A difference of perspective? Māori Members of Parliament and te ao Māori in Parliament

Māori Members of Parliament and te ao Māori in Parliament

Iris Marion Young argues that people need to represent their own cultural group in decision-making bodies because they have a common (and distinct) perspective, even if the opinions and preferences within the group differ. This article uses this theory in relation to Māori Members of Parliament (MPs). There has been little research into the place of te ao Māori in the New Zealand Parliament. This article aims to develop a starting point for the discussion of the wider topic of representation of te ao Māori. The article first establishes key indicators of the perspective that Māori MPs might share, referred to as ‘te ao Māori’ (the Māori worldview). It then looks for these indicators in the maiden speeches of self-identifying Māori MPs between 1996 and 2015. The results indicate that, as Young theorises, self-identifying Māori MPs do share a common perspective; their maiden speeches reflect a connection with te ao Māori. However, the degree to which these MPs assert this perspective differs. In other words, Māori MPs differ in their preferences and opinions. More importantly, this research reveals that these differences have some correlation to the type of seat that the Māori MPs occupy in Parliament. MPs with Māori constituencies (the Māori seats) demonstrated the strongest connection to te ao Māori in asserting their opinions and preferences, while those Māori MPs in the general seats demonstrated the weakest association with te ao Māori in their maiden speeches.

‘Te ao Māori’ is a term used to define the Māori worldview. It is based on the cultural, historical and modern experiences of Māori and provides a unique perspective that, in turn, develops shared values. Iris Marion Young is one of a number of influential voices in debates about group representation in decision-making bodies such as national legislatures. One of Young’s particular contributions to that literature, which is the focus of this discussion, is her argument that social and cultural groups share a social perspective, which she describes as ‘a set of questions, kinds of experience, and assumptions with which reasoning begins, rather than the conclusions drawn’. ¹ She explained that ‘[d]ifferent social groups have different needs, cultures, histories, experiences, and perceptions of social relations which influence their interpretation’. ² Young recognised, however, that although a social or cultural group will share a ‘perspective’, they will differ within that group in terms of their opinions and preferences (their conclusions). Her point was to argue the need for group representation in deliberative decision-making bodies such as parliaments. She argued that the inclusion of a range of perspectives would create more effective deliberation and decision-making by the group as a whole. ³ According to Young, although members from different social groups may sympathise with perspectives other than their own, it ‘takes more work’ for them to understand and speak from a perspective different from their own, if they are aware that other perspectives exist at all. ⁴

This article explores Young’s argument about the ‘perspective’ of difference in social and cultural groups in the New Zealand context. While Young’s theory expands into a wider discussion on perspectives in relation to preferences and opinions, this was not able to be explored properly within the parameters of this research. This article uses Young’s theory around perspective to launch a discussion around the presence and form of te ao Māori within the New Zealand Parliament. Specifically, it asks whether Māori MPs demonstrate a particular and shared Māori ‘perspective’ in their maiden speeches in Parliament. I use a qualitative discourse analysis of the maiden speeches of a selection of 12 Māori MPs to see if Young’s suggestion is true in the context of Māori representation in the New Zealand Parliament.

A number of brief explanations are required to set the context for this discussion. First, ‘Māori MPs’ refers to MPs who have self-identified as Māori when declaring their ethnicity for parliamentary records. The methodology for the analysis of their maiden speeches is set out later in the discussion.

Second, the MPs discussed here hold different types of seats. For the purposes of later discussion, it is important to acknowledge the differences between these seats. Some of the Māori MPs have been elected to general seats. This means that their constituents (voters) come from a geographic region, and may or may not be Māori. Other MPs have been elected to the Māori seats, which means that they also come from a geographic region, but their constituents are all self-identifying Māori. The third type of MP is the party list MP. List MPs enter Parliament through the party vote, not the electoral vote. If a party achieves a higher proportion of the party vote than the number of electorate seats they won, that party will be allocated seats through a party list. A list MP, therefore, does not have a regional constituency, but can (and does) speak for a particular group of people nationwide.

Third, in order to apply Young’s theory to New Zealand, this research argues that the ‘perspective’ that Māori share is best described in a general sense as ‘te ao Māori’, the Māori worldview. Discussion now turns to what this worldview looks like in order to test for it.

Whakapapa (identity)

The first and most important concept that links a person to te ao Māori is their whakapapa (genealogy). This term has a myriad and complexity of meanings but can most simply be described as a person’s genealogy. Whakapapa provides a sense of being and determines a person’s connection to whānau (family), hapū (sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe). This is often demonstrated in oral form through recitations in formal and informal settings. Poia Rewi states that whakapapa ‘inform and reaffirm familial relationships, from the cosmogonical [sic] gods, to Māori pre-existence in the Pacific, to migration to New Zealand’. ⁶ However, whakapapa also expands beyond simple genealogy to the wider purpose of reciting and remembering the history of Māori to their homelands and back through to the ancestral homeland of Hawaiiki. It explains the relationship between people and place. Whakapapa also provides the framework through which Māori perspectives and actions can be determined. Whakapapa enables the transfer of knowledge down through generations; it reflects the Māori commitment to learning from the past and the actions of tupuna (ancestors) as a source of understanding. ⁷

Māori whakapapa enables self-identifying Māori to enrol to vote in a Māori electorate, for example. This does not mean that a person must identify exclusively as Māori. The majority of Māori maintain a dual identity as both Māori and New Zealander. John Rangihau, an academic and leader of Tuhoe, demonstrated the dual identity approach best when stating: ‘I am a New Zealander and you can’t take that away from me. I am a New Zealander and a Māori New Zealander and I can’t see that it should create such a fuss’. ⁸

An important feature of te ao Māori is the connection between whakapapa and tūrangawaewae, literally meaning ‘a place for one’s feet’. This connects to the concept of whakapapa as the ancestry of a person provides a historic association with the land. ⁹ Māori society creates a holistic relationship with the environment that is based in the creation narratives of Māori. Māori deities are the personification of the natural environment, including the rangi (sky), whenua (earth), ngahere (forests), moana (oceans) and huarere (weather). Māori cosmology and mythology states that Māori descend from Tāne Mahuta, the god of the forests; this connects Māori whakapapa to all natural phenomena and places cultural value on the land. ¹⁰ There is a holistic relationship that exists based on whakapapa between people and the environment that surrounds them as their tūrangawaewae. ¹¹

The connection between Māori and their tūrangawaewae and the importance that it has to te ao Māori has become much more complicated by developments since the Second World War. Before the war, over 90% of the Māori population lived in the rural regions of New Zealand. ¹² The urbanisation movement of the post-war era, however, has led to a disenfranchisement of many Māori from their place of ancestral origin. Durie believes that the urban Māori initially maintained the connection to their tūrangawaewae but, over time, this has shifted after several generations removed from ancestral lands and with the growth of an urban Māori identity. ¹³ These Māori found cultural stability in voluntary associations, including churches, sports teams and political organisations such as the Māori Women’s Welfare League. ¹⁴ The 21st century has seen in excess of 80% of Māori based in urban centres. ¹⁵ This has made it difficult for many Māori to maintain their ancestral connections to their tūrangawaewae. Therefore, while tūrangawaewae is an important indicator, it is not to say that all urban Māori, who are disconnected from their tūrangawaewae, will not represent a Māori worldview. This would disenfranchise the vast majority of Māori who now live outside their tūrangawaewae. Colonisation and urbanisation have created a new manifestation of te ao Māori based upon a greater level of pan-tribal connection that is based to a greater extent on social affiliations than an affiliation to the tūrangawaewae.

The emergence of an ‘urban Māori’ also drove the pan-tribal movement, which emphasised a collective approach by all those who identified as Māori in this new world. This is one of the most important changes in terms of the Māori identity in the post-colonial era. For some, the traditional institutions, such as the marae and tūrangawaewae, are difficult to access. This has forced an evolution within te ao Māori. However, that change led to debate among Māori. Robert Joseph argues that ‘There is no longer one Māori reality, nor is there any longer a single description that will encompass the range of Māori lifestyles’. ¹⁶ It is not a homogeneous view or a one-size-fits-all approach. ¹⁷ There are critics of the idea of a single Māori identity, such as John Rangihau, who sees a pan-tribal identity as a means of removing the distinctive attributes that were drawn from tribal identities. ¹⁸ For the purpose of this discussion, it is assumed that affiliation can be at an individual hapū/iwi level or at a pan-tribal level.

Tikanga Māori (knowledge and understanding)

A second indicator of te ao Māori is a person’s access to tikanga Māori (a person’s knowledge and understanding of their histories), whakapapa, tikanga (protocols) and kawa (practices). In the Māori context, this will usually include an understanding of the social arrangements and practices within te ao Māori. In a formal-speaking context this could include a range of things, including reciting one’s whakapapa and discussing the historical background of their whānau/hapū/iwi, or Māori issues present in a modern setting. It could also be demonstrated through techniques used when speaking, such as the use of whakatauki (proverbs) and waiata or haka. However, there is a vast range of ways in which a person can demonstrate an understanding of tikanga Māori and the analysis was done with this in mind.

Whakaurunga kaupapa (access and participation)

The third indicator, whakaurunga kaupapa, refers to a person’s engagement with Māori institutions, including marae (ancestral meeting houses), whānau, hapū, iwi and te taiao (environment). This is inherently linked to the knowledge and understanding that provide the context and the manner in which a person should engage with the institutions of te ao Māori. While knowledge of the traditional institutions is important, there are also modern institutions that hold great value as an indicator of the embodiment of te ao Māori.

Te reo Māori (communication)

Finally, communication, or the use of te reo Māori, is one of the most important factors in expressing te ao Māori, according to many scholars. A proverb by Sir Hemi Henare, a respected Ngāti Hine rangatira (leader), best encapsulates this value: ‘Ko te reo te mauri o te mana Māori’, meaning that ‘the language is the life essence of the mana Māori’. ¹⁹ Te reo Māori can also be described as the link between knowledge and meaning. ²⁰ It creates a depth of understanding of the cultural concepts that underpin te ao Māori. The language is heavily intertwined with the culture. The use of te reo Māori has a major impact on the ability to perceive the world through te ao Māori. It is important to note that there is reasonable accessibility for MPs to use te reo Māori in Parliament. Its position as an official language of New Zealand allows for speeches and questions to be asked and answered in te reo Māori.

Whakapapa/Tūrangawaewae

As noted previously, self-identification as Māori should include some reference to concepts within te ao Māori, such as iwi, hapū, whānau, whakapapa and tūrangawaewae. Self-identification through whakapapa and tūrangawaewae was the most common indicator of te ao Māori among the MPs in this research. All the MPs self-identified as Māori in their maiden speeches. However, the means by which they did so varied from short statements such as ‘I am Māori’ or claims of descent from iwi, to the use of pepehā (regional affiliation proverb) and whakapapa, as well links to whānau within the Parliament and in the wider community. Māori MPs for Māori electorate seats self-identified most strongly as Māori, although Tariana Turia, at the time a list MP and later elected to a Māori seat, also demonstrated a strong commitment to te ao Māori through a recitation of her pepehā:

E rere kau mai te awa nui mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa – ko au te awa, ko te awa, ko au. Ko Tariana Tūria tōku ingoa. Nō W’angaihū ahau. Ko Ngāti Apa, ko W’anganui, Ngā Rāuru, Tuw’aretoa ōku iwi – tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

The great river flows without hindrance from the mountain (Ruapehu) to Tangaroa (god of the sea), to the sea; I am the river and the river is me. My name is Tariana Tūria. I am from W’angaihū, my people are Ngāti Apa, W’anganui, Ngā Rāuru, and Tuwharetoa – greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. ²²

This statement establishes her identity through her connection to her awa (river), the Whanganui River and to the local iwi of W’anganui, Ngā Rauru and Tuwharetoa. The full quote also incorporates a whakatauki (proverb) that is specific to the people of that region, further underpinning Turia’s identity within te ao Māori.

The list MPs also demonstrated strong self-identification as Māori. For example, Metiria Turei (Greens) and Hekia Parata (National) both strongly identified as Māori in a manner indicative of te ao Māori. Metiria Turei ²³ began her maiden speech with the following pepehā (which is consistent with Māori oratory practices), which she is connected to through her whakapapa to her grandparents:

Ko Tararua me Ruapehu oku maunga

Parata ²⁴ also demonstrated this in the early stages of her speech:

Ko Hikurangi me Aorangi aku maunga, ko Waiapu me Waitaki aku awa, ko Ngāti Porou me Ngāi Tahu aku iwi. I identify through my cultural frame of reference my mountains, Hikurangi and Aorangi; my rivers, Waiapu and Waitaki; and my iwi, Ngāti Porou and Ngāi Tahu.

Parata explicitly outlined the importance of her heritage and linked this to her iwi identity as Ngāti Porou and Ngāi Tahu. This demonstrates a variation in the means of identification that differs from those in urban electorates. Paula Bennett, on the other hand, from a list seat (later elected to a general electorate), discussed a different position as an urban Māori. She acknowledged her iwi links to Tainui and differentiated herself in a manner that many urban Māori would relate to.

I do not consider myself tribal, but I do have a very real sense of who I am and where I came from. It was not until I was at university as a mature student that I connected with my Māori self. I realised then that I had always felt it. It is difficult to put into words, but I feel Māori blood running through my veins. I feel the power of my ancestors when I stand on a marae, or hear a pōwhiri or a waiata. But I am urban. ²⁵

A common occurrence across the maiden speeches was not only identification as Māori, but also a dual identity as both Māori and New Zealander, with an integration of cultural understanding to benefit Māori and Pākehā. Sharples discussed the benefits of a synergetic relationship between Māori and Pākehā New Zealanders, saying: ‘I believe that the future of New Zealand is deeply intertwined with the future of Māoridom, and is, in the eyes of the global community, uniquely intertwined with the idea of this nation’. ²⁶

Bennett prioritised her national identity this way: ‘I proudly call myself Māori. I proudly call myself European. But I most proudly call myself a New Zealander’. ²⁷ This view was mirrored by Winston Peters MP, also in a general seat, who stated that ‘I am a New Zealander, I am a Māori’. ²⁸

Tikanga Māori

The theme of tikanga/knowledge and understanding was demonstrated through the use of cultural concepts and practices such as whaikorero and mihimihi in speeches, and when MPs displayed historical knowledge from pre- and/or post-colonial te ao Māori. The majority of the MPs demonstrated some knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori, particularly in the context of self-identification discussed earlier. There was a substantial overlap between the first two indicators that could be attributed to the nature of the maiden speeches. The use of pepehā indicated an understanding of the correct processes of identification within te ao Māori. Māori MPs from the Māori Party demonstrated the greatest levels of knowledge and understanding in their maiden speeches. Pita Sharples (Māori Party: Māori seat) outlined the history of Māori, ranging from their Pacific migration through to the modern age, in his maiden speech. The following excerpt demonstrates his extensive use of whakapapa to integrate Māori history within wider global history. It also allows Sharples to connect through his ancestors to the history of Aotearoa New Zealand. Sharples is respecting the mana (prestige) of his tupuna (ancestors):

The Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution, the Battle of Waterloo, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates – we know about all those things; we know about those people. So what of Toi Kairākau, of Rauru? What of my history, my tangata whenua-ness, my 1,000 missing years? Toi Kairākau crossed the Pacific and came to New Zealand. At the same time, Eric the Red was expelled from Iceland and voyaged to Greenland. Toi Kairākau is my ancestor; he still lives, in me. His history and genealogy is my history and genealogy, my bonding to these islands of Aotearoa. Toi’s son was Rauru; his son was Whātonga. From Whātonga came Tahaiti; from Tahaiti came Uenuku. At the time of Uenuku, William of Normandy conquered England and became King William I. From Uenuku came Ruatapu; from Ruatapu came Rākeiora; from Rakeiora came Tama ki Te Hau. Those are my ancestors – tangata whenua – and the ancestor Tama ki Te Hau lived at the time of the great military leader Genghis Khan, who established the Mongol empire, uniting almost all of Asia and Europe. My genealogy descends to Tama ki Te Rā and Tame ki Te Mātangi – and now the Magna Carta is signed on the other side of the world. ²⁹

Beyond the MPs’ initial self-identification in the maiden speeches, however, there was a distinct absence of mentions of knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori, particularly among MPs not representing Māori seats. Very few MPs incorporated other dimensions of te ao Māori in their speeches. This can partly be attributed to the context of the maiden speech; the purpose is to introduce yourself to Parliament. However, knowledge and understanding of te ao Māori was commonly linked to the MP’s respective political ideology. Shane Jones (Labour Party: list), for example, discussed the importance of employment opportunities and workers’ rights by using a Māori whakatauki: ‘After all, nothing has more lasting value than human capital’. As the famous Māori proverb says: ‘He tangata, he tangata’, ³⁰ meaning that the people are the most important consideration. There are other similar examples of whakatauki within the speeches that demonstrate an understanding of te ao Māori and the concepts and context behind the proverbs.

Access and participation

This theme was the least common within the maiden speeches, which is to be expected given the difficulty in using a maiden speech to demonstrate involvement in the many different institutions of te ao Māori. However, outside of pepeha, that marae were absent from the speeches was particularly interesting. Other institutions were sporadically mentioned, including Te Puni Kōkiri, the 28th (Māori) Battalion and kapahaka rōpū (Māori performing arts groups). Overall, however, this theme was not significant within the speeches analysed.

Te reo Māori/communication

Of the 12 maiden speeches analysed, nine MPs used te reo Māori or supported greater implementation of the initiatives to protect and advance the use of te reo Māori. MPs elected to Māori seats spoke more te reo Māori in their maiden speeches than MPs from list or general seats. The need to encourage and improve the number of te reo speakers was the most commonly raised. Many MPs singled out specific initiatives such as the te kohanga reo (language revitalisation) movement and Māori television. Louisa Wall (Labour Party: general seat) discussed the need for greater funding and support of te reo Māori by the government within the education curriculum in order to ensure that ‘that all students should have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of te reo me tikanga Māori’. ³¹ Wall also supported Māori Television by saying:

Initiatives like these are required to advance New Zealand’s Māori Language Strategy and to encourage the learning of te reo in New Zealand society. I am proud to belong to a party that values New Zealand’s indigenous language and culture. ³²

Her perspective was not unique. Hone Harawira (Mana Party: Māori seat) identified te reo Māori as one of the foremost challenges for Māori. Harawira described the history of the language revitalisation and the means through which its survival is maintained:

One of those challenges is te reo Māori. In 1987 Māori was finally honoured as an official language in this country. It is taught in preschools, in primary schools, in intermediate schools, in secondary schools, in tertiary institutions, and in homes and offices throughout the nation. Our kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, whare wānanga, whare kura, iwi radio, and Māori television have been adopted all around the indigenous world as the model for language retention and revitalisation. ³³

The ‘normalisation’ of te reo Māori was raised in other speeches. Sharples outlined his dream ‘where te reo Māori can be heard on the streets and in the shops by all people – free equality for Māori’. ³⁴ Turia also supports the efforts to protect te reo Māori by saying that ‘only in Aotearoa is Māori the language of the land. Let Māori language flourish in all its beauty, values, and meanings, because it is the language that holds the key to the culture’. ³⁵ The idea of the interconnection between the culture and the language is a strong theme in Turia’s speech, she quotes former Māori Language Commissioner Professor Timoti Karetu, who says that ‘It would be less of a victory if we emerged from the current renaissance with an economic base but no living language’. ³⁶

By Māori, for Māori

As discussed earlier, analysis of the maiden speeches revealed two further themes that did not fit within Durie’s four indicators of te ao Māori. The first relates to community independence and need for a ‘by Māori, for Māori approach towards services and a devolution of direct government control’. This interlinked with the concept of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) as it attempts to redetermine Māori–Crown relations. These references arose in maiden speeches when MPs directly mentioned Māori service providers and the benefits they provide Māori. MPs across the spectrum advocated for greater independence for Māori to provide services for their respective communities with less government intervention.

Turia, for example, stated: ‘The Māori Party endorses the primary role that whānau have in taking responsibility for our own members’. ³⁷ A similar sentiment echoed throughout the maiden speeches from both the Left and Right of the political divide. Parata discussed the idea of restoring ‘whānau and families as the cornerstones of our communities’ as opposed to continuing excessive government bureaucracy and welfare dependency. ³⁸ Turei links this to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by seeking to focus ‘not on what the state can do for Māori but on working with Māori to develop Māori-defined forums and institutions by which we can begin to implement Te Tiriti’. ³⁹ Other MPs also challenged the government for removing control from Māori organisations. Harawira stated:

As chairman of my kura, I have seen this Government take away a contract in which we had overachieved, and give it to a college of education that had held the same contract for 12 months and had done absolutely nothing. As a founding member of the Tai Tokerau public health organisation, I have seen well-run and high-outcome health contracts taken away from Māori providers and given back to the poorly performing district health boards. ⁴⁰

Across the political spectrum, there was a distinctive belief in the need to delegate the responsibilities of government to Māori. This was also quite strongly linked to the Treaty of Waitangi principle of partnership between the Crown and Māori (exemplified by Turei’s comment quoted earlier). The role of the Tiriti/Treaty was the second additional theme to emerge and will be explored in greater detail in the following section.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi

The final theme emerging from maiden speeches was the place and importance of the Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. It would be expected that Māori MPs should place a high value on the significance of the te Tiriti/the Treaty. Within te ao Māori, it represents the commitments made between Māori and the Crown. In the political context, it is perhaps one of the foremost issues for the protection and development of Māori. Three MPs, however, did not mention the Treaty in their maiden speeches. They were Bridges, Peters and Parata, all National Party MPs. ⁴¹ Of the MPs who did, they differed regarding its relevance and future significance. Two main perspectives were evident. The first and most prominent was a strong commitment to te Tiriti/the Treaty to protect Māori interests and rights now and in the future. The second perspective acknowledged te Tiriti/the Treaty as a historically important document but believed that it had little relevance to a ‘modern’ New Zealand moving forward. Many MPs mentioned the breaches of te Tiriti/the Treaty by the Crown and the negative impacts that this had on Māori socially, economically and culturally. Tau Henare (National Party: list) discussed how:

There is the reality of knowing that one’s family is trapped in poverty and is held there by the policies of people who have never known need, yet talk glibly of understanding the plight of the desperate; the reality of knowing that one’s forebears, a proud people of substance and energy, witnessed the gradual erosion of all of their rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi as laws were enacted to asset-strip the Māori people. ⁴²

Harawira discussed the importance of the past and the need to incorporate te Tiriti/the Treaty in the future of New Zealand. He said ‘We should all look to our past for guidance, and we should look to the Treaty to help us face our past, and build our future together. The Treaty is the founding document of our nation’. ⁴³ This point is made extremely clear in his following statements:

there will be no true peace in Aotearoa until this House has the courage to do justice by the Treaty. A nation that is secure in its place in the world would not shy away from the possibility that the Treaty could be enshrined as our nation’s constitution, and that the Treaty might have a real place in guiding our legislative process. We have it within our power to ensure that historical grievances are settled justly, and that current and future governance reflects the partnership envisaged by the Treaty. ⁴⁴

Jones supported the need to create greater understanding and acceptance of te Tiriti/the Treaty moving forward, and criticised those who see it only as a historical document: ‘How do we honour the sentiments underlying this founding document? According to the Court of Appeal, it is a living document, although some members of this House are prone to dismiss it as a colonial artefact’. ⁴⁵

Bennett, by contrast, supported the need to address the breaches of the past but promoted the need for New Zealand to move forward as ‘one people’ once the settlements are completed:

There can be little doubt in modern New Zealand that there were wrongs in the past that needed to be righted, and I am proud to be part of a National Party that started the process of addressing historical Treaty grievances. And there are some wrongs that still need to be righted, but we need to move forward. We need to settle claims quickly and then see the Treaty for the historical document that it is and move forward, as was always intended, as one people. ⁴⁶

Wall (Labour) and Turei (Greens) both outlined the importance of te Tiriti/the Treaty with respect to their parties’ position on its role in the future of New Zealand decision-making. Turei, in particular, based her policy strongly on te Tiriti and its principles and made clear the need for inclusion of te Tiriti/the Treaty in the future of New Zealand. Turei stated:

The Greens recognise that changing this paradigm is an evolutionary process. It will require a long process of dialogue among our whole community. Our Green policy on Te Tiriti focuses not on what the state can do for Mäori but on working with Mäori to develop Māori-defined forums and institutions by which we can begin to implement Te Tiriti. ⁴⁷