If the aim is something which is team building for New Zealand it is doomed to failure.
We can’t even agree whether there is a Treaty, or a definitive Treaty but only in Māori, or several interpretations all of which have validity.
Or whether it applies to only those who signed the Treaty, or only those who signed it in one or other versions.
We don’t agree on whether it has principles, so we cannot possibly agree on what they might be.
We don’t even agree on whether some people have a right to have their interpretation treated as superior to the views of others.
To expect we can end up with an agreed Treaty document which can usefully serve as part of our constitutional arrangements is beyond optimistic.
The Treaty just will not work to provide a constitutional underpinning for us.
If we really want something to enhance our togetherness in this country we would be far better to look at what we can agree on to establish what our relationship could be aside from the Treaty. We could then create a new arrangement acknowledging what the relationship could be in a formal way.
We could agree that Māori have a cultural heritage belonging only to Māori and which can only be described by Māori. This clearly has a place in our schools.
We can also expect that people who have formal business in Māori settings learn how to behave to show appropriate respect.
The Māori language already has a legislated place in New Zealand as an official language. Anyone is entitled to have their justice and other official services delivered in Māori, or speak in Parliament in Māori.
This does not mean we are expected or obliged to use Māori words intermingled with English. English, like many languages, has always "borrowed" or stolen words from other languages and we speak English sprinkled with Māori words frequently.
The idea, however, that we would be obliged to use Māori words when speaking English is not something we are ever likely to agree on unless the words have been taken into English. When speaking English, we call the department who takes our money from us the Inland Revenue Department.
We can agree that we all have special things which are dear to us, some of which we own. If people (or government agencies) steal our stuff there should be and are systems of redress.
The Waitangi Tribunal, in its actions around redress for property confiscations, is widely accepted.
Also in the compulsory school curriculum we could have acknowledgements that Māori bring traditional knowledge concerning the natural world and our relationship with it.
Navigating by the stars and using plants for medicinal purposes are contributions to knowledge which we can all expect to be part of the information children should learn in school, together with knowledge of the habits and uses of indigenous animals and fishes.
Science by definition covers a body built up through experimental testing of ideas. Any contributions Māori have to science can be fitted in alongside other knowledge making up the totality of our current scientific understanding.
We can agree that everyone in New Zealand is equally entitled to the best health, justice and educational services on offer. Any basic constitutional framework should cover equality for all.
To achieve this sort of equality we need to find a way to remove barriers to access for all who are on the wrong side of race-based statistics.
We may then disagree, as we have done with feminist arguments, about how to achieve better access for those who are not receiving a fair share. We may argue about whether you need to deliver by Māori for Māori for instance, much as some argue women should be seen by female gynaecologists.
But agreeing on the "what" is a necessary start to getting to the "how".
There would be much we agree on if we made more formal arrangements in our relationships between Māori and whoever else calls New Zealand home.
If we continue to yearn towards an agreed interpretation of the Treaty, the Bible provides a cautionary tale.
Some verses of the Bible have been constantly reframed and reinterpreted, especially those which talk about whether we should treat everyone as equally worthy, including those who are different from ourselves. There are constant attempts to find interpretations which work for us as instruction as to how we should live our lives now.
But even with the help of those who are acknowledged to have greater knowledge and ability to interpret these verses there is no unanimous agreement.
Interpretations of the Treaty will not be useful if they do not likewise help us in our relationships in New Zealand now.
We could accept the Treaty as a part of our history and move forward towards relationships which are based in a respectful understanding of the things we do agree on.
For those who still wish to reframe our relationship based on the Treaty we could focus on what interpretation will serve to unify us today as it was intended to when it was first proposed and signed up to by Queen Victoria’s representatives and representatives of various Māori tribes.
There could also usefully be included, as with the coalition agreement, the right to agree to disagree about some things without the sky falling in.
- Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
