This article first appeared on Stuff.
Sir Ian Taylor is the founder and managing director of Animation Research.
OPINION: On three occasions over the past few weeks, I have witnessed the powerful resonance of the haka on the international stage.
In Barcelona, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei performed a stirring haka to send off Emirates Team New Zealand each morning as they prepared to take on the challenge of Ineos Team Britannia. Their performance echoed across the harbour to the delight of the thousands gathered to witness the scene. Te Kara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s waka, leading Taihoro—the Kiwi-designed flying machine—out of the Team New Zealand base to do battle on the waters of the Mediterranean.
Last week, a different haka went viral, amassing nearly three million views worldwide. It featured students from Flaxmere College in Hastings paying tribute to their dux, Naomi Sai, an immigrant from the Philippines who arrived in Aotearoa just last year.
Her message to the millions who watched was simple and moving: “Thank you so much, New Zealanders, for this opportunity! It’s truly a privilege to experience the culture of New Zealanders, especially the kapa haka (sic) from Māori culture.”
And then, there was that haka.
The challenge issued by one of New Zealand’s youngest MPs, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi Clark, to David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, was a moment that has ignited widespread debate.
As I read comments like “appalling” “disrespectful,” “intimidating,” “unacceptable,” I found myself wondering - if this truly is the House of Representatives, was this young wahine toa not embodying its very purpose? Representing her people in a way that has been central to her culture for centuries?
We cheer with pride when our sports teams lay down this challenge to international opponents. Foreign dignitaries, including descendants of Queen Victoria, have accepted this cultural challenge ever since the Treaty forged a relationship between the Crown and Māori—ironically, the very Treaty now targeted by Seymour’s bill.
In this, our House of Representatives, was Maipi-Clark’s response not what we should expect?
A young Māori politician, deeply rooted in her culture, standing up for her people as she perceives them under attack. Or was there an unspoken expectation that she should suppress this time-honoured cultural response and instead conform to Pākehā norms?
The sceptic in me might be tempted to say - ‘you are welcome - but don’t bring any of that Māori stuff with you.”
If we step back, take a breath, and reflect on what occurred, we see a traditional response to a challenge. Seymour, as the mouthpiece of the Treaty Principles Bill, laid down that challenge, and Maipi-Clark responded in the way Māori have always done - directly, to his face.
We have come a long way since Dame Whina Cooper led the first hīkoi with dignity, humility, and strength. That iconic image of her holding the hand of a young child remains, for me, a symbol of the progress we have made as a people. It is an image that I urge all opponents of Seymour’s bill to carry with them as the legislation progresses through the select committee process.
Maipi-Clark has made her statement - one I believe Dame Whina would have been immensely proud of. But now it is time to engage Seymour in the debate he has invited.
It’s time to put aside the ranting and yelling that was on show from some politicians during the first reading of this bill. It may feel great at the time but it fails to advance the debate that we were always going to be faced with because of the coalition agreement.
So let’s have that debate, because, on one thing I do agree with Seymour, it is overdue.
I firmly believe the Treaty, Te Tiriti, is our founding document. Yet, as its significance has grown, so too has the confusion surrounding its meaning.
Perhaps the starting point for this kōrero is to acknowledge the demographic reality at the time of the signing. Estimates suggest that Māori outnumbered Pākehā by at least 40:1.
That being the case, one might reasonably argue that the referendum Seymour is seeking has already been held and that the Māori language version of Te Tiriti, signed by 500 Māori chiefs, including 13 wahine rangatira, would take precedence over the English language version signed by just 39.
And, with such a majority, does it really make sense that Māori would have willingly surrendered their sovereignty? Wouldn’t the more logical explanation be that Māori were giving Queen Victoria sovereignty over the European settlers, while the indigenous people of the land retained their tino rangatiratanga.
These are the sort of questions that could have been asked of Seymour at Question Time.
They could have been placed in the context of a legal principle called the Doctrine of Original Intent which says: “In contract law, courts often seek to interpret agreements based on the intention of the parties at the time the contract was formed. This includes examining the language used, the surrounding circumstances, and any relevant context.”
Under this principle there is a powerful argument that this would involve interpreting the Māori text of the Treaty as it was understood by the Māori signatories, who made up the majority of those who signed.
Obviously that is not a path that Seymour would like be taken down, which might go some way to explaining his argument that judges, courts and academics have had far too much influence on the way the Treaty has been interpreted to date.
That has a terrifyingly familiar ring to it as the world contemplates the overwhelming victory in the recent US election.
Seymour is setting himself up as the victim, the man of the common people. It’s a role he played to perfection on the first reading of his bill, even going as far as suggesting that members of the Māori party threatened to shoot him with their gestures. Ring any bells?
The challenge has been presented in the House of Representatives by one of our youngest ever MPs but, as we saw with some of the speeches given in Parliament last week, this is not a task we should leave to politicians.
Let the image of Dame Whina serves as our guiding light as we rise to meet the very real challenge that Seymour and the coalition have placed before us.
As Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Emirates Team New Zealand showed so powerfully to the world, we are not one people, we are two. By recognising and celebrating the strengths of our two cultures we bring something powerful to an increasingly divided world.
At Flaxmere College, our rangatahi reminded us of the importance of sharing that message with all cultures who have been welcomed here under the promise made by the signatories of our founding document, Te Tiriti ō Waitangi.
-Stuff