Dialogue: Treaty relationships are becoming more strained

There is something mean-spirited and possibly even punitive in the Government's decision to withdraw from the annual Waitangi Day commemorations at Waitangi.

Admittedly, there have been tensions at the site every February for years, but for the Government to react by endeavouring to shut down the celebrations altogether is perhaps more serious than it might appear on the surface.

Treaties depend on mutual goodwill to function effectively. In an area as strewn with complexities and divergent views as the Treaty of Waitangi, it is to be expected that tempers will occasionally fray and that there will be friction between the parties.

But for one of the parties to turn its back on celebrating the document that created the relationship in the first place signals a worrying turn in the perception the Government is leaving of the role and significance of the treaty.

What makes the Government's decision even more odd is that the effect of its resolution to stay away from Waitangi has been to punish the treaty partner who has already been on the receiving end of serious material breaches of the treaty for almost 160 years.

Treaty partners tend to exist in circumstances not too dissimilar to a marriage. There is no fine print in the initial agreement; neither are there many options available for enforcing a treaty. Instead, a treaty's success depends on goodwill being exercised by both partners and the intention to remain together in the union.

If one person in a marriage were to boycott the wedding anniversary, questions would obviously be asked about the state of the marriage.

In the case of the relationship between Maori and the Crown, the enormous disparity in power between the parties has nearly always put Maori in the position of an abused spouse. It is the Crown that has stripped away such an enormous quantity of Maori resources and it is the Crown that establishes the mechanism and makes the decisions over how a fraction of these resources might possibly be returned to its treaty partner. Herein lies one of the central problems with the treaty relationship.

In recent history, Maori have never been in a position to have a bearing on any of the terms or conditions relating to the interpretation or implementation of the treaty. Neither have they ever been allowed to act in a way which allows them to operate as an equal partner.

The Government's decision to stay away from Waitangi on February 6 is further demonstration of how estranged the relationship has become.

By the Government nudging another wedge between itself and its treaty partner, the prospect of more cordial relations has become more remote.

This estrangement is indicative of a winner-loser mentality that seems to have permeated the treaty relationship. Parties to the treaty attempt to score points off each other and, in the case of the Crown, demonstrate its dominance rather than work in greater cooperation for their mutual good.

Part of the reason is that both parties seem to have evolved different goals for themselves in relation to the treaty. For many iwi, their focus is seeking resolutions to grievances arising from breaches of the treaty. The Crown, for its part, frequently argues that it would be fiscally irresponsible for claimants to be fully compensated for their losses and, therefore, heads down the path of partial settlements.

Because so many claims have remained unresolved or even ignored for such a long time, these different goals have become fairly entrenched for the treaty parties.

Added to the concoction of concerns for many Maori are issues of cultural survival and self-determination, and what often seems to be the Crown's cynical attempts to manage the claims process for its own political ends. These are all matters that require constructive negotiation, not a stomping out of the party.

Instead of retreating from Waitangi, perhaps the Government could have used next year's celebrations as an opportunity to examine and discuss opportunities that exist to invigorate the relationship between the parties.

There has been very little in the way of discussions about the expectations of Maori and the Crown for the future of the treaty. Instead, virtually all of the discourse has related to tackling historical grievances.

Both the character of the treaty and the reality of the country's circumstances make dialogue on the shape of the post-grievance age critical. By one side simply chastising the other, the focus remains on the means of the settlement of grievances in the relationship rather than the nature and direction of the relationship itself.

* Paul Moon is a senior lecturer in Maori development at the Auckland University of Technology.