HOLDING THE HISTORY OF THE LAND: TOWARDS SOCIAL JUSTICE

The Following Speech was delivered online, by Jay Ruka, to the 2020 Tear Fund Justice Conference. It is directed toward the Church and Christian organisations but is relevant and applicable to any institution in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

In order to deliver and maintain a lasting presence of social justice, New Zealand must learn and hold our history. There will never be a full sense of justice without a sobering apprehension of our story. We cannot express justice until we acknowledge the wilful disregard of Te Tititi O Waitangi breaches brought about by an onslaught of settler economic interests. Learning the scope of treaty mistreatment helps us to poignantly apply an appropriate balm of justice in both broad and specific ways. The outworking of such justice then confidently calls for a restoration of relationship in light of a historical schism that still gapingly exists.

It is nothing new to restate the disproportional welfare and wellbeing statistics that Māori face. Last year’s suicide rates show that Māori once again top the list.1 If we are serious about preventing the crash at the bottom of the cliff, and offering effective remedies to Māori social issues, then more is required than prescriptions from the outside looking in. Adjusting the statistics begins with a journey to see Māori needs and experiences, as Māori have lived them.

To assist an education process I want us to explore a timeline of events. Most of these events reveal a narrative of cultural supremacy and oppression that portray arrogant denials of the standards framed within the treaty covenant. By no means is this timeline exhaustive. But by taking an honest look at our history’s broken promises, it helps us to understand that we need healing to go much deeper than treaty settlements that just don’t cut it.

So let’s begin in 1835…

1835 MĀORI INDEPENDENCE: The United Tribes of Aotearoa, a collection of northern chiefs, signed He Whakaputanga, The New Zealand Declaration of Independence. There is a strong interplay between this document and Te Tiriti, both in language and the expectations of Māori. The intent of this document was to declare Māori sovereignty of Aotearoa to the international community. The following year, the British government acknowledged the Declaration, formally recognising New Zealand as an independent State.2

1837 HUMANITARIAN ADVOCACY: In London, The House of Commons Committee for Aborigines in British Settlements released a report that warned of the effects of uncontrolled British subjects on indigenous peoples. Advocacy was raised in England with the hope that Māori would not suffer land seizures, war, disease and other negative effects of an expanding empire.

1839 SETTLING NZ: European interest in New Zealand had increased since 1837 as a business venture called The New Zealand Company formed to settle the country. However, as previously mentioned, humanitarian influence fought the NZ Company at every level, including within the English government. The missionaries in New Zealand did not want the company involved in New Zealand either. And on top of this, the French also had their eyes on New Zealand and were making their own plans to settle. To counteract these swirling forces, the British Crown sent Captain Hobson to annex New Zealand by creating a treaty with Māori. Hobson had instructions drafted by Sir James Stephen, a founding member of the Aborigines Protection Society and the nephew of William Wilberforce, it contained the following order:

All dealings with the aborigines for their lands must be conducted on the same principals of sincerity, justice and good faith…; they must not be permitted to enter into any contracts in which they might be the ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves…The acquisition of land by the Crown for the future settlement of British subjects must be confined to such districts as the natives can alienate, without distress or serious inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this, - will be one of the first duties of their official protector.3

1840 TE TIRITI: The following year, Captain Hobson arrived in New Zealand and, with the help of the missionaries, Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed by over 500 rangatira. Nine treaty sheets were taken around the country over a seven-month period. Article One of Te Tiriti refers to, “Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga…” (The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand). This is an acknowledgement from the Crown of New Zealand’s independent statehood, as expressed five years earlier in He Whakaputanga, the Declaration of Independence.

Article Two states:

…the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand…the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess…

In the English and Māori versions, it is explicitly clear what the Crown is promising Māori under the banner of their own autonomy (rangatiratanga). Article two also gives the Crown the right of pre-emption, that all land Māori wish to sell must be sold to the Crown. The Colonial Office and missionary intent behind this was to halt the NZ Company (and others) from purchasing massive land blocks at an unfair rate, then on selling at an exorbitant profit. This was a sin the Crown would eventually commit.

At the treaty signings, Hobson “expected the treaty to initiate a new relationship.”4 His expectation was that Māori and English would share authority and the intervention of Britain would be restrained. At Hokianga, Hobson said, “the Queen did not want the land, but merely the sovereignty, that she…might be able more effectually to govern her subjects who had already settled”. 5 The residing Wesleyan missionary, John Hobbs, stated that Māori land would “never be forcibly taken” and that “truth and justice would always characterize the proceedings of the Queens government.”6 No matter what misgivings Māori had of the treaty, they were continually reassured that “their mana would remain uncompromised.”7 This promise to retain “mana” reaffirmed He Whakaputanga, the Declaration of Independence.

1844 & THE AUTHORITY OF FLAGS: Four years after the treaty signing, Hone Heke cut down the flagpole at Kororāreka, modern day Russell. He had originally gifted the pole to fly the United Tribes flag created in 1834, but the British replaced the United Tribes flag with the Union Jack. Hone Heke did not agree with the flag being replaced so he cut down the pole. The English put the flagpole back up and Heke kept cutting it down. The fourth time Heke cut it down lead to the first outbreak of war in 1845.

1847: THE NZ SUPREME COURT: In 1847 the first case of the New Zealand Colonial Supreme Court took place. An observation needs to be made here as to how the Supreme Court used the treaty.

The Crown had waived its exclusive right to purchase land from Māori in 1844 because four years after the Treaty was signed, land sales had slowed down. But the new Governor, George Grey, revoked the waiver in 1846, reinstating the Crown’s pre-emption power. In other words, for two years settlers were allowed to buy land directly from Māori. A settler who bought during this waiver period complained over Grey’s decision and took the case to the court.8

The court found that the settler’s purchase during the waiver period was invalid because according to the treaty only the Crown is permitted to buy Māori land. In declaring this, the Supreme Court affirmed the Treaty of Waitangi as evidence of Māori ownership of land under, what the English called, Aboriginal, or Customary Title. It also affirmed the Crown was justified in its claim because this evidence, based in the treaty, made it so.9 However, instead of this ruling giving The Treaty of Waitangi a home in our legal system and setting a precedent, the Court and Crown from then on rejected the precedent when any claim to the Treaty by Māori opposed their colonial purposes. The same Court that upheld the Treaty for Crown purposes, would later declare the Treaty “worthless” and a “simple nullity”10 , again, for their own purposes.

1852 MĀORI CAN’T VOTE: The domineering figure, George Grey, pushed for the establishment of a NZ Parliament under the NZ Constitution Act. England obliged, allowing New Zealand to frame their own government. However, to vote you had to be: male, over 21 years old, and own an individual title of land. Māori land was owned collectively, without Eurocentric certification. Therefore, Māori were intentionally eliminated from voting.11 A later MP held the view that the government would face “‘grave inconveniences and probable dangers’ if the vote was given to ‘a large body of men, who are destitute of political knowledge, who are mainly ignorant of the language in which our laws were written, and amongst whom respect for the law cannot as yet be enforced’.”12 Needless to say, institutional racism was embedded in the New Zealand government from the outset.

1863 ATTACKING THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS: George Grey passed the New Zealand Settlements Act stating that any tribe in rebellion to the government would have their land confiscated. The purpose of this law was to punish the Kīngitanga, and any authority deemed in opposition to the Crown. 1.3 million hectares were taken because Māori were trying to defend their ancestral land.13

1864 PUBLIC WORKS THEFT: The injustice continued in the Public Works Act. The new Premier, Frederick Weld, faced two issues: how to resolve confiscations and how to end the Waikato war. Wanting to assert Crown authority, the Public Works Act justified land theft for the ‘greater good’ of New Zealand infrastructure. Weld’s hard-line position was clear: “Those Māori who wanted peace would be treated with moderation; those who resist will be ‘pacified’ so that settlement could proceed.”14 While the motivation for the Works Act was in part to appease Crown conscience, ultimately it was an economic act to gain commodities and make the New Zealand settlement self-sufficient.

1865: MAKING INJUSTICE LEGAL: To continue the rampage of stripping Māori from land, and to make it look legal, the Native Land Court was established to administer the Native Land Acts that historian Judith Binney regarded as an “act of war”.15 The design of the Court was to whittle away Customary Title and force tribal land into the ownership of just 10 people, thereby, economically and environmentally dispossessing most of the tribe. The previous two years of Crown induced Warfare had not provided the amount of land the Crown desired, the court was determined to satisfy “an insatiable settler appetite” for land.16 Henry Sewell, the justice minister at the time, said the purpose of the court was:

‘...to bring the great bulk of the lands in the Northern Island … within the reach of colonisation’ and ‘the detribalisation of the Māori–to destroy, if it were possible, the principle of communism upon which their social system is based and which stands as a barrier in the way of all attempts to amalgamate the Māori race into our social and political system.’ 17

SELAH! (Pause for a moment)

Coming back to the present, for most New Zealanders, history like this is unknown, even though it is easily accessible on state-funded websites. We are largely oblivious to the fact that the structure that pays for and hosts this historical information—the structure we vote people into every three years—is itself the medium, the vehicle of Māori destitution, poverty and a consistent poor showing of well-being statistics. So, if we are honest and want to bring justice to the impoverished situations Māori face, then we need to offer more than settlements, social welfare or budgeting advice. The very halls of political power need a consistent and sharp telling-to about how elitist attitudes and broken promises systematically stripped Māori land ownership from 100% to 4.8%. 18

What does the percentage of land ownership have to do with social justice? Not owning land shouldn’t be an excuse for underachieving in New Zealand society, right? But remember, our colonising economy is a system built on private property ownership, rigged with a Euro-centric bias. Our ideas of property rights are based on the theories of John Locke in the 18th century, in which people gain ownership of natural resources by the cultivation or appropriation of those resources. In other words: gain the resource, gain the wealth.19 The speed to which the colonial government in New Zealand gained land is equivalent to the speed in which settler wealth increased and indigenous wealth and well-being plummeted. Our history highlights that Pākehā control of land brought wealth-and-health to Pākehā, while Māori alienation from land brought devastation and poverty.20

Māori, far from being partners with the Crown and partnering a functioning economy for all, were militantly ostracised. New Zealand is a showcase highlighting indigenous degeneration when impoverished settlers from overseas became landowners of indigenous land. The regal locals were evicted and forced to rent their own mother, forced to rent Papatūānuku. Justice is not just, unless the beneficiaries of current land ownership and economic privilege understand the historical foundation of their privilege. (read again!) The elimination of deprivation requires more than a colonial tome to ‘just work harder’. Justice is not justice while governmental land and economic management conveniently administrates away a covenantal partnership made between Crown and Chiefs in 1840, which was inspired by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Justice In Te Rongopai
What does this all mean for the followers of Christ in New Zealand today? How do we hold this history and deal with it? Well, The Gospel, Te Rongopai—the inspiring narrative of Christ embracing the world—is inherently just. Te Rongopai champions justice and it confronts where justice is lacking.

Therefore, first, we must allow the teachings of Christ to critique the community of Christ. The Church in broad terms must understand its role in historical privilege and then become secure in operating without that privilege. In light of the historical grievances that the Church is called to confront, it must first confront itself.

Next, for the justice of Te Rongopai to extend beyond the walls of the Church, our message must be much closer to home than the ‘Pearly Gates’. The good news shapes the here-and-now with justice. The inherent truth in Te Rongopai reverberates when it becomes incarnate in our earth. The Church at large is a model-exemplar of assistance to the immediate desperation in New Zealand society. But, the systemic principalities that created Maori poverty¬–The Crown and supported by a Settler Church–must also be confronted. The Church can do this by speaking the truth of history, by becoming prophetically critical of the coloniser within itself and without.

The prophet Isaiah tells us that God “will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth.”21 The work of God is to see all things aligned to a state of righteousness and justice, two words with almost identical biblical meaning.22 Chris Marshall, from Victory Universtity, defines justice as that which:

...entails the exercise of legitimate power to ensure that benefits and penalties are distributed fairly and equitably in society, thus meeting the rights and enforcing the obligations of all parties.23

Considering this definition, matched with our historical narrative, can we say that the power structure over New Zealand is a “legitimate power”? If our government grasped control by confiscation, legislative theft and cultural assimilation (all abuses of contractual obligations) then perhaps justice in its truest form calls the Crown’s autonomous authority into question?

The people of Te Rongopai, the people of the gospel of Christ, must assist the enforcing of historical obligations upon our governing structure, if actual, real, and true justice is to be a reality in our country. This task is a call to the restoration of what our tūpuna Māori and our missionary ancestors believed in. It is why Te Tiriti O Waitangi was signed by Māori and by missionary. The principle act of injustice in our multi-cultural country, is the bi-cultural bereavement of a broken covenant.

Therefore, to transition from injustice to justice, this process compels every New Zealander to:

First: lose the luxury of ahistorical ignorance. Every New Zealander must be Holders-of-History. Therefore Christians and Church leadership can no longer, not know, the history of the land anymore, nor the good, the bad and the ugly of our collective Church history.

And finally: We must be the prophetic people that calls for righteousness and justice at the core of power politics. Because the core issue is not the moral concerns the Church are most vocal over. The Core justice issue in our country is the God-given right of Māori to exercise mana on the whenua gifted by God, but taken by man. The core issue is to ratify the partnership, the inherent hope embedded in Te Tiriti O Waitangi. And those who hope, lead. It is my hope that the lens of indigenous thinking will have its place around every council in New Zealand. And it is my hope that Mana Māori will, one-day, permanently share our leadership prowess around the governing table of New Zealand. When this happens New Zealand will be a creative force of leadership in the world. A wonderful multi-cultural country, embraced within a bi-cultural partnership. For that’s what the Treaty promises.

These things, I believe, are a commitment to a faithful expression of Te Rongopai the gospel. They are a dedication to the wellbeing of our country, to which I compel every New Zealander to speak, to act - and to vote - with a spirit of restitution and reconciliation. In doing so we will actually bring to completion gospel hope and make our history a history of partnership and justice.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo
Tēnā koutou
Tēnā koutou
Tēnā rā koutou katoa.

1 “… Māori are the highest single per head of population rate in the country and around the world…” https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503437&objectid=12113564 and https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12262081 (accessed 28 Aug. 19).
2 Claudia Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi (Wellington, New Zealand: Allen & Unwin Port in association with Port Nicholson Press, 1987), 21; ‘He Tirohanga Ō Kawa Ki Te Tiriti O Waitangi’ (Wellington, New Zealand: Te Puna Kōkiri, 2002), 27.
3 Quoted in: ‘He Tirohanga Ō Kawa…’, 30. Lord Normanby’s instructions to Captain Hobson were prepared by Sir James Stephens, a 2nd generation member of the Clapham Sect (and William Wilberforce’s nephew): https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/drafting-the-treaty Accessed 31 Jul. 19.
4 Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi, 89.
5 Ibid, 64.
6 Ibid, 65.
7 He Tirohanga Ō Kawa, 32.
8 http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZLostC/1847/19.html
9 He Tirohanga Ō Kawa, 42.
10 ‘Chief Justice declares treaty ‘worthless’ and a ‘simple nullity’’, URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/the-chief-justice-declares-that-the-treaty-of-waitangi-is-worthless-and-a-simple-nullity, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 18-Oct-2019.
11 https://teara.govt.nz/en/self-government-and-independence/page-2#ref1 Accessed 5 August 2019. There were approximately 100 Māori that did vote in the first election due to having land titles.
12 Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1860, E-7, pp. 5–6. Quoted in: Rawiri Taonui, ‘Ngā māngai – Māori representation - Representation in Parliament’, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/nga-mangai-maori-representation/page-1 (accessed 28 August 2019).
13 Rāwiri Taonui, ‘Te ture – Māori and legislation - Laws affecting Māori land’, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/te-ture-maori-and-legislation/page-2 (accessed 27 August 2019).
14 Ibid.
15 ’Native Land Court created ‘, URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/native-land-court-created, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 17-May-2017, (accessed 27 August 2019).
16 Ibid.
17 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 1870, vol. 9, p. 361. Quoted from: Rāwiri Taonui, ‘Te ture – Māori and legislation - The Native Land Court’, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/te-ture-maori-and-legislation/page-3 (accessed 28 August 2019)
18 Observe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynnk2LBEY0
19 https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040615/how-are-capitalism-and-private-property-related.asp Accessed 2 September, 2019.
20 Bernadette Consedine, ‘Historical Influences: Māori and the Economy’ (Te Puni Kōkiri, October 2007). For Māori, the first years of contact with Europeans were about engagement in trade and interaction…The impact of the exponentially growing settler population and the corresponding desire for land, combined with the colonial government’s determination to assert authority meant that Māori were now struggling to participate in the economy, rather than leading it.
21 Isaiah 42:4 NIV.
22 Chris Marshall, The Little Book of Biblical Justice: A Fresh Approach to the Bible’s Teachings On Justice, Kindle (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2005), 179/1330.
23 Chris Marshall, The Little Book of Biblical Justice, Kindle, 122/1330.

Printed & Distributed by
Te Manu Hononga - Sir Paul Reeves Centre
Ngāmotu, Taranaki, Aotearoa - NZ

Communications Cathedral29 August 2023