been overtaken by history as a major vehicle for either addressing or promoting rangatiratanga. In many Maori eyes, the MWWL fell into a similar category; nor had Kingitanga, Ratana, the Maori Congress, the Hirangi hui and other kotahitanga movements produced the unity that seemed increasingly needed as the end of the century approached. Among Maori leaderships, there were numerous discussions on the next step. The government, in turn, believed that an appropriately configured national body would be useful in improving Crown–Maori relations. In 1998, it placed the Crown’s current ‘official’ relationship with Maoridom under formal review.

That January, the Minister of Maori Affairs directed Te Puni Kokiri to scrutinise the Maori Community Development Act. Could a system dating back to the early 1960s (and beyond) ‘adequately meet the development requirements of Maori communities’? The reviewers found widespread Maori desire for reform, given that the NZMC ‘structure has not functioned properlypage 269 for some time’. Not only had it grown remote from the people, but in some areas it scarcely operated at all, especially because tribes had been establishing their own authorities independent of the council and its subordinate Maori associations. ‘The most consistent theme arising from the consultation process was that the Council at national or regional level, was not representative and as such did not have the authority to speak on behalf of Maori.’

Many of those consulted believed that an officially-recognised national body was still required. But it needed to be properly representative of the ‘Maori voice’ and to reflect the diversity of opinion at flaxroots level. The reviewers agreed: within a national grouping, the government should ‘provide structures so that Maori communities [could] develop in a way that best suits them’. But in a reflection of rapid political, social and cultural developments, they argued that the current Crown emphasis on interacting and assisting at iwi level needed to be modified. Local communities should provide the base for state-assisted development, with due regard given to institutions such as marae (and their urban equivalents) which constituted the ‘basis of Maori communities’. Rather than replacing the NZMC system, the reviewers suggested fundamental modifications to make it ‘better able to meet the current and future expectations and needs of Maori communities on those issues requiring national attention’. They recommended that the national body become, in fact, ‘subservient to the parent Maori communities’.

In recognition of the thrust of the submissions, moreover, the review recommended that any such revised (and renamed) structure should operate independently of the government, perhaps along the lines of the Electoral Commission. It would need only a single tier of area representatives between the flaxroots and national level; this tier would provide expertise, and coordinate and liaise with Maori wardens and other personnel ‘accountable directly to their communities’. While these were relatively bold recommendations, many Maori felt they did not go far enough. The revised machinery, while possessing operational autonomy, would still be accountable to the Crown, especially in its use of funded assistance. Moreover, the reviewers had concluded that in light of its ‘standing’, the Crown, rather than Maori or a Crown–Maori combination, should ‘monitor the relationship between the parties’. In the eyes of many critics, the new organisation would, just like the old, be an agency of the state. Pleasing few, the recommendations languished.

Sizeable numbers of Maori, in any case, were highly sceptical of the need or desirability for any national body that was sanctioned by the Crown. Some worried that any type of national organisation would invariably submerge significant tribal-based interests. In the context of earlier debates over the distribution of fisheries assets, Tipene O’Regan had expressed fears that a national fisheries commission would, through a ‘tyranny of the majority’,page 270 provide a vehicle for North Island iwi to gain control of South Island tribal assets and resources. He perceived in ‘pan-Maori trumpets … a real threat to … our Treaty rights and our rangatiratanga’. Some Maori advocated regional-or interest-based federations rather than a national body. Urban leaders, in particular, sought new structures that united collectivities of Maori with similar interests in ways which transcended tribal boundaries. Such efforts were proceeding strongly as the new century began. In 2003, for example, a National Urban Maori Authority was established to lobby, among ther things, for a greater share of Treaty settlement resources.22

22 Te Puni Kokiri, Discussion Paper, p 4 (for ‘adequately meet’, ‘provide structures’ and ‘basis of Maori’ quotes), p 5 (for ‘Maori voice’ quote), p 15 (for ‘most consistent theme’ quote), p 16 (for ‘structure has not functioned’ quote), p 23 (for ‘better able to meet’ quote), p 25 (for ‘accountable directly’ quote), p 27 (for ‘subservient to the parent’, ‘standing’ and ‘monitor the relationship’ quotes), pp 28–31; Williams, The Too-Hard Basket, p 59; Dawson, The Treaty of Waitangi, p 143 (for ‘tyranny of the majority’ quote); O’Regan, Tipene, ‘Readying the Canoe on the Beach’, in Ihimaera, Witi (ed), Vision Aotearoa: Kaupapa New Zealand, Wellington, 1994, p 47 (for ‘pan-Maori trumpets’ quote); Perrott, Alan, ‘City- dwelling Maori get their own voice’, New Zealand Herald, 6 May 2003.