7 The Deliberations: Maori-Crown Co-operation

During the process of analysing recommendations and matching existing educational policies with Mäori aspirations, a model for co-operation between Mäori and the Crown has shown signs of emerging. It is by no means a first; there have been many occasions over the years when Mäori and the Crown have co-operated for the national good. As recently as 1993 for example there was joint agreement that Mäori representation in Parliament should remain, even though the Royal Commission on the Electoral System had thought MMP would make separate representation unnecessary. And earlier this year Mäori and the Crown worked out a system for the joint governance of a Mäori television trust. But most examples of Maori Crown relationships, especially in recent times have ironically been constructed around the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims. A number of Iwi relationships with the Crown are based entirely around the settlement process. However, because of the philosophical and historical issues surrounding negotiated settlements, a settlement relationship is not an appropriate basis on which to build a relationship for educational progress or social policy agreements, nor is it an ideal model for a Treaty relationship. There have been far fewer experiences of relationships between Mäori and the Crown that are committed to future development which is why the process adopted around the Hui Taumata Mätauranga, has been so important.

This forward looking relationship differs from the settlement relationship in the aims, goals, time focus, starting points, end points, and the fundamental nature of the relationship itself. The differences are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Mäori Crown Relationships: Settlements and Social Policy

The aim of a settlement relationship is to right a wrong, if not according to legal principles then at least according to some pragmatic formula. It is about getting the best deal and beating the other party up or down. In contrast the social policy relationship is about recognising and seeking to realise Mäori aspirations within a framework that can be endorsed by the Crown. The goal is not to agree on a quantum of compensation, or to apportion blame as it is with settlements, but to set in place mechanisms that will lead to Mäori educational advancement.

There are also different time concerns. Settling Treaty claims is primarily about dealing with the past. Even though settlements may lead to resources that will help with future development, the motivation comes from righting a wrong committed a hundred or more years ago. However, in the social policy relationship, because the focus has largely been on young people, and their participation in the world at large, as well as in te ao Mäori, the emphasis has been on tomorrow rather than today or yesterday. The future is the prime objective.

Injustice and grievance make up the agenda for a settlement relationship; the starting point lies with the Crown's failure to honour the Treaty of Waitangi. To some extent a grievance also underlies the social policy relationship, in so far as Mäori educational opportunities have been marginalised, but of greater note is the rejection of inequality; determination more than grievance dominates the Mäori attitude.

The end points also differ. A settlement relationship has served its purpose once a settlement has been negotiated; the `full and final' clause makes it clear that the end point is to be durable. In relationships that are about planning for the future, however, there is no endpoint. The relationship must be an ongoing one if it is to address change, contemporary threats, fresh opportunities and new technologies.

Planning for the future requires a different type of relationship from that found when dealing with past injustices. Settling grievances invariably activates a colonial type of relationship where one party, the dominant one, sets the terms and the other negotiates around them - though carefully not beyond them. It is premised on a colonial mindset and inherits the gross imbalances of power between Mäori and the Crown that have typified colonisation around the world. In contrast the baggage of injustice and imposition need not weigh down a decision to work together to plan for the future. Instead, and in line with both the Treaty of Waitangi and with international trends in indigenous rights, the relationship can be premised on equality, mutual respect, and acknowledgement of the other's autonomy. Of course it will not simply happen that way. Inordinate effort and abundant goodwill must accompany the formation of a relationship if the dignity and autonomy of each party is to be embraced rather than contested. Recognising a Mäori right to autonomy is a critical ingredient of the recipe for a successful outcome. In the past, too much energy has been wasted on refusing to see autonomy as a legitimate implication of the Treaty of Waitangi and the doctrine of aboriginal title. By the same token, Mäori enthusiasm for autonomy must be shaped, at least in part, by the right of the Government to govern and the realities of a small nation where inter-dependence is necessary for mutual advancement.

While there are obvious areas where understanding can be improved, there is some evidence that the process that began following the first Hui Taumata Mätauranga in February has the potential to lead towards a more fruitful type of relationship with the Crown. To what extent the relationship is dependant on personal effort rather than any sense of a maturing national attitude, and whether it will continue to emanate goodwill when the boundaries of patience are tested, remains to be seen. But for now there is room for optimism.