A middle way to agree modern place of Te Tiriti

Opinion: An unfortunate by-product of the pandemic has been a rise in intolerance of differing viewpoints. The single-mindedness devoted to fighting Covid-19 led to many who raised reasonable questions or concerns about potential wider social and economic effects, being abruptly ignored and shunned. Sadly, that intolerance has not faded, even though the threat of the pandemic appears less. 

Nearly four years after it began social and political divisions across the world are more marked and sharply defined. Everywhere, reasoned debate is giving way to intractable positions. The search for the middle ground that used to be the hallmark of modern democratic societies is being derided as weak and replaced by the assertion of new absolutes as some sort of moral truth. Around the world, from Gaza to the United States, and Europe to South America, political battlelines are being redrawn more sharply and uncompromisingly.

Many years ago, during a rowdy debate in the House of Commons, Sir Winston Churchill chided an especially raucous Opposition MP that he “should not develop more indignation than he can contain”. At a time of increasing international tensions and declining tolerance, Churchill’s rebuke assumes a fresh relevance, albeit on a grander scale.

New Zealand is not immune – our political divisions have become more sharply delineated and entrenched since the pandemic. The rising level of violent crime, an increasing lack of respect for institutions and political leaders at all levels, and the new dogmatism that has emerged around various political and social issues are all testament to that. We seem to have lost, or more worryingly deliberately thrown away, our capacity to listen to different views, let alone respect the right of others to express them, or even hold them in the first place. Nuance and subtlety have given way to absolute right and wrong. We are no longer the “each to his own” country we were accustomed to.

The current divisions on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the new Government’s perceived approach to Māori issues are cases in point. Most of the rhetoric coming so far from both sides can be dismissed as (deliberately) ignorant and inflammatory. (The government is not contemplating apartheid – or worse – for Māori, nor is it about to abandon Te Tiriti, or the legal processes associated with it.) However, leaving those extremes aside – if only the news media would – the Government’s approach does raise challenging concerns to be carefully worked through.

Much of what has transpired since the election is not of National’s making. The requirement that government agencies use English names ahead of Māori versions is part of its agreement with New Zealand First. Given many of those Māori names (Waka Kotahi, Te Whatu Ora, etc) are already well known, it is not all that big a thing in the grand scheme of things. Nor is the reabsorption of the Māori Health Authority back into Health New Zealand.

Rather, the flashpoint has been Act’s proposed legislation to define more tightly the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, even though National says it has no intention to see the legislation passed by Parliament. Act’s plan therefore becomes little more than a taxpayer-funded branding exercise. But for too many the very idea that there could even be discussion about the role and purpose of Te Tiriti appears a step too far.

Yet since Te Tiriti was signed in 1840 it has been subject to constant debate on its interpretation ranging from Chief Justice Prendergast’s 1877 ruling that it was a “simple nullity” through to more modern views that it is a living document, the foundation of our nation. The debate parallels that between fundamentalist scholars and others on whether the Bible should be adhered to as the literal word of God or interpreted more flexibly. Where dogmatism prevails, extremism and intolerance follow. But that is not an argument against debate itself, more a warning not to let the extremes dominate. In the case of Te Tiriti, the same also applies.

By seeking to legislatively define Te Tiriti’s principles once and for all, Act risks falling into the same historical trap. Words are important, but their meaning and interpretation can often change over time. In the absence of a wider constitutional debate, including the future of the British monarch as our head of state – an overdue debate this Government has zero appetite for – Act’s proposed new Te Tiriti principles lack context. They are therefore no more than a divisive political stunt. But to remain relevant, a document such as Te Tiriti needs ongoing, reasoned discussion.

Although Act is driving this issue, the problems it is giving rise to are for the whole Government to resolve. This will be a difficult balancing act for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. He will understand fully the mounting tension and the risk that increased intolerance poses to social cohesion – but he will also be keen to keep his coalition intact. His recent meeting with Kīngi Tūheitia suggests he may be willing to engage in dialogue, but to what extent, and how fully, is still unclear.

For his part, at the end of the weekend’s large hui at Tūrangawaewae, Kīngi Tūheitia appeared to slap down politicians and others calling for extreme protests against the Government: “The best protest we can do right now is: be Māori. Be who we are … we need to be united first and then decide our future.”

Together, the Prime Minister and Kīngi Tūheitia could play central roles in seeking and securing the missing middle ground. As an open democracy, we ought to be mature enough to discuss important subjects such as the modern place of Te Tiriti in a considered, reasoned, and respectful way, without the rancour or bitterness now becoming apparent. Though the Prime Minister’s and Te Kiingi’s perspectives may differ, their joint responsibility must be to ensure that the mounting indignation on both sides of the divide does not become uncontainable, to the national detriment.

But whether they are willing and able to provide such leadership remains to be seen.