Interview with Moana Jackson

Embedded content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDM-Ct21N4I&t=222s

"The Treaty to me has never been about Treaty rights, it’s always been about the rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other."

##Speaker
Moana Jackson

Transcript

You recently gave evidence in the Paparahi ō Te Raki claim. How did your evidence relate to He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti?

Moana Jackson: Well, I was on honoured to be asked to give constitutional evidence in the Paparahi ō Te Raki claim, which was centred around the importance of He Whakaputanga, and its relationship to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And when I was asked by the rangatira in the north if I would give evidence, I went home to Kahungunu to see my uncle, Jerry Hapūku, whose tipuna signed both He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti, and to see whether he thought it was appropriate that I went into another iwi to give the evidence.

He, to my relief, not only thought it was appropriate, but he offered to come. And so a group from Ngāti Kahungunu came with me, and were with me on the day that I was to give evidence. And when we arrived at the marae, Uncle had a photo of his tipuna, Te Hapūku, a photo of painting by Lindauer, and he gave it to my mokopuna to carry onto the marae.

A lot of the people on the marae may not have known Uncle Jerry, but they recognised the painting, and it was like our arrival was a re-establishment of that relationship from many years ago, because Te Hapūku actually signed He Whakaputanga in the north.

And the day that I was actually due to give evidence ope came from Tūwharetoa, and from Tainui. And their presence was also to recognise that relationship, because Te Wherowhero who ultimately became the first king, Pōtatau, was a friend of Te Hapūku, and they actually signed He Whakaputanga together.

And so it was a really humbling experience for me, actually, to be able to give my kōrero in their presence, and an acknowledgement of that relationship, which in itself also acknowledged the importance, I think, of He Whakaputanga; that it was a declaration of what was the extant situation in 1835 that iwi and hapū were independent entities.

So that Ngāpuhi made decisions for Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whatua made decisions for Ngāti Whatua, and no one could impinge on that independence. And so He Whakaputanga was a statement to the world of that fact, and a statement also of the awareness by our old people that there was a big wide world out there, and that to meet the challenges of that new world there is perhaps a need to find others ways of exercising that independence.

And so the whakameninga or the confederation that was established and He Whakaputanga was an effort to bring iwi and hapū together, in what I call a relationship of independence and inter-dependence. So they would retain their own mana, but work inter-dependently to make joint decisions on matters of common interest.

And when the possibility of treatying with the Crown came along five years later, that political philosophy, if you like, that political reality had not changed; it was still in place that iwi and hapū were independent, but were willing seek inter-dependent relationships with other political bodies, including the Crown.

The Western powers, Britian, France and the United States, all accepted He Whakaputanga as a Declaration of Independence. Could there have been a Treaty without that acceptance?

Moana Jackson: Well, I think it’s important to see He Whakaputanga as, in a sense a precondition to the Treaty, because you can only treat, you can only enter into a treaty relationship if you have the political and constitutional and independent capacity to do so.

And long before 1840 our people were treatying with each other, because that’s what independent bodies do. And in Ngāti Kahungunu, the phrase we use is mahi tūhono, and so treaties are seen as work that brings people together, and I think that’s a lovely description of what a treaty should be.

And at home in Kahungunu, and in many other iwi, there are long traditions prior to 1840 of treating one with another; whether it was to make peace after a conflict, to regulate borders, to make a trading arrangement or whatever.

So treaties were part of the political landscape in this country prior to 1840, and to presume, as some historians have done, that Māori didn’t really know what was involved in the treaty-making process, is simply untrue. If you are an independent polity then you treat as part of that independence, and that’s what our people did.

How did you own people (Ngāti Kahungunu) decide whether or not to sign the Treaty?

Moana Jackson: One of the things, I think, that is important to remember about the Treaty in terms of how I believe our people have understood it, is that the site of political and constitutional power prior to 1840 rested in the hapū, and so He Whakaputanga is an agreement between hapū.

In Te Tiriti, the worlds in the Reo refer to hapū, and that is because hapū is also the word which means to be pregnant or to be swelling with life. And so it was at the hapū level that the important life and death decisions were made, decisions to go to war, to make peace, to treat.

And in a big iwi like Ngāti Kahungunu, where there are literally dozens and dozens of hapū, that was acknowledged really clearly, because the interests of a hapū in Wairoa in the north might be quite different to the interests of the hapū in the Wairarapa in the south.

But we would always together within Rungunga a Iwi to discuss matters of common concern. And so when word came that this entity call the Crown was wanting to treat, there were a number of hui a iwi at home, in which hapū came together to decide whether we should treat with this new entity?

What were the advantages and disadvantages in treating? And those discussions took place over a relatively short period, but they were hapū-based because that is where, if you like, the treaty-making power resided.

Our little hapū, one of the hapū that I belong to, Ngāti Poporo, decided for our own reasons, we were a tiny landlocked hapū, that we would treat; that there might be advantages in forming a relationship with these new people who are part of this other identity called the Crown. Most hapū in Kahungunu however, decided not to treat, and the reasons were very clear, because our research shows that in 1840, in the whole of Ngāti Kahungunu, there were less than a dozen Pākehā people.

And so Pākehā were, if not irrelevant, they were not of pressing importance. And so our people saw, in 1840 no need to treat. What we did see was a need, if you like, to lay down the rules of any possible engagement. And those rules were that, this is our land, we are independent, but we’re willing to have a relationship at an appropriate time.

So those hapū that had agreed to sign assembled on the banks of the Tukituki River — between what is now Napier and Hastings — and waited for the Crown officials. After the formalities were over, our people were asked who is going to sign. The person who had the authority in our hapū to sign, the ariki with the mana — the mandate, if you like, to sign was a woman called Hine [???]. And so she said, or someone said on her behalf, this is who will sign for us.

And we don’t have an actual written record of what the Crown response was, but the story that’s come down to us is that that caused some consternation amongst some of the Crown officials, because women under Western law at that time could not sign treaties.

They could not sign contracts, they could not make a will, they had no political constitutional power. And so our people were then confronted with a dilemma; do we do what our independent authority demanded, that the person who had the mana to sign would sign, or do we do what this new Crown entity wanted, and scramble round and find a man? And to my everlasting pride, our hapū said, if she can’t sign, we’ll go home.

And so they walked home, and our little hapū never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. And the reasons we never signed were deeply steeped in our tikanga and our understanding of our independence. Had we rushed around to find a man, it would’ve been like saying Queen Victoria demanding that the King of France find a suitable person other than himself to sign the Treaty.

It must have also been incongruous to our people, because we knew that the personal embodiment of the Crown, at that time, was in fact Queen Victoria, who was a woman; and yet we were being told that nevertheless a Māori woman can’t treat with her, and that was simply unacceptable.

You have developed, along with Margaret Mutu, a framework for a new and inclusive Constitution for Māori and Pākehā. How did Iwi all over the country relate this discussion to He Whakaputanga and the Treaty?

Moana Jackson: Well, [? I call] political documents He Whakaputanga, has particularly resonance with those who were part of it; those for whom He Whakaputanga is part of its history. But in the short timeframe between 1835 and 1840 not all hapū were able to become part of He Whakaputanga, so it doesn’t feature largely in their history.

What is accepted though is, if you like, the constitutional foundations of He Whakaputanga, that is the independence of hapū, and the willingness work inter-dependently on matters of common interest. So in the recent five-year project we’ve just finished on constitutional transformation, whether the hui was in Dunedin or in the north, there was always reference to He Whakaputanga.

But it was much deeper and a more resonant reference in the north, of course, than it was in Dunedin. And what was obvious in the south as the importance of that underlying constitutional framework of He Whakaputanga, that Ngai Tahu has never given its independence, but is similarly always being prepared to work inter-dependently with other, and that’s the very essence of He Whakaputanga, I think.

Did Māori surrender their Sovereignty in signing the Treaty?

Moana Jackson:Well, I don’t know of any independent country, any state, if you like, that has done or would do what the Crown has maintained since 1840, that hapū did; that is that where we had jealously guarded and stated our independence for hundreds of years, that according to the Crown suddenly on the 6th February every Māori in the country woke up and said, “We don’t want to be independent anymore. We’ll give it away to this lady in London that we’ve never even met.”

Now that requires a profound suspension of disbelief. I’m not aware, for example, of any stage in French history, where the Emperor or President of France woke up and said, “I don’t want to exercise sovereignty in France anymore. I’ll ask the Tsar of Russia to do it.” And I certainly don’t know of any instance in Britain, where the king or queen of Britain woke up one morning and said, “I don’t want to exercise sovereignty in Britain anymore. I’ll go and ask the Kaiser in Germany to do it.”

That is just historically not a fact of political and constitutional inter-relationships. And to assume that that is what our people did, flies in the face of that very human history, let alone the very Māori human history, where the notion of giving away the authority to make independent decisions is not just culturally inconceivable; it was politically impossible. And that has remained a consistent thread in the Māori discussion ever since 1840.

So in your mind, what did the Treaty mean?

Moana Jackson: I like to use an analogy. When people come to the marae as manuhiri, to any marae, then they are expected to observe the kawa or the rules, the constitution, if you like, of that marae. And the old people who bring those manuhiri onto the marae are expected to ensure that that is done. And in a sense, when people started coming from somewhere else to our land, in a sense, they were entering our marae. And so we expected their old people, if you like, their political authority to ensure that their people behaved and accepted the kawa of our marae.

And so the Treaty, I believe, was a recognition of who their rangatira was, that is the Crown, and an expectation that the Crown would then keep its people in line, if you like. That it would have the authority in regard to those people, and would then have a relationship with us to ensure how people should conduct themselves, what their codes of conduct would be, what the essence of the relationship would be on the marae that is our land.

So I think the Treaty is fundamental, because it establishes that interdependence, which is such a fundamental corollary of our understanding of independence. It established the framework in which people who come here could have a relationship with us, in which we would be free to continue to exercise our mana.

The Crown would be exercising its authority in relation to its people, and the Treaty challenge was how that relationship would work, how would we do what He Whakaputanga envisaged; that is, come together to make matter decisions on matters of joint concern.

Because of colonisation, the country has failed to date in that exercise. But that does not negate the ambition and the aspiration that was behind the signing of Te Tiriti in eyes of our people; that desire for a relationship with those who come onto our marae.

When you consider the different between Western world view and Māori world view... are we ever going to be on the same page?

Moana Jackson: Well, it seems to me that if a Treaty relationship is to have any meaning, then people have to work to understand what that meaning is, and then be prepared to give effect to it. For over a hundred years that has been impossible, because the forces of colonisation that demanded there only be site of power, there only be one supreme sovereign, has dominated.

And many with the Crown House, if you like, still believe that should be the position. So that when the Waitangi Tribunal in the Paparahiō Te Raki claim stated for the first time in a Tribunal hearing that iwi and hapū did not cede sovereignty, that rather what the Treaty envisaged was different spheres of influence, a kawanatanga sphere of influence, and a rangatiratanga sphere of influence; and the challenge was how we build a bridge between those two, and define what those spheres are.

The immediate response from one cabinet minister was to say, “Well, that’s irrelevant, because we’re in charge.” Well, to say, “that’s irrelevant, because we’re in charge,” is not an argument. It’s not even a valid talking point; it’s a retreat from truth, it’s a denial of historical promise.

And I actually have a sense that there are enough Pākehā people in this country who would not accept that view, who see in the Treaty the aspiration for something better than one party perpetually dominating another, that promises made in a document signed by their ancestors must have some credibility, and that credibility must rely, in a sense of what I call rightness.

The Treaty to me has never been about Treaty rights, it’s always been about the rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other. And that was a profound, and I think, visionary base upon which to build a country.

And it’s certainly my belief that Māori will never let go of that promise, and the challenge is always how well the Crown will respond. And that to me is part of the ongoing, what I call, Treaty Journey that the country is on. Who would have thought thirty years ago that settlements would now be being made between the Crown and iwi?

Now those settlements are inadequate, they don’t need address all that needs to be addressed, but no one would have envisaged they would happen thirty years ago. And it seems to me that when the Treaty settlements are over, the next step in the Treaty Journey — because the Treaty like the Magna Carta will not away — and so the next step in the Treaty Journey for me is how do we actually honour that relationship?

How in constitutional terms, do we make it work, so that iwi and hapū can make iwi and hapū decisions, the Crown can make Crown decisions, and then we find that common space of the marae, on which we can make joint decisions?

Now that’s a daunting challenge, but I don’t think it’s an insurmountable one. And in the work of the Matike Mai Constitutional Transformation Working Group that was established by the Iwi Chairs, we set a timeline of 2040 — not just because that will 200 years since the signing of the Treaty — but it gives us twenty-five years.

It gives us a generation to muster up the wit, the wisdom, and maybe even the courage to take that next step in the Treaty Journey. And for those who think it might be too hard or unrealistic, then the demand that you get realistic is simply a retreat from the debate as well.

But to be courageous to me, is just the deep breath you take before you make a hard decision. And I am confident, certainly, that our people have that courage, and the Treaty challenge for others who make this land their home, is to find that courage as well.

How long do you think it will take for Pākehā New Zealanders to fully understand the concepts of Tikanga and Mana Motuhake that define Māori?

Moana Jackson: I think it will take longer for people to overcome what has been taught. Every country has its founding myths, if you like. What colonisation produced is what I call myth-takes; that is deliberately contrived falsehood about their being.

And the most paramount myth-take in the colonising history of this country is that we voluntarily gave away our authority to somebody else. But that is what people have been taught, and it takes a long time often, to unlearn that.

But the reason why we set 2040, was that these things I think it will take longer for people to overcome what has been taught, and it takes a long time often, to unlearn that. But the reason why we set 2040, was that these things are generational; many indigenous peoples have this belief in that what you do now should be targeted towards seven generations into the future.

And so for our people this debate is not new; it has been going on for generations already. And so to look ahead to the next generation will be the seventh generation for some people who came before us. And so by 2040 there will be, I think, profound constitutional change, but the conversation will have to go on. I mean, there are still debates in Britain about what the Magna Carta means; debates about the importance of habeas corpus, how is that expressed in the 21st Century, and so on.

Well, they’re having those discussions after 700 years [laughs]. And so those discussions will carry on here as well, but I think 2040 is a good goal to aim towards putting some markers in the ground — what I call Treaty pou — some pou whakairo in the ground that indicate this is where we go from here.

Why aren’t we educating our young citizens about the Land Wars and the disenfranchisement of Māori?

Moana Jackson: One of my heroes is a man called Frederick Douglas who was an African-American slave. He escaped on the Freedom Railroad, and became an attorney, and then became one of the great advocates for the abolition of slavery.

And one of the things he said is that you will not remove slavery until you change the hearts of the people. And hearts aren’t necessarily changed in a school; hearts are changed in the dialogue that people can have at home, at work, with friends, with antagonists.

Often schools are there to promote a particular view of the world; they’re not necessarily there to foster change that might threaten that view of the world. And whenever I’m asked to speak at a conference or go to address a rotary club or something — which I often do somewhat reluctantly, but I do — I just get a sense that, in spite of the dreadful things that get publicity, like the shocking treatment given to some people with racist abuse and so on, there is a sense that when you can talk to people, then you begin that process where history changes in the hearts of people.

It would be helpful if it occurred in the schools, and the Treaty is in the curriculum now; but there’s only one story which is told in the curriculum, and in fact there was a move a few years ago to remove it from the curriculum. So while I would hope that schools will play their part, I actually put more faith in the ability of people in the end to talk to with each other, because many Māori and Pākehā have formed warm and intimate relationships at a personal level, and it’s from those that you might eventually get the conversations which will change that wider systemic constitutional framework.

Was it inevitable that the 'old world' would dominate and eventually devour the 'new world'?

Moana Jackson: No, I actually don’t agree with that thesis. Colonisation was a violent, genocidal process, but that doesn’t negate the fact that an agreement was made looking towards the future. If in the last 170 years that agreement has been overpowered in the cause of that genocidal dispossession, that doesn’t mean that the promise becomes null and void.

It would be like saying that... something like the Magna Carta could be made to disappear if something dreadful happened in Britain. The promises that are made in the course of human events, in the end are meant to be honoured.

Martin Luther King often said, and to me it’s his most profound statement, not, “I have a dream” but... “The arc of history always curves towards justice.” And I don’t like the word justice either, because it seems to presume a particular cultural perception of what is just. So a use a term, “justness,” that is a sense of what is just.

But the arc of history does curve towards what is just; that no matter what has been done to crush it in the past, it eventually resurfaces. And it will always resurface in this country, because our people will never let it go. Our people adapt, our people will change, but that vision, that hope will never go.

And we are aware of the difficulties of that process, we are certainly aware of the tragedies of the past. But that has not diminished the value of the promise, and that to me is always the key of the Treaty discourse, that that’s not an esoteric debate about what the words mean, it’s not a political competition about who has the most power, it’s about a promise made for two people to honour each other in a relationship of equality; colonisation has denied that.

Constitutional transformation, in the end, is the political structural way in which that is addressed, but that comes based upon on that change in the hearts, that pursuit of that arc of history, really.

As immigration increases, and Māori become a smaller proportion of our population, how does the Treaty continue to be relevant?

Moana Jackson: I think the changing demographics being caused by immigration are important. They will change the vibrancy and the nature of this society. But that does not change the basic promise that was made in the Treaty, because it’s that promise upon which this country exists.

And when people say, oh, there are so many Asians or whatever coming now, that’s going to diminish the Treaty. I think that’s a really silly argument, to be honest. It would be like saying that huge influx of immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa into Britain after the Second World War suddenly diminished the importance of the Magna Carta. It’s a nonsense.

What is important is that the new people who come are able to be part of that conversation, because the marae is open to everyone. The key is that when you come onto the marae, you understand what the kawa is. And the kawa of the marae, in Treaty terms is the promise of that relationship. And so that’s another thread in the challenge in the next stage of the Treaty Journey, but to suggest it might diminish the Treaty is silly, really.

Corporate, anti-intellectual and neo-liberal policies in NZ have created ‘brown poverty’. We are a long way from the optimistic vision you hold, surely?

Moana Jackson: Well, that’s like looking at a glass and asking whether it’s half full or half empty, and I have two responses. To me the new right, is actually just the old right of colonisation. Corporate colonisation is not new. The first colonising ventures to the Americas were set up by chartered corporations, what I call prototype SOEs.

So it’s not new, it’s just a variation on a way a particular political ethos seeks to operate. And it becomes just another challenge in this next stage of the Treaty Journey. The danger is that it has confused the economic development that Māori might want, with the right to self-determination that Māori are entitled to.

But that confusion can be worked through, because in the end, if you go back to the Treaty promise, what is important is not the economic development, but the political ethic which underpins, and that depends absolutely on self-determination, and the right of Māori to make Māori decisions really.

So we deal with the Treaty promise in 2016 in a quite different context to which our people had to deal with it in the 1930s, in the 1890s, and so on. But the promise hasn’t altered, the promise hasn’t gone away, and so we find new ways of dealing with it.

I often tell a story about my grandson. When I was young my koro took us to our mountain, our Maunga Kahuranaki. And we sat the foot of the mountain, and he told me stories about the mountain, and how it got its name, and so on. And every now and again he’d say, “Turn around and look at the maunga.” And I’d turn around, I’d look at the maunga and, yes it was still there.

And half an hour later, “Look at the maunga,” and it was still there. And it took me a while to figure out what he was trying to say, because in the end I realise that every time I looked at the maunga, it had changed. It was different. The sun had moved in the sky, so the shadows were different, clouds had moved across the sun, so there were shadows across the mountain.

So the change was immutable, but the mountain hadn’t moved. And a few years ago, I took my grandson to the mountain, and told him stories that my koro had told me. And then I said, “Turn around and look at the maunga.” And because he’s a boy of the 21st Century, he took out his cell phone, and he took a picture. And every time I told him, “Turn and look at the mountain.” He would take a picture.

And he caught on much sooner than I did. And when I said, “Why are you taking pictures?” He said, “I want to catch the change.” And that to me is the Treaty challenge; that the Treaty is the mountain which will never move, and how do we catch the change to give effect to what that means?

Any errors with the transcript, let us know and we'll fix them digital-services@dia.govt.nz