Some motivational words before I begin this post:
‘Renegades of Funk’ cover (2000)
by Rage Against the Machine
[original by Afrika Bambaataa & Soulsonic Force (1983)]
Now renegades are the people
With their own philosophies
They change the course of history
Everyday, people like you and me
We’re the renegades we’re the people
With our own philosophies
We change the course of history
Everyday, people like you and me
If you read my About page you will see that I am a Ngāpuhi descendent. Admittedly, I’ve had minimal exposure to my iwi and culture and identify more closely as an urban Māori of Ngāpuhi descent. I am nonetheless still extremely passionate about issues affecting Māori and in particular, my iwi.
For the record, I do not and have not lived in a predominantly Māori community at all in my lifetime, so my views arise from an external standpoint. Although, despite living in predominantly Pākehā communities, I have certainly felt and continue to feel the stigma of being Māori in NZ.
I’m well aware that I am susceptible to criticism from both iwi-connected Māori and non-Māori alike, in proposing to make claims against a process that many view as vital for improving relationships within NZ. But either way, I am going to state my argument knowing the criticism I open myself up to.
Ngāpuhi must reject the treaty settlement process and advocate for real change, for the recognition of Tino Rangatiratanga.
For the regular reader of this blog, it’s of no surprise that I am deeply sympathetic to political anarchism. This is important to note because it helps contextualise why I think Ngāpuhi should reject the Treaty settlements process. Although my rejection of the State and hierarchies, and the treaty settlements process do correlate, the key reason for rejecting the latter is the settlements process closes the door on the fundamental issue of Tino Rangitiratanga and therefore Mana Motuhake.
The treaty settlements process is a vehicle for preserving the privilege of the ruling political elite. It does this by feigning to settle injustices through monetary compensation, knowing the sovereignty issues are ignored in this process. Moreover, when the State are faced with opposition from Māori for issues arising under the Treaty, these monetary payments are used by the State to build a narrative around Māori as a people who would sell out their principles for a few zero’s in their bank accounts.
Does the settlement process not strike anyone as the same tactic used to lure Māori into signing the Treaty in the first place? These settlements reinforce the master-slave relationship that locks iwi into a corporatocracy wedded to hierarchy and elitism.
Graham Cameron recently wrote that Māori fail to recognise the thing that infuriates us is ‘not the dogwhistler’s but the leash’. The metaphor is superb. He further writes:
…we have adhered to the oppressor through the Church, through business and profit, through co-operating with the councils in development of land, through having most of our tamariki in mainstream schools, through giving up our sovereignty for a treaty settlement. At each point we have hoped for liberation, but again we have mistaken the status quo for freedom. [Emphasis added]
The treaty settlements process claims to liberate Māori, instead it lengthens the leash. I appreciate that the monetary compensation has assisted certain iwi to become ‘profitable’ entities and improve the outcomes of members of their iwi. But with all due respect, this has put a handbrake on the real emancipation needed to improve social, economic and environmental outcomes for all Māori.
Hone Harawira recently wrote that ‘Ngāpuhi provide the basis for our future understanding of Te Tiriti’ and that the government ‘can’t effectively claim to have settled the Treaty until they can bring the biggest tribe in the country to the table’.
Harawira also writes that:
Once Ngapuhi’s signature is on the Deed of Settlement, the Crown will have achieved “full and final” settlement of all major iwi claims, at which point the Treaty will have finally achieved the status conferred upon it by Chief Justice Prendergast in 1877 … it will to all intents and purposes finally be “null and void”
This is the reality if Ngāpuhi choose to settle under the conditions predetermined by the Crown. If this is our last opportunity to fight for Tino Rangitiratanga, then we need to make sure that it is not an opportunity wasted. Any settlement under the current framework will waste this opportunity. As the only iwi yet to settle and complete the Crowns colonisation project, Ngāpuhi have the final opportunity to fight for Tino Rangitiratanga. Not just for Ngāpuhi, or for Māori but for all New Zealanderr’s.
We wont achieve Mana Motuhake if we continue to visualise Tino Rangitiratanga as exclusively for Māori. I do not here assert that Tino Rangitiratanga should represent a departure from our Māoritanga. Rather that it must reflect the inclusive qualities that form its core.
We must create a vision for New Zealander’s illustrating as Cameron points out, that Tino Rangitiratanga is an alternative to the abysmal corporatocracy that we presently endure.
Like anarchism, Mana Motuhake and Tino Rangitiratanga are practices not theories. The practice of self-determination, the realisation of freedom. Self-determination and freedom are about enabling communities to decide how best to meet their needs – they do not privilege one person over another. Moreover, self-determination and freedom enables people to decide how they want to organise their communities. It does not mean that we devlove into separate warring communities rather that we develop co-operative communities that ensure everyones needs are met.
And so what if the liberals bleat that its a utopian dream. So what if change doesn’t happen immediately. Shouldn’t we at lest try to change the course of history?
I don’t presume any resistance would be simple or without its own opposition, but I do think Ngāpuhi can build momentum for a shared vision by rejecting the settlements process. Ngāpuhi must see through the divide and conquer strategy foisted upon them, and take this opportunity to liberate Māori and Pākehā alike from the corporatocracy that keeps us divided for its own preservation.
 Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877) 3 NZ Jur (NS) SC 72.