EQUIPO MECANICO Y ESPECIAL

The review of relevant literature provides a context for examining changing Pākehā attitudes to te Tiriti. Where the literature covers changing Pākehā views, it tends to consider the past and the present rather than how views may change in the future. For example, it reveals the starting point of general Pākehā understanding of Māori and te Tiriti through the ‘simple nullity’ statement of Prendergast CJ (Robinson, 2010) and the view of early historian Lindsay Buick (Robinson, 2010) that colonialism was benevolent.

A large gap in Treaty studies and understanding up to the 1970s and the lack of Māori voices and perspectives outlined by Robinson (2010), identifies the location of power over this period. A number of authors, including Orange (2004), Walker (2005), Robinson (2002), Snedden (2005) and King (1999) provide an outline of the local influences and events that promoted changing Pākehā views from the 1960s including protests at Takaparawhau, the 1981 Springbok rugby tour and decisions of the Waitangi Tribunal. Walker (2005) also highlights reaction against Treaty claims which resulted in the government of the day trying to determine the principles of the Treaty. Nairn (1989) highlights external influences to change including Frantz Fanon, Paulo Freire, progressive churches and how they influenced Pākehā anti-racism groups. These authors describe the drivers of changing Pākehā views, but apart from Sneddon (2005), don’t really discuss how and why there might be further change.

The small number of Pākehā authors who write about being Pākehā, principally Snedden (2005) and King (1999), advance a positive future position for Pākehā in Aotearoa/New Zealand, exploring what it means to be Pākehā and the idea that the Treaty gives Pākehā a right to belong in New Zealand, providing a vision of hope with Pākehā understanding of the Treaty at its centre.

45

The alternative view, that we are all New Zealanders and that Māori and Pākehā should not be seen as separate groups, along with descriptions of a Treaty grievance industry and objections to Treaty settlements, is advanced by a number of authors. Apart from dire warnings about the future, they tend to contest views of the past rather than explore how and why change might occur for Pākehā.

Mikaere (2011) provides an illuminating view from a Māori perspective, highlighting the power imbalance of the Māori/Pākehā relationship. She does provide views of where Pākehā change could occur, without investigating how this might happen. To be fair to Mikaere, this is a question that Pākehā need to answer.

Research by Sibley et al. (2008) showed ways in which Māori have influenced Pākehā, particularly how Māori cultural icons validate national identity for Pākehā. Their results differ from theory and similar research in Australia and the United States of America

Empirical research undertaken for the Human Rights Commission shows changing Pākehā attitudes over time (HRC, 2004), particularly that knowledge of the Treaty appears to be increasing but with a higher percentage of Māori than non-Māori having a reasonable declared knowledge and interest in the Treaty (HRC, 2006). Nearly twice as many Māori than non- Māori are interested in finding out more about the Treaty (HRC, 2004), but the importance of the Treaty as New Zealand’s founding document is clearly demonstrated (HRC, 2006, 2009, 2011).

A similar pattern is detected with regard to fresh water resources with the literature identifying government concern about the management of fresh water resources, and various bodies acknowledging Māori interests and rights in water resource management, but they fail to identify how and why change may occur in the future.

It is clear from the literature that water is one of the most difficult resources to determine rights and interests for, particularly because it is difficult to characterise exactly what is sought in Māori claims to ownership (Te Whiti Love, 1996). A number of authors discuss property rights in relation to water (Bruns and Meinzen-Dick, 2005) but again tend to deal with historic situations rather than outlining alternatives for the future

One author who does consider future options is Hsiao (2012) who identifies the recently signed Whanganui River agreement which recognises the Whanganui River as a living entity with rights of its own as a way forward. Co-management arrangements, also advanced as an

46

alternative option are seen by some as a failure to address the issue of commercial and property redress with regards to water Ruru (2013).

A number of authors, in a collection of articles edited by Veronica Tawhai and Katarina Gray- Sharp (Tawhai & Gray-Sharp, 2011), identify specific areas where the Crown has failed to meet its obligations under the Treaty and while we can infer what change to Pākehā views might occur as a result, it is implicit rather than explicit. Similarly, a number of authors provide commentary on the outcomes and difficulties of the Treaty settlement process.

The literature provides some explanation for why dominant groups construct realities in an attempt to retain sovereignty and a disproportionate share of resources. Social dominance theory was provided as one explanation.

Some ideas of why changing the views of dominant groups was possible were explored and the ideas of Harari (2014) considered. Particularly it was suggested that social dominance, racism and colonialism are human constructs, ideas, attitudes and points of view that exist only in the human mind. The importance of literature on this topic is simply that it outlines why change is possible in dominant groups.

Literature from those actively working to change Pākehā views identifies the work of the Pākehā Treaty workers’ movement to shift Pākehā society towards social justice and self- determination or tino rangatiratanga for Māori. Margaret (2013) uses the term ‘allies’ to identify non-indigenous supporters of indigenous justice struggles. Huygens (2007) describes how collective Pākehā consciousness can change in response to learning about te Tiriti o Waitangi and reports a coherent and sustained alternative discourse of Pākehā honouring te Tiriti.

The review of available literature provides a good understanding of the basis of Pākehā views about te Tiriti, the agents of change, the resisters of change, and the reasons why water remains a difficult location for that change to occur. It provides a sound basis upon which to consider the first part of the research question, how and why Pākehā change has occurred. It does not consider the second part, how or why Pākehā views about te Tiriti may change in the future, particularly in relation to water resources. This gap in the literature, the second part of the research question, is an important question to answer because it may provide guidance for educators and policy makers. The following chapter sets out the approach taken to finding answers to that question.

47