Whakarongo Mai Aotearoa

I recently had the privilege of having an article published by the New Zealand Law Society on the End of Life Choice Act 2019 looking at the legislation. In writing that article, I felt anxiety that I could not initially explain.

Then it came to me. I had very different views rooted in Tikanga Māori from my upbringing compared to a western worldview. As a young child, the world ended for me at the fence line of my marae. That is largely still a personal truth for me. It is where I learned that Tikanga is a law into itself. Our first law.

From that vantage point, I indeed saw some Tikanga Māori issues with the Act that I thought may not have been canvassed. In doing so, I make two concessions. First, I do not speak for all Māori, nor could I. Second, there are different understandings of Tikanga to each iwi and whānau.

To be clear, when you read my LawTalk article in full, you will understand that none of this is about me telling you what to vote. I feel anxiety around thinking people might want me to do just that. Currently, I’m no politician. Your vote is your own, but the vote of the majority will be binding on us all. I have heard some people say the Act itself will not be easily open to revision. On that, I am unsure, but know that future changes might be difficult. I simply ask you think (and read) about the Act.

We all need to remember, that Māori and our Tikanga have to live in the world that you vote for. It is unclear if the realities that Māori are the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa, are its first kaitiaki (guardians) or even ongoing Te Tiriti obligations of the Government has had much sway in the current state of the proposed Act. We must admit that these realities are relevant to us all. Again, I ask you to think, carefully.

I encourage everyone to explore different views in reaching their own. I know it’s hard Aotearoa because we have busy lives. Secondly, some people have strong, polarising views. We know it’s those views that grab headlines, end up on TV and flood the internet. Finding your truth has never been harder. To make things worse, Tikanga Māori and Te Tiriti, in my view, seem to be latecomers to an already lengthy debate.

I wonder how much of that lateness is my fault or those who similarly advocate as lawyers for Māori interests. All I can say is I, like many others, try my best. Yet, without intending to flare tensions, given the shameful and embedded racism of our country it is sometimes really hard to even do that; our best. I have found it can be particularly hard to get non-Māori to listen. It can be as if all the powerful moemoea (dreams) and kupu (words) of your tupuna have been reduced to an imperceptible whisper. It breaks my heart, everyday. And I for one am not too proud to say it makes me cry.

I believe that Māori, having already suffered and lost so much, at the end of the day just want to be genuinely listened to. If this article does nothing else, I hope it enables people who disagree with Māori to do so with more compassion.

In my view, the Act presents real issues for Māori to grapple with. To think otherwise would be reckless. Māori whānau are much more than a nuclear unit and tend towards collective decision making. In addition, many Māori still live in accordance with the mauri principle, which places the highest value on life itself. I previously crafted this whakataukī to try capture such thinking:

“Ko te toikura, ko te toitāngata, me maumahara, kei pō, kei pōuri”

“People are the greatest wealth/treasure, this we must remember, for when we lose them, (especially elders and tamariki), we indeed are poorer for it.”.

Māori also have whakapapa, wairua and pepeha connections. When I recite “Ko Tikapa Te Moana”, I am saying to you “I am my Ocean”. Yet none of these connections or our thinking feature in the wording of the Act.

Since people have worth, significance and their mauri is critical, ending a life may require engagement with Tino Rangatiratanga: the Tikanga principle allowing decisions for oneself without harming yourself or others. Might we have to consider Tino Rangatiratanga without limitation? In my view, to consider assisted dying legislation as a matter of individual autonomy denies that as humans, we are part of a much larger group with complex connections. It also denies that as Māori, whakapapa, wairua and pepeha connections are everything.

I ask about any notion of cultural support and note the absence in the Act of the need for people to be kept ‘culturally safe’. A Tikanga Māori expert panel should have been appointed or a Māori body given some level of oversight. This oversight remains critical where there could be a need to discuss how such a choice to end one’s life influences whānau and their practices, particularly around mate, tūpāpaku, tangihanga and pāmamae. Having someone knowledgeable available to all people and especially Māori, should not have ever been left to the wayside in the Act.

In the end, I still have concerns with the Act. I encourage you to reach your own view. I hope either article I wrote is helpful to whānau and the wider hapori of Aotearoa.

Nā Edmond Carrucan (Ngāti Hako, Ngāti Pāoa, Te Whānau-a-Iritekura)

© Scoop Media