The basic question in this chapter on Maori development is whether the rebuilding of Maori society should proceed from the rejuvenation of tribal membership rolls, or from other forms of organisation. The debate is a complex mixture of cultural nationalism, separating commerce from community, battling mainstream antagonism and discovering whether the trickle-down theory can overcome growing political dissatisfaction.

New Zealand has a population of approximately 3.5 million people. They are predominantly pakeha, of European extraction. The next largest group are the Maori, descendants of the original Polynesian settlers, who comprise almost 12 per cent of the total population. Their ancestors signed the Treaty of Waitangi, which was entered into between the chiefs on behalf of their tribes and the British Crown in 1840.

The Treaty is a bilingual document, having been written initially in English then translated into Maori by the Anglican missionaries. It contains three articles, each of which has been the subject of great disagreement between successive generations of Maori and the Crown. The first article ceded sovereignty to the Crown. The word ‘sovereignty,’ however, was not translated clearly. Rather than using the ancient Polynesian word mana, a transliteration, kawanatanga (kawana, from English ‘governor’) was favoured. The latter, a term used by the translators of the Bible to describe the status of Pontius Pilate, did not convey the concept of handing over powers of ultimate political authority.

The second article recognised Maori ownership of natural resources and guaranteed the continued authority of the chiefs. The precise extent of this authority was not however outlined. It was seen as a threat to the sovereignty of the Crown and, not surprisingly, disappeared from the political framework. The ownership by Maori of land and natural resources was soon weakened once the European settlers had increased in numbers and the Crown had a large enough military presence.

The third article accorded to Maori the rights and privileges of British subjects. This however was of limited relevance because the actual Treaty was not incorporated into the domestic law of New Zealand and was ruled as having no legal status. At the time of the signing of the Treaty, New Zealand was overwhelmingly under the control of the Maori chiefs, but as each decade passed, immigration increased and the Maori soon became a minority. As European settlers arrived and possessed the resources of the countryside and ocean through a host of means ranging from war through to legislative fiat and free transactions, the pressure grew to create a system of government which was controlled by settler society rather than colonial governors.

This was achieved with the Constitution Act 1852, which led to the creation of a legislature and the establishment of a system of government where authority for law-making was based in New Zealand as opposed to being exercised through the Queen’s representative. During this period where there was a transfer of political power from the Crown to the settler-dominated legislature, the Maori chiefs continued to assert the importance of their relationship with the distant British Crown. They continually pointed to the founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, as the protection of their rights and authority over their people and resources. Their entreaties, however, fell on deaf ears. As each decade passed they were encouraged to take the matters up with NZ governments, as they were seen as issues of domestic policy. Needless to say the tribes suffered further and within 20 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi over 45 million acres of the country had passed from Maori ownership. The appetite for land continued unabated. Throughout the 1800s the pressure exerted on Maori to yield their resources was constant. Wars were fought, and as payment for services, the colonial soldiers received land.

As in any frontier economy the largest profits went to those who speculated on the land. The distinction between legislator and land speculator was virtually nil. To aid the land alienation process a special court, the Native Land Court, was created in the 1860s. Its purpose was to convert customary title into a form that was recognisable in terms of British-based tenure law and alienable. It was a devastating and cost-efficient way of completing the process of alienating tribal land, and by the turn of the century less than 10 per cent of the land base of New Zealand was left in Maori ownership. The Maori population sank perilously low at this time, declining to a mere 40,000. This led commentators of the day to conclude that Maori were indeed a dying race. Poor health, constantly high infant mortality rates, decrepit housing, insufficient land resources, grossly inadequate educational opportunities and a general marginalisation rendered Maori vulnerable. Despite this, however, the Maori rates of participation in both the World Wars was very high. In each war Maori made very significant contributions and were formed into distinctive organisations, the most notable being the Maori Battalion of World War II.

The socioeconomic status of Maori has continued to be a blight within New Zealand. During the 1960s and 1970s an enormous shift took place as entire rural hinterlands were emptied of their Maori populations. The growth of New Zealand manufacturing, the wool boom and a general positive performance of the economy meant there was a great need for labour within the cities. Attempts to develop Maori land-holdings were not adequate to meet the rising needs of the population. Fishing was not an option as the capital barriers were substantial, licenses were difficult to procure and the law did not recognise the existence of Maori customary fishing rights. The writing was not only ‘on the wall’ but within the bureaucracy as well, as government officials encouraged and facilitated the urban migration of Maori. Unfortunately the infrastructure within the cities could not cope with the arrival of such large numbers of Maori. Although housing was eventually made available it was often located in areas where there were no other services. The support networks of the extended family were not able to cope, and problems followed.

The vast majority of the Maori population no longer speak the language, the family structure has eroded to a point where approximately 50 per cent of Maori children are brought up in single-parent families and a larger proportion are being raised by parents or care-givers who receive welfare benefits. Subsistence on a marginal rural resource base has been overtaken by welfare dependency.

During the 1970s Maori (primarily rangatahi, young people) begun to publicise through protest action the poor socioeconomic status of Maori and they focused on the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty, after years of neglect and dismissal by governments became an icon for Maori aspirations. Within Maori society it had never been forgotten. For mainstream society however its status had been severely diminished. Successive generations of New Zealanders had been fed a diet, through the education system, of the ‘happy go lucky Maori’ and the inevitability of assimilation. The low social status of Maori and their marginal economic status was never critically analysed or understood by educators in terms of the abandonment of the Treaty of Waitangi.

During the 1970s and 1980s, as the Treaty became more the object of political activism and social commentary, the political parties slowly adopted resolutions requiring that the Treaty be recognised and grievances concerning the historical loss of tribal resources be investigated and settled. The judicial system could not satisfactorily respond to the Treaty as it did not have legal status. The route forward was inexorably political. It was an extraordinary development that a seemingly obscure, colonial artifice, a ‘toothless’ document, should influence the economic and political agenda of governments in the final years of the twentieth century.

In 1975 the Labour government established a special Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims from Maori as to how the principles of the Treaty had been violated through legislative action or policy. It was given powers of recommendation but could only consider claims arising from actions after 1975. In 1985 when the same political party became government again, after many years in opposition, it went further and enabled the Tribunal to hear grievances stemming from the time that the actual treaty was signed. This effectively served up the entire colonial history of New Zealand for inspection at the end of the twentieth century.

At the time these changes were taking place, the New Zealand system of government and the economy went through a rapid series of reforms. Vast areas of the government were restructured into commercial and non-commercial enterprises. The former became state-owned enterprises under a statute known as the State Owned Enterprises Act. Telecommunications, forests, hotels, railways, shipping companies, energy supply companies and a host of other operations were either corporatised or sold outright. Virtually every sector of the economy was restructured. Unemployment grew markedly, and Maori were the principal casualties.

In a macroeconomic sense New Zealand has undertaken a series of reforms that has captured the attention of international economic policymakers. It is quite incongruous that this economic liberalisation has taken place at the same time as the historical grievances of Maori have been given legislative space to grow. In terms of socioeconomic status, Maori fortunes have plummeted as the reforms have set in. Whether a process focused on historical events can address contemporary socioeconomic problems for Maori remains to be seen. The publicity surrounding the historical Maori claims has grown enormously. The dislocation from the structural adjustment programs implemented by recent governments has caused anger and resentment towards Maori and their claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, the implication being that the Maori are enjoying a separate and privileged treatment.