Dialogue: Treaty has relevance to present-day social issues

By GRANT DUNCAN*

Sir Douglas Graham's article, in which he contends that a Treaty of Waitangi clause has no place in statutes dealing with social issues because it is not relevant, is not only incorrect, it also seems inconsistent with his previous role in facilitating treaty settlements.

Sir Douglas' interpretation rests entirely on a narrow reading of the English-language version of the Treaty of Waitangi. He considers only treaty rights to lands, fisheries and forests guaranteed to Maori under article two of the English version, although he adds that this included the right to follow customary practices.

But Sir Douglas omits to mention article three, which extends to Maori the rights and privileges of British subjects.

Today, this simply means equal rights as New Zealand citizens. Sir Douglas claims, however, that entitlements to health, education, welfare, housing and such like are not drawn from the treaty at all but through citizenship.

If it was the treaty that extended citizenship to Maori, it has broader implications and is relevant to all rights that Maori may possess. Citizenship and treaty rights cannot be separated.

Given that the National Party during the 1990s tried so hard to remove the entitlements of all New Zealanders to social, educational and health services from their traditional basis in citizenship rights, and to force them into commercialised user-pays entitlements, it is incredible to hear this former National cabinet minister put such emphasis on citizenship. Nonetheless, let's take him at his word.

Now, if health services, for example, are deliverable to all New Zealanders who all have an equal right, this does not mean that all citizens must get the same services. We see no problem in having special hospitals such as the Starship for children or National Women's for women. Different citizens have different needs. Providing specified groups with services responsive to their special needs is often equitable, and does no harm to the principle of equal rights.

So Sir Douglas' argument is fatally flawed. Maori citizenship does derive from the treaty; and the proposal that health providers should take account of the treaty does not necessarily violate the equal rights of other citizens.

The treaty provided the grounds for Pakeha and other settlers also to enjoy citizenship here. Some mutual recognition of the good faith shown by Maori in 1840 is hardly misplaced.

Now, taking the Maori version of the treaty's article two, the matter becomes even clearer. In Maori, the treaty applies not just to lands, fisheries and forests but to tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and to taonga katoa (all things of value to Maori). Taonga may include intangible aspects of indigenous culture such as tikanga and customary health practices.

Maori signatories were agreeing to protect both economic and social values, and the customary practices that go with them. Maori interest in fisheries, for instance, is not only economic but social as well. The provision of kai moana at hui is a customary social practice.

So the treaty requires a broader responsiveness than Sir Douglas implies. The spirit and the letter of the treaty are holistic, placing a duty on the Crown to respect the whole, not just selected parts, of Maori culture.

Sir Douglas should read the Closing the Gaps document published by Te Puni Kokiri. In it he will learn, for example, that a newborn Maori boy can expect to live 67 years while a newborn non-Maori boy can expect to live 75 years; and that the youth suicide rate for Maori is two-and-a-half times larger than the rate for non-Maori. And so the report goes on.

Clearly, Maori as a population are not enjoying health and life outcomes equal to non-Maori. Is it not common sense that something should be done about this? Does it not make sense that such targeted services should take Maori customs and values into account?

In a nation whose origins are founded in the Treaty of Waitangi, the Crown and its agencies should address the health needs of New Zealanders in a manner which will seek to strengthen the responsiveness of services to citizens. A part of that responsiveness should be based on the aspirations implicit in the treaty. The treaty is constitutional; it is not an optional add-on relevant to some laws and not others.

Most New Zealanders value equality of rights, and an equal chance for all to live a healthy and productive life. But to achieve that, we cannot ignore broader social and historical issues.

A treaty-related clause in social and health legislation will do no harm to the rights of non-Maori New Zealanders, and may help to stimulate some sensible planning that takes Maori needs into account.

*Dr Grant Duncan is a senior lecturer in social policy at Massey University, Albany.