‘Simply a call for justice’

Press, 23 September 1987, Page 21

‘Simply a call for justice’

In the 1980 s, with cynicism as hard-set as concrete, it is difficult to picture Harry Evison returning from the terrors of World War II with a mission fired by idealism. Changing the world might have been a 1960 s catch-cry but in 1945 it did not seem particularly starry-eyed, says one of the key researchers for the Ngal Tahu land claim.

Like others of his generation, Hany Evison thought the wrongs of the world could be overcome if people became well informed and determined to think for themselves. If something was amiss, such people would try to change it He saw this possibility projecting itself through history and education. If people understood why certain situations developed they could prevent them from haunting the present. Wrongs could be rectified. Education could influence the future, gearing the young to be informed, their abilities fully developed in every subject, so they became capable of looking after their own health and caring for others.

But these days the system is still the same as it was then. If people do something for change they do it in spite of the system, not because of it. A system which encouraged New Zeafanders to turn to their history books and work toward positive change would have produced people who were more supportive of the Ngai Tahu land claim, he says. “They would have been more tolerant — it is really a form of intolerance reaching for your revolver every time you hear something you don’t agree with.” Though sorely disillusioned with the education system in New Zealand, Harry Evison is still holding out hopes for history. But the public loves to simplify. There must be someone to blame. Harry admits, to his shame, that some contemporary historians are even guilty of this tendency. It only proves an obstacle in getting any fresh look at history accepted; he says. Goodies and baddies do not come into history. People only act according to their own understanding and prejudices of the time. “My own interest in the claim is not because I have a sentiment or special attachment to the Maori but because I am a New Zealander. All New Zealanders should be concerned about the injustices brought into our past.” In the past there were those who based their lives on a white-is-iight philosophy. “Now there are people who think that everything that was white is wrong." His view of New Zealand his-

tory is that Maori and European were merely humans who were subject to the same kind of faults and weaknesses. “I would not discriminate at all about the virtue of one race or the other.”

Reactions to the Ngai Tahu claim have been widely varied. There are those, from as far afield as Auckland and Dunedin, who have reacted in a way which would suggest they feel “their" country has been invaded.

“That people get up in arms as soon as the claim is launched does seem to indicate a very serious psychological block,” says Harry Evison. “What are they complaining about? Don’t they want the evidence to be put forward? Are they afraid the Waitangi Tribunal is too stupid to see through any faults?”

With a line-up of judges, professors, and bishops, the tribunal could scarcely be described as a panel of fools. "They will not accept anything that is not 100 per cent valid. If people realised that perhaps their fears would be allayed.”

Claims presented in the past dealt with evidence which referred to the wording of particular deeds. The passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act, 1985, gave the Waitangi Tribunal jurisdiction to investigate claims under the act going back to 1840.

The treaty is now arguable in a court of law and a completely new way of presenting evidence has been developed. The Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board has extended its offices, and spent more than $250,000 in a massive effort to gather documents and prove their relationship to the treaty.

“The Waitangi Tribunal is concerned with bringing to light any instance where people suffered as a result of the Crown’s breach of the treaty,” says Harry Evison.

“It is saying that the treaty was a solemn engagement, cases ought to be shown up, and remedies if they are called for should be made. “When we have evidence in our hands we must take it into account. The claim is simply a call for justice and I would say anyone who has got a claim for justice against the Crown is entitled to make it, whether that person is Maori, pakeha, or of any other race.” Otherwise, the Crown would be free to trample over the indivi-

dual, and people would no longer have freedom.

“In claiming justice these claims are in the interest of everyone because they mean a blow against the all powerful State which could otherwise do what it likes.

“Anyone who believes in justice should applaud the claims. Let the evidence be presented, let the tribunal consider it. Because the tribunal is perfectly competent to decide whether it is valid or not.”

In many ways Harry Evison epitomises the spirit of the people behind the claim. A gentleman and a true blue Cantabrian, he is a modest quietly spoken chap who still tips his hat in a way which makes some yearn for the more widespread return of such forgotten graces. His great grandparents on his mother’s side planted their roots in Lyttelton in the 1850 s, his father, S. R. Evison, an historian and publisher, came from England in 1911.

“We were always brought up to believe that the Maori people were as good as us. At Lyttelton with the Maori communiity there, we were always aware of their presence. “I often wondered why it was that in the South Island, Canterbury in particular, the Maori people were the least well off. Yet obviously to start with they must have had the most land.

It puzzled him, particularly since he was aware that the general theory in New Zealand history, that the Maori went into decline after the EuropeanMaori wars, did not apply. There had been no such wars in the South Island.

After a spell in Wellington at what was then Victoria College, Harry returned to Christchurch in 1950, completing a history thesis on Ngai Tahu land rights, through Otago University.

The thesis established a basic framework which still stands up today, he says. “But now I’m getting access to material which was not available then, I can fill it in, find some things were not exactly as I supposed, and finish a picture which is now much more informative and accurate.” The results have been presented in his book, “Ngai Tahu Land Rights,” published in 1986 and 1987, and evidence revealed to the Waitangi Tribunal. But there is still a very well established body of opinion among the public which hinges on earlier interpretations of this part of history.” In his book, “The Centennial History of Canterbury,” volume I, published in 1957, Carl Straubel, wrote several chapters on the Ngai Tahu land transactions. “This book is still the one the general public accepts as being the story of what actually happened. But there are some serious errors. Not because Straubel was a bad historian — he was a good historian — but because the material was not then available,” says Harry Evison. In the past, historical docu--ments were under the control of individual Government departments. Any official in a department could refuse access to those documents. “Now with the National Archives those departments pass the documents into a safe secure library system which is completely open. No-one would venture to say what you can or cannot see,” says Harry Evison. “This is just an illustration of the fact that with history, as time goes by and new material comes

to light then the story has got to be amended. So its no good people saying a book published in the 1950 s has got to be right, or quoting it as 'the last word’ because it is not.” One South Island newspaper did not publish a single word of Harry Evison’s evidence at the first Ngai Tahu land claim hearing, he says. “But at the end of the week they produced an editorial saying the claim was ‘rubbish.’

He reads the words with distaste ... “aspects of the Ngai Tahu claim are familiar old friends to historians and have been taken through the mill at regular intervals in the past. Each time the general assumption has been that the issues have been fairly aired and a fair result reached ...” ",. .but the matter bubbles up again and a couple of generations later the whole issue is reaired ... the omens are not reassuring ... it is open to telling historical refutation.” The editorial is blatantly wrong, says Harry Evison. “Not only that but the paper has not given its public the opportunity to be the judge." There was evidence presented at the hearing which had not been brought forward in the past. “The editorial did not consider that, nor did it allow for the fact that this is a Waitangi Tribunal hearing and there has never been a claim based on the Waitangi Treaty before. “I can only presume that these reactions come from prejudices. People have had the desire to

remain with the age-old belief that everything in the past was fair and rosy.” Popular writing and highly reputable newspapers are apt to contribute to this philosophy by presenting an attitude that anything Maori should be ignored altogether. “In a country where few stop to think that thousands of Maoris were explorers, that they discovered New Zealand and the land within it,. the implication is Maoris are not people — it is a frightening and dangerous attitude.”

It also proves a formidable obstacle to research which today tends to show that the Maori people were not as well treated as the pakeha would like to believe.

Harry Evison’s work means battling against the tide, and he would welcome evidence which would show he can stop the struggle and go with the flow. In the meantime he remains bound in the spirit of idealism, a quiet confidence that the tribunal will make a recommendation to the Government and the Government will decide.

Then, after nearly 40 years with a knowledge of injustice, Harry Evison, historian, researcher, and disillusioned educator, can sit back and smile, knowing he did his part. “This is my country, my grandfather was born here, I was born here, it is our country and I want to see it put right. I don’t flatter myself that I’m doing some great trail-blazing. But in any little way that people are doing something different — be it art, music, or a land claim, it is healthy — it makes life worth while.

“Just the same as when you are in the mountains, huffing up a ridge. It is tough going but it does you good.”

$250,000 spent on land research

‘Reactions come

from prejudices’

JANE ENGLAND talks with Ngai Tahu land rights researchers