KEY POINTS:
The words ran "I sign this with my hand but with the mana of my hapu - the mana of Kaharau and Kauteawha."
I remember writing them down as they were spoken to me by a member of Hone Heke's hapu (sub-tribe) several years ago. Heke uttered them to Governor Hobson as he signed the Treaty of Waitangi - becoming the first chief in the country to put his name to the agreement (Kaharau and Kauteawha were great fighting chiefs of Matarahurahu - Heke's hapu).
Yet within five years, Heke was recoiling from the Treaty and battling British forces in Northland.
But there is great substance in Heke's statement, even if it sounds slightly affected to modern readers. Heke - one of the highest-ranked chiefs in the region by virtue of his family lineage - signed the Treaty exclusively on behalf of his hapu.
Despite his pre-eminent pedigree, he would never have conceived of signing it in the name of all of Ngapuhi, and neither would his relatives have tolerated such a presumptuous gesture. Heke headed his hapu - no more, no less.
The same circumstances applied to the other chiefs who gave their consent to the Treaty. Not one signatory pretended that they were acting on behalf of their whole iwi (tribe). Each chief represented only their individual community.
The British had more than an inkling of this when, in August 1839, they referred to Maori sovereignty being fragmented among numerous small communities. And to remove any uncertainty on this matter, the Maori text of the Treaty made it plain that it was the representatives of hapu who would be signing the document. This was probably an acknowledgment by its translator, Henry Williams, that iwi did not have chiefs - they were more about a sense of common identity for Maori in a particular region rather than being a direct instrument of sovereign power.
As the 2008 general election draws near, there is the sometimes ignominious spectre of two Cabinet ministers engaged in a breathless pursuit to settle as many Treaty claims as possible so that they can satisfy that portion of the electorate that demands the process be ended quickly. These settlements have happened so swiftly only because the Crown has typically chosen to negotiate with tribes, often brushing aside the wishes of hapu.
The advantage of this approach is obvious. Huge swathes of tribal territories can be ticked off the list of pending claims and the impression left is that the country is finally putting the epoch of Treaty claims behind it.
Only it is not. There is a widespread and growing feeling within some Maori communities that the rights of hapu are being trampled on, that the Government has refused to acknowledge the traditional mana of hapu, and that it has instead recognised only the mandate of tribal trust boards or runanga. And worse still, that it has ignored the central role of hapu in the Treaty as a negotiating state - something that manifestly breaches international conventions on Treaties.
So where will all this lead? First, it is important to recognise that this matter is not some obtuse legal debate carried on by academics fixated on the uncertainties of life.
Instead, this phase of the Government's Treaty strategy is beginning to read like an extended lecture in the rise and fall of deeply flawed policy. Already, the organisational forces of hapu in many parts of the country are starting to clank into action to challenge these imposed settlements, which many hapu members see as breaching their status under the Treaty.
Specifically, these hapu will claim prejudicial effect on the basis that they never gave a mandate to the trust board, runanga, or whatever other organisation has settled in their name.
Of course, the Government is hoping that its quick-fix approach will give it an opportunity to revel in the capricious delirium of popularity from a grateful electorate, but in the longer term, the opposite is more likely.
Even now, not all Government MPs support their party's strategy, but they remain enervated and timorous in the House. While they know that the policy is fundamentally wrong, they would wince if they had to give voice to their reservations, and so remain mute.
In the meanwhile, for every major tribal settlement that is reached, there is the potential for several hapu in that area to claim - quite correctly - that the settlements themselves breach the Treaty. Thus, far from the Government's policy being the beginning of the end of the Treaty claims process, it is looking much more like just the end of the beginning.
Paul Moon is a professor of history at AUT University.
