At first blush, Christopher Luxon’s comment at the parliamentary powhiri at Waitangi this year sounded tone deaf. The Leader of the Opposition in talking about the Treaty of Waitangi described New Zealand as “a little experiment”. It seemed to diminish the treaty and the very idea of our nation. Yet story we tell ourselves about who we are matters, especially on the days set aside to commemorate that, and “little experiment” didn’t seem a big enough way to describe the birth of our nation and all we have since become. Much of what has been done here is immense.
His political opponents soon jumped in to put his straight. The Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson described the comment as “a little bit patronising” and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins took National’s usual “aspirational” position, saying the signing of the treaty was “a bold and visionary decision”.
Upon reflection, both leaders of the big two parties had a point, yet both missed key elements of our national story.
Luxon’s actual comments were a bit more nuanced than some reported. The “experiment” clearly referenced Aotearoa New Zealand, rather than te tiriti itself.
"We started on the 6th of February 1840 as a little experiment, and look at us now - the 21st century success story able to tackle the challenges that come our way."
Some people, politicians included have been offended by the use of the word “experiment” to describe the founding of our nation. In fact it’s a really useful phrase to describe what was being attempted at Waitangi 183 years ago. The signing of a treaty to reconcile differences between two cultures was hardly unprecedented, but just how it might all work out was certainly uncertain. It was an unknown and a wero of sorts for all; an act of faith and hope that we are the inheritors of today. There may have been a hypothesis about what might be achieved, but no-one there at Waitangi on 1840 could have predicted what has come since. In that sense it was the very definition of an experiment (as just about any political decision is).
Indeed, you might say the treaty as a living document remains an experiment, one we are still conducting today. We don’t know how it will end.
The more contentious word was “little”. Watching the video of Luxon delivering his comments, it looks like the word was intended to show affection and pluck. To contrast the scale of then with the size and success of our country today. It seemed to be used in the way we often speak fondly of something small that succeeds against the odds.
Yet “little experiment” jars as a phrase because it fails to embrace the scale of what the Treaty of Waitangi was trying to achieve. The Treaty was so many things. Is so many things. But one thing is certain; there is nothing little about its intent or, to use a word Luxon favours, its outcomes.
You can see that in its three articles, each grappling with big ideas and big decisions. As Luxon rightly said, it is “an imperfect but ultimately inspiring document”.
For many Maori it was, amongst other things, an attempt to bring law and order, to establish trade and sieze economic opportunity, to preserve a way of life while still welcoming manuhiri and adapting to the massive geopolitical reality that was the British Empire. For the Crown it was also about economic opportunity and a way of life; a geo-political statement (take that, France!), an act of obligation and duty, and a sharing of one of the things it held most dear – British citizenship.
Those are big ideas that had massive repercussions. The treaty is part of our journey to a unique constitution and to being the first country to have universal suffrage, for example.
Those are some of the good bits. Sadly, it’s also part of the journey to war and inter-generational injustice. Nothing little there at all.
When you recognise the harm done due to the treaty’s weaknesses and the failure to honour it over the years, you can just as readily question Hipkins’ more positive framing of the document as “bold and visionary”. As hopeful as it was, it’s clear that the vision of all those at Waitangi was clouded and some of the choices around the treaty were as desperate and patchwork as they were bold.
That is how the events of history are. They are many things – big and little, bold and desperate, empowering and destructive, good and bad – all at once. And from our perspective all these years later, there’s so much more we miss.
What’s more, given Luxon was describing the country, not the tiriti, as a little experiment, the use of “little” jars even more. One of the defining threads of our national story is our ability to box above our weight on the world stage, to over-achieve, to be the mouse that roars. Little? Heck no.
So perhaps Luxon’s “little experiment” language is actually a chance to recognise the scale of our achievements. He has done well in subsequent interviews expanding on his thoughts and making precisely that point about the “fantastic country” and “generosity of spirit” that the treaty helped build. As clumsy as that phrase was, he does seems to acknowledge the scale of what this country has achieved in the - to steal his other phrase - “imperfect but inspiring” 183 years since. He made the interesting point that for all the grievances and inequalities yet to be resolved, many countries don’t have that spirit and are struggling as a result.
However as he’s explained his “little experiment” comment, he has shot himself in the other foot along the way. On RNZ this morning he made a couple of odd and dubious historical claims. He said that the goodwill signing of such a treaty in 1840 was “unprecedented” and that signing a treaty to found a country “didn’t happen pre-1840 around the world”.
To be generous, Luxon would be right to say that starting a country by treaty is rare. Most start in conquest and violence. However goodwill treaties between tribes, peoples, civilisations and empires have been common for centuries. Even with the British empire and its encounters with indigenous peoples, there are hundreds of examples of treaties with first nations people in India, Canada and the US pre-dating the Treaty of Waitangi. The precedents are many. As Leader of the Opposition speaking on our national day, he really needs to ger his history down.
What perhaps is most encouraging for race relations in New Zealand is his willingness to honestly and clearly disagree over co-governance. Even if you find his views misguided, there is nothing duplicitous in his position. And more importantly, Luxon is openly critical of the Don Brash-era of the National Party and much more aligned with the John Key years. That means we can expect decent, if heated, debate over Maori-Pakeha relations rather than an attempt to whip up fear and division. For a Waitangi Day in an election year, given the times we live in, that in itself is something worth acknowledging as we continue with this rather grand experiment we call New Zealand. Or Aotearoa. See what I mean about the experiment being ongoing?