THE MAORI KING

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6244, 19 June 1946, Page 11

THE MAORI KING

KOROKI MAKES NO PRETENSIONS ANTI-CLIMAX AT WAIKATO SETTLEMENT (By “Te Hokioi” in Freedom) The most unfortunate aspect of the settlement of the Raupatu, as the longstanding compensation claim is known locally in Waikato, was the attention which the utterances of one Tita Wetere, formerly of Morrinsville and now of Kawhia, attracted in the daily press. The real issue, that is the settlement, was obscurbed. Public attention was directed to Wetere’s claim that King Koroki, the hereditary leader of the Tainui and allied tribes, should receive statutory recognition as the Maori King, a claim that was never advocated by any of the latter’s predecessors, and one that, even to-day in Waikato, would not be offered by any of his responsible advisers.

All Maori thinkers will agree that King Koroki can only be a moral force. Some perhaps will go further and say that he is, and can be even in a greater degree in the passing of the years, a spiritual force. King Koroki represents the concentration of mana, through the centuries, a force that all merrbeis of the race readily recognise. A true rangatira, humble in spirit and, in every sense of the expression, the servant of his people, Waikato’s young leader has already won respect for the manner in which he has fulfilled his onerous duties. He is the last man to make any pretensions. Nevertheless, King Koroki knows his place in Maori society as the representative of his ancestors, as the head of his family, and as the father of his people.

It can be said at the outset that Wetere’s claims do not represent the majority of public opinion in Waikato. Whatever might be the feelings of the people there towards the Maori king (and it is known that they hold him in great reverence), they have no desire to force him upon any other section of the Maori people. I have always maintained, and still believe, that if the Kiingitanga (the movement of which King Koroki is the hereditary head) is guided wisely, and viewed sympathetically by those in Government office, it can still be a power for good, one of the greatest unifying- factors in Maori society. Before ever the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) set foot upon Turangawaewae’s sacred marae at Ngaruawahia on that fateful April day, Wetere’s proposals had been debated at much length. Some day the full story of what then ensued will be known. It would serve no good purpose to cover the ground at this moment: it will suffice to say that Wetere’s proposal that the King should receive statutory recognition was defeated. Pei Te Jiurinui Jones and others, imbued with a wider knowledge of conditions outside Waikato, realised the danger in particular of such a claim. They knew, only too well, just what the repercussions would be. Therefore, it came as a bombshell when Wetere, in the presence of the Prime Minister, and speaking in English, made public those sections of what was, on the whole, an exceedingly able exposition of Waikato’s case, to which objection had been taken by the Waikato chiefs themselves. What occurred subsequently is public property. There was a meeting following the departure of Mr Fraser from the marae, a vote of no-confidence was passed in Wetere, and his statement was repudiated. Wetere’s declaration might well have wrecked proceedings. The Prime Minister, however, did not take advantage of the situation, though he was quick to point out the claim that all the Maori people accepted King Koroki’s leadership would have to be substantiated. Wisely, he got down to the business of the meeting. Mr Fraser made his offer, and, thanks to Princess Te Puea, who for years has been the power behind the political and social scene in Waikato, the Government’s offer of £6OOO annually for 50 years and after that £5OOO annually for all time, w|as accepted. On the whole, it is a generous settlement, though even now a section of Waikato believe that it should have contained at least some land.

It is recalled that just such blundering as Wetere’s had, on a previous occasion, ruined what promised to have been a settlement. The consequence was embittered feelings within Waikato itself, and the death of one of their most beloved chiefs. There is no tribe in the country, that can claim complete unity within its ranks. Waikato, in common with the <Ohers, includes many diverse elements. There vdere those who, prior to Mr Fraser’s visit, were opposed to any settlement whatsoever. What Government was in power was beside the question. There were others again who, while favouring a settlement, wanted it in part at least in land. Others still believed that a financial payment, or series of payment, was acceptable.

But it has taken many, many years to obtain even anything approaching a semblance of unity. Undoubtedly, the credit is due to Te Puea herself. For the past quarter of a century she has, with the support of a loyal

following, established more goodwill for the Kiingitanga than has been known since the early days of its inception. By her own works she has become known from one end of Aotearoa to the other as a wise and capable leader, essentially practical in all her dealings, one who has raised the status not only of her own tribes, but of the race as a whole. The blessing is that this settlement has been achieved during her lifetime. Actually, it is the culmination of her life’s work, the realisation of her dreams. It would be equally true to say that if there had been no Te Puea, there would have been no settlment—at any rate, not in our time. The wprst sore on the Maori body politic would have gone on festering indefinitely.

The Government has been wise in effecting this settlement. If the pronouncements Mr Fraser made at Ngaruawahia had been uttered by a responsible Minister years ago infinite suffering, disillusionment, and bitterness towfards the pakeha would have been avoided. However, a new day has dawned for Waikato, a people who, for almost a century, have held to their ideals in the face of oppression, ridicule, and score. Much of the latter, incidentally, has come from other sections of the Maori people. It can be said, too, that practical as Te Puea is, it was not the financial side of the Raupatu’s settlement that interested her particularly. Te Puea has known poverty, ostracism, and misunderstanding. Rather was it the fact that the Sim Commission’s report substantiated the Waikato attitude, revealed to the public that her people had right on their side, agreed that justice should be done them. In the sweeping confiscation of land that followed a war engineered by landhungry pakehas upon a people goaded into so-called “rebellion” (though, actually, hostilities did not begin on the Maori side), guilty and innocent suffered alike. There were some hapus of Waikato, it will be recalled, who fought on the Queen’s side. It is typical of Te Puea, too, that now Waikato’s claim has been settled, it is her wish that from the first payment to her people portion should be given to Ngai-te-rangi, and those East Coast tribes who shed their blood for Waikato, and who have not, as yet, received any compensation for land taken from them.

It is impossible, in this article, to deal with the history of the Kiingitanga, or to explain its development

as a force in the Maori w'orld. It is a fact though that as a movement it has a part to play in Maori life. Of all the Maori movements it has been the least understood—not merely by pakehas but also by many Maoris. True enough, only a section of the Maori people subscribe to the Kiingitanga. But the race as a whole recognise in King Koroki the successor to a long line of chiefs, an aristocrat of the bluest blood who, by his simple dignity and bearing and desire for good feeling among all the tribes, is worthy of their respect. Respect for their King is all that Waikato ask from their fellow Maoris. Is it asking too much to suggest that their pakeha fellow New Zealanders do the same?