'Sovereignty" is not a word that has much practical meaning for people. If the Waitangi Tribunal is right in saying the chiefs of 1840 did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty, the reason was probably that they had more practical concerns on their minds. Such as, how to get the benefits of British law and government without losing their mana, authority and their tribes' possessions. The same pragmatism is at work today.
When the tribunal's finding was put to political leaders on Waitangi Day last week, Andrew Little was open to the idea of Maori making their own laws on matters affecting them. John Key called that suggestion "divisive" and said he did not support it. But they are not very far apart. Mr Little hedged his view with the comment that, "We do have to function as a nation state and we don't want to compromise that. But let's have a look at it." Mr Key, while he rejects Maori sovereignty in so many words, has embraced the principle in the Maori Party's policy of whanau ora.
Sovereignty means self-government. Obviously, in a modern multi-ethnic, post-colonial state, no racial group can be completely sovereign. That includes the majority group if that state is not to impose racist power. An accommodation has to be made with those whose identity with the country predates colonisation. The United States, Canada and Australia set aside territories where their indigenous races have had a degree of sovereignty. New Zealand's population is too racially mixed in all regions for territorial reservations to work, and it is doubtful that they have worked well anywhere.
We have had to look instead to our founding Treaty for an accommodation of indigenous sovereignty, and we may be fortunate to have had to do so. Treaty negotiations over the past 25 years have strengthened the organisation and cohesion of iwi that have taken advantage of them, and settlements have given them capital to invest as they think fit. Often they have also gained co-governing roles for significant elements of the landscape and natural resources.
Could this extend to making laws or exemptions from laws and taxation, as on Native American reservations? That could depend on the willingness of iwi members to accept additional laws and the fairness of the exemptions. It seems iwi investment holding companies have a charitable tax status.
Sovereignty is not an end in itself, it is a means that may help to lift Maori in material ways. It remains to be seen whether the latest round of Treaty settlements, capital investments and co-governing arrangements will improve the wealth, health and social statistics of Maori, but it seems more likely to succeed than generations of social welfare.
Slowly, the investments in Maori education, business and political advancement will hopefully pay off in rising incomes. In the meantime, the country has embraced Maori culture in schools, the national anthem and other symbols and expressions of New Zealand. We are comfortable with these, less so with the idea of sovereignty that they represent. It is nothing to fear.
Debate on this article is now closed. Readers are reminded to keep their posts to a publishable standard.