Interview with Vincent O'Malley

Embedded content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_EKDYcX5PA

"Well, even today people debate what the Crown is."

Speaker

Vincent O'Malley

Transcript

How does the initial period of Māori-Pākehā encounter inform how we see ourselves?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, the process of discovery and encounter is a mutual one. People often think that Māori are just sitting on the shore waiting for Abel Tasman or James Cook to turn up, but that’s certainly not the case. It’s a two-way process, and Māori are exploring the world themselves. By the early 1800s large numbers of Māori are travelling across the globe, and so they’re forming ideas about Europeans; not just from their experiences within New Zealand, but also on the streets of Sydney, London, New York.

Some Māori even travelled to places like India. In 1840, as the Treaty is being signed, Tuati is on the United States expedition, exploring Antarctica. So it’s just incredible the places that Māori visited; and the number of Māori travellers in the period before 1840, and that forms a strong part of their world view, in terms of influencing their ideas about the Treaty, and what it might mean for their future relationship with these newcomers.

What were some of the Māori reasons for He Whakaputanga?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, the Declaration of Independence was, from James Busby’s perspective, it was intended to block a threat from de Thierry, who was threatening to set up a sort of independent state in Northland. So his objective is to block that. But he’s got wider ideas as well. Busby arrives in New Zealand with an idea of kind of ruling indirectly through the chiefs, through the rangatira by encouraging a centralised form of governance that he can then manipulate and influence to extend his own ideas and authority across the country. And he’s quite clear about this in some of his letters that that’s his aim, so he has an ulterior motive.

But at the same time, Māori themselves are experimenting with new forms of governance, because in the process of welcoming Pākehā to New Zealand, they’re also experiencing problems and issues for the first time ever; such as disputes about the ownership of new items, the influence of Christianity. Is it justified for a Christian Māori to go war, for example. You know, some of these deep philosophical issues.

And so Māori are embracing different ideas for the way that they can exert control over their communities, at a time when they have all of these challenges. For example, they’re adopting a committee process, which is initially modelled on what they see of the missionaries who have their one missionary committees that they use to administer their communities.

But later these committee become fully independent of the missionaries, and they become something that’s not just a mere mimicking of European institutions, but something that’s quite bi-cultural; so there are both Māori and Pākehā influences behind them.

What was James Busby’s role in He Whakaputanga?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, Busby was often decried as a man of war without guns. But I think people recognise in recent times that his position was a bit more nuanced than that. And he had an understanding of the limitation of his role here, so his best opportunity to try and do anything was to influence things behind the scenes. So yeah, indirect rule was his over-riding objective.

What were the various explanations given to Māori for the Treaty’s existence?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, there are a number of things to consider when we look at what Māori might have understood of the Treaty. The first thing is that Māori society was still overwhelmingly an oral culture at that time, and so, although there are a lot of arguments among linguists about the text of the two different versions of the Treaty and what they might mean, probably the more important thing is, what were the explanations given to Māori through the various Treaty signing ceremonies.

And also the second thing is that, rangatira placed a lot of store on the relationships that they had with other people. And so, for example, the missionaries had a fairly instrumental role in persuading many Māori communities to sign the Treaty. And that was often based on the personal relationships that they’d established with those communities.

And so these are factors that influence the way that Māori view the Treaty. And so the fact that, for example, Henry Williams is telling Northern Māori that the Treaty is a good thing, and encouraging them to sign it, is influential.

What about the Māori understanding of the Crown?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, even today people debate what the Crown is. It’s a very abstract concept, and its meaning changes and evolves over time. It has done may times in New Zealand history. So I very much doubt that Māori had a clear idea of that in 1840.

On the other hand, they would have had some ideas and experiences of what a kawana was, for example, from the many Māori who visited Sydney. And quite a few of them, especially the important rangatira were hosted by the Governor there. One of the very important relationships that Northern Māori first strike up is with Philip Gidley King, who is the Governor of Norfolk Island, and in 1793, two young rangatira from the north, Tuki and Huru, are kidnapped and taken to Norfolk Island, and there they’re befriended by the Governor; they live with his family.

After six months King returns them to New Zealand, and that kind of establishes a relationship for Ngā puhi from the early 1790s that carries on through to 1840. By 1805, King has become Governor of New South Wales, and he hosts very many Māori chiefs there, including Te Pahi. Te Pahi goes there in 1805, and that’s kind of like the first sort of state visit or diplomatic visit that a New Zealand rangatira makes overseas; it’s an incredibly important trip.

Te Pahi goes to visit King, stays with him, they talk about things like, how should whalers and sealers who are starting to visit New Zealand be treated, and what happens if they abuse Māori, and what can King do to stop that, and so on. So you’ve got this relationship underway in the early 19th Century, and Māori and Pākehā authorities and leaders are talking to one another about the problems that they have, and how those might be solved. So this is not a new thing in 1840, it’s part of an evolving process.

What happened immediately after the signing of the Treaty with the increase in British settlement?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, the numbers aren’t very large, and there are later reports that Māori are alarmed by that. Although it takes a very long time for that process to play out. Even as late as 1858, the numbers are roughly equal. And across the North Island, Māori are still dominant; most Europeans are in the South Island in the 1850s.

So it’s a process. In terms of the Crown exerting its authority and control, that takes several decades, and arguably the 1860s is the pivotal decade for that. And so the Treaty itself, and the signing of the Treaty.

Did things change in New Zealand straight away?

Vincent O'Malley: On the one hand, it changes things superficially because nominally New Zealand is a British colony, and Britain has asserted sovereignty over the country. But reality it doesn’t really change anything on the ground, at least immediately.

And over large parts of the country for at least the next two decades, Māori continue to control their own affairs. And that's really in line with the expectations of what they thought would happen with the Treaty. Because one thing we can say that Māori certainly didn’t agree to, was to cede authority over their own internal affairs.

It’s very clear that all Māori who signed the Treaty had an understanding that they would continue to govern their own affairs. The debate might be around what would happen with matters that related to both Māori and Pākehā .

But I think there it’s clear that Māori expected that those would be something that would be negotiated between rangatira and the Governor. And when that doesn’t happen, it becomes a matter of grave disappointment.

How did New Zealand’s government change in the 1850s?

Vincent O'Malley: The process of the Crown exerting control is one that takes several decades to work out. A key turning point is probably in 1852 when New Zealand gets a new constitution. The Europeans in New Zealand have long been calling for self-government, because up until that time the Governor is essentially ruling things himself, with a few advisors.

So in 1852 New Zealand gets a new constitution from Britain, and that constitution sets up a parliament, the predecessor to the parliament that we have today. And there’s quite generous provisions, in terms of who can vote, but the suffrage, or the entitlement to vote is based on European property holdings. Most Māori still hold their lands under custom; they don’t have a title from the Crown to those lands, so they’re not eligible to vote.

So essentially what happens is when parliament is set up from 1854 onwards, its composed solely of Europeans, it exists solely as a body that advocates Pākehā interests; Māori are excluded from it entirely. And they call for their inclusion within that parliament, or the setting up of some tandem body that can sit alongside it, so that their vision of what the Treaty relationship would be, which is one where both Māori and Pākehā would live side-byside in a mutually beneficial relationship, and work things out together, and make rules for the governance of the colony together. Their aspirations for that are ultimately disappointed.

What did the 1860s bring?

Vincent O'Malley: By the 1860s, things have changed significantly. For one thing, and I think probably the crucial thing is the demographic balance has changed; large numbers of Pākehā have arrived in the country, especially in the 1860s, that’s the decade of massive European immigration to New Zealand as a result of the gold rushes and other things. And also of course, the New Zealand government gets the assistance of large numbers of British troops who are sent to New Zealand to put down so-called Māori rebellion. And that’s a very close run thing.

The first Taranaki War that’s fought between 1860 and 1861, probably ends as a stalemate. In 1863, the Waikato District is invaded. Māori are outnumbered four or five to one. The British have artillery, Māori have none. The British have cavalry, Māori have none. The British have a massive logistical supply train; Māori don’t have that. And even then, it’s a very narrow-run thing.

The Crown claims some kind of victory in the Waikato War, but they go to war in 1863 to destroy the Kingitanga, and they don’t manage to destroy it; it’s still around today. So in that sense, the Crown’s victory is a limited one; sufficient to impose its authority over much of the North Island. But again, it still takes some decades, because the King Country, which is the district that the Māori survivors of the Waikato War retreat to, remains autonomous until the 1880s.

And then you can look at the Urewera District, which isn’t really opened up to European influence and control until the early 20th Century. So in all, you know, you’ve got a process that’s unfolding over about six decades after 1840, before the British idea that this means complete control, becomes a reality.

Why were the 1970s important?

Vincent O'Malley: In the 1970s, you’ve got a new generation of Māori leaders — urban, educated, young, and for more radical than their elders. And some of their tactics upset some of the older people, but it certainly gains attention. And by the 1970s it really becomes impossible to ignore these Māori grievances. Of course the Māori Land March in 1975 probably exposes many Pākehā for the first time to the fact that Mā ori aren’t very happy with their situation.

And for much of the 20th century, we get this myth of the greatest race relations in the world, and so on. And this is even reflected in school textbooks, and so on, which go on about this; contrasting the experience of Māori with that of Aboriginal people in Australia or Native Americans in the US, and so on.

So this becomes a kind of cornerstone of Pākehā national identity is the notion that our natives were treated so much better than indigenous peoples elsewhere, and of course it doesn’t accord with the reality. And so by the 1970s, these two world views kind of come into collision with one another.

And I think today, few would argue, or few would continue to sustain the idea that New Zealand has the greatest race relations in the world, or that there haven’t been problems. So I think that that kind of myth has been largely put to bed, although there are still some people who kind of cling to it.

Why do we need to be aware of this history?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, I would argue that a mature nation needs to own its history, warts and all. And so there are these unpleasant aspects of our past, but they’re ones that we need to acknowledge and learn about and understand.

Because if the Treaty relationship is about a dialogue between two peoples, if one of them is not listening to the other, then that’s a problem. And so I think it’s really important that we embrace this history, and as a nation make certain efforts to understand it, and to acknowledge it.

What is the future of the Treaty relationship?

Vincent O'Malley: Well, I think the Treaty is a blueprint for a relationship, and it’s the relationship that’s undergone enormous change and conflict since 1840. But I think the underlying principles, at least of the Māori signatories to the Treaty, are ones that we should keep in mind. And that is about the notion that the Treaty is founded on a relationship of mutual benefit for both parties, and both parties wanting to live together in harmony for the benefit of all.

And so the Treaty doesn’t really provide answers as to how we can do that in the 21st century, but it lays down the platform and the challenge that that’s something that we need to work out together. Even as the nature of New Zealand society evolves and changes with different types of immigrations streams and so on.

So tangata Tiriti, the people of the Treaty, they’re makeup has changed significantly since 1840. But I think the Treaty is still a valuable blueprint for how that relationship might unfold in the future.

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