Gregory Fortuin: Let's map an inclusive way forward

Gregory Fortuin

In my first speech as Race Relations Conciliator I said that we would not flourish as a small nation in the South Pacific unless we were one sovereign nation united in our desire to collectively deliver on our dreams and aspirations.

For that to happen a major challenge is to robustly but respectfully debate and agree the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our 21st-century democracy.

Of the many responses I remember the proverb by Mai Chen, who said: "Don't wake up the dog unless you are prepared to walk it." My response then and now is that "this dog" has been awake and barking for a long time.

Just because some of us have had our ears and eyes closed and others have had their heads in the sand the challenge of the Treaty has always been around.

When the Race Relations Office first came into being over 30 years ago, the majority of complaints were from Maori against Pakeha. When I presented my last report to Parliament as Race Relations Conciliator in 2002, the majority of complaints were from New Zealanders of European descent against perceived preferential treatment of Maori.

We have seen the rise of two key phenomena. On the one hand, many Maori have come to the conclusion that they cannot put their trust in Pakeha institutions, and the foreshore and seabed hikoi on Parliament saw the birth of the Maori Party.

On the other side of the divide some Pakeha politicians sensed that Pakeha, who account for more than 70 per cent of the voting population, felt "it was about time somebody stood up to those damn Maori".

The proof of this second phenomenon was the incredible support for Don Brash following his Orewa speech.

Also of note were the responses of two Maori descendants. Winston Peters called Brash "a colonial tea planter who wants to tell the servants what to do", and chair of the Fisheries Commission Shane Jones said: "The days of old white men telling Maori what to do are over." Neither Peters nor Jones are extremist or supporters of the Maori Party.

Both phenomena were reflected in the latest election results. Tariana Turia has astounded the pundits with not just her own victory but also returning with four times as many staunch mates.

Brash, on the back of the initial Orewa momentum, has almost doubled his party's votes.

Hopefully we are now going to be compelled to confront the Treaty of Waitangi and our future constitutional arrangements as well as the bicultural identity of our nation.

Two key questions were posed during the election campaign. The first was from most party leaders as to what sort of nation we wish to be, and the second was from Winston Peters to Pita Sharples: "Is Maori part of the Crown?" Both are excellent questions deserving of considered and informed debate.

My views are pretty clear. We are two primary islands with many complementary islands, but we are one country. By the same token the two primary peoples with many complementary peoples must become one nation.

We don't have to be clones of each other but we are inextricably linked. What we need is harmonised diversity; many strings on one guitar making music together. The challenge is to develop the single hymn sheet.

Maori are not just another ethnic group in this great country. They are the first nation people. There is no other place in the world where their culture, language and traditions can be nurtured and exercised.

The Crown recognised them as tangata whenua in 1840 and Article II of the Treaty guarantees them "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties".

I would encourage those who wish to diminish Article Two merely to "property rights for all" to consider that this was a Treaty between fiercely independent tribes and the Crown, in an 1840 setting five years after the declaration of independence, when Maori constituted 98 per cent of the population and the settlers a mere 2 per cent.

We must also not confuse the issue of our national identity with ethnicity. Officially we have a bi-cultural identity, although I suspect we pay lip-service to things Maori. If we genuinely have two official languages, could I write a cheque in Te Reo Maori and have it cashed with a smile at any bank?

If we are going to progress towards one nation, is it smart that only the settler language is "mainstreamed"? Why are we then surprised that this leads to separatism?

A key message at the recent tourism conference from the editor-in-chief of National Geographic was for New Zealand to capitalise on its indigenous point of difference.

It is interesting that when Kiwis go overseas and have to differentiate themselves from the rest of the world they resort to the haka or sing Pokarekare Ana. However, embracing our indigenous identity too often gets left at customs as we re-enter Auckland International.

On the other hand, Maori must understand (and many do) that many New Zealanders of European heritage are fourth and fifth generation Kiwis. This is home. There is no other home to go back to.

Also, as I said to my friends Tariana and Ken over kai 10 years ago, "The reality of today's Aotearoa is that we have moved on and become a far more integrated society - for all its nostalgia it will never be 1840 again."

New Zealand has as rich a settler history as it has an indigenous one. This is where two societies collided.

It is also an undeniable fact that the social fabric of our society is multi-ethnic. Notwithstanding its many challenges, this diversity has enriched our nation and resulted in many benefits.

The key to harmonised diversity is simple and found in the US Constitution, which declares that "all men and women are created equal". That should translate into mutual respect based on common humanity.

I recognise the courage of Pakeha Prime Ministers on both sides of the political spectrum for embarking and continuing on a path of healing the wounds of the past and building a future together.

I also salute the critical roles of many wise old kaumatua and kuia, without whose support progress would have been impossible.

It is now time to take the next bold step and seek agreement on sustainable constitutional arrangements that will endure no matter who's in government or whatever happens to our demographics.

A small and focused Nationbuilding Commission co-led by, let's say, Jim Bolger and Professor Whatarangi Winiata, tasked with developing and leading a plan of action for nationbuilding, might be a start.

Doing nothing is not a viable option. If you are going nowhere, any road will get you there. It's time to seek agreement on an inclusive vision and boldly map the way forward.

* Gregory Fortuin is a former Race Relations Conciliator.

* Tapu Misa is on leave. Her column will resume next week.