10 Principles for Education - the Principle of Indigeneity

One of the more contentious issues for education in New Zealand is whether the teaching of Mäori language and culture has any place in the public education system. The argument brings into focus two rights, sometimes seen to be in conflict: the democratic rights of all citizens on the one hand, and on the other, the rights which Mäori assert by virtue of being tangata whenua in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The principle of indigeneity highlights the point. Indigeneity is about a set of rights that indigenous peoples might reasonably expect to exercise in modern times. In contrast to the situation of many other indigenous peoples, issues relating to indigeneity in New Zealand have rested largely on the application of the Treaty of Waitangi. Probably, especially in recent times, the Treaty has been a helpful vehicle for the promotion of Mäori interests. Yet the Treaty does not embody the sum total of indigenous rights, nor do indigenous rights capture the uniqueness of the Treaty. At the heart of the Treaty is the promise of a mutually beneficial relationship between Mäori and the Crown, a partnership. The fact that the relationship has not always been positive, or that it continues to dwell too much on the past and not enough on the future, should not distract from the potential to create an understanding where indigeneity can be valued alongside those other principles so dear to the democratic heart.

At the same time the Treaty is not always the most useful document to define the extent of indigenous rights. The Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the New Zealand Government is party, will do so in a more comprehensive way. In contrast to the Treaty, where 1840 represented a new beginning, indigenous rights have a longer memory. 1840 is somewhat incidental to a set of customs and lores that evolved over some hundreds of years. Increasingly the State will need to be concerned about indigeneity as an issue that is related but not identical to the Treaty of Waitangi; and the language of indigeneity will need to be heard alongside the Treaty dialogue. Far from being a compendium of indigenous rights, the value of the Treaty will be in its potential to encourage a relationship between Mäori and the Crown, upon which indigenous rights will continue to be realised.

The principle of indigeneity will not be welcomed by all New Zealanders. While there is a measure of acceptance that Treaty grievances should be settled, and inequalities in society should be eliminated, there is less enthusiasm for accepting that being indigenous confers special rights on a particular group. It seems to clash with the notions of democratic citizenship. But New Zealand society must grapple more directly with the principle of indigeneity, not because of a desire to close gaps, but because unlike other groups in society, Mäori can lay claim to a set of indigenous rights and that right has implications for the type of education Mäori children might expect.

In exercising their indigeneity, Mäori might wish to establish closer relationships with many other groups, apart from the Crown, including other indigenous peoples, even to sign treaties with them. The Treaty of Waitangi gives expression to one relationship - with the Crown - but it would be short sighted not to explore other relationships and to see how other groups living in modern states are able to reconcile the sometimes conflicting principles of citizenship and indigeneity.