The strength of our three pillars – our government, our Church and our traditional leaders – and how they interact with our lives affects everyone who calls themselves a Cook Islands Maori, writes Thomas Tarurongo Wynne.

A chair with two legs cannot stand neither can a building without firm foundations. Proverbs says a three-cord strand or rope, is not quickly broken and why the three pillars of our country – our government, our Church and our traditional leaders have kept us stable and unbroken since 1965.

The question I ask is what happens if one leg becomes too big and the other small, or if we move just one of those legs too close to the other. The answer of course is instability and eventually that chair or building will fall. So what then do we make of the suggestion that the House of Ariki or one of our pillars asks for more power or recognition and should they determine title disputes or be the Head of State for our country?

Colonel Walter Edward Gudgeon knew when he arrived in Rarotonga in August 1898, that then Premier Richard Seddon had given him two clear task – to remove two of those pillars, namely our traditional leaders and the power of the Church. By way of legislation, he set up the Land Court and removed the power of the Ariki and diminished the power of the Church. Gudgeon had served as a Land Court Judge in New Zealand as they dismantled land from Maori and disposed them, so he knew the power the Land Court could bring. He in fact said in his Journals if Makea Takau had understood why he was sent to the Cook Islands, she would never have taken him in. In less than ten years, he had stripped Ariki of all power and were resigned to ceremonial roles in this new colony of New Zealand.

Advance 40 years and the newly formed Legislative Council and Assembly, precursors to our self-government, were littered with traditional leaders in fact the newly elected Premier Albert Henry would in time take the title of Tu-mata-Ora Mataiapo, a title held by his late mother. Our current Prime Minister Mark Brown holds Te Ara Rangatira title and this relationship between traditional title holders and country leaders continues.

In May 1965, as our country’s future was being decided, a delegation headed by Albert Henry visited New Zealand to discuss changes to the Constitution with a Parliamentary select committee. They took with them a proposal to establish a House of Ariki with the power to refer legislation back to the Legislative Assembly. At that time the idea of the House of Ariki providing the Head of State was discussed but it was not progressed, neither was there any mention of their right to comment and refer legislation back to Parliament like the House of Lords functions in Great Britain.

Over the next few years, as the House of Ariki sought unsuccessfully to influence policymaking and the legislative process, concerns voiced by Geoffrey Henry and Tangaroa Tangaroa, the then Member of Parliament for Penrhyn  and time would show, in nation building, Ariki were to be denied any effective role in State making and confined to a Government controlled customary and consultative role only.

In July 1972, after firmly rejecting the 1970 House of Ariki paper to Cabinet, the government amended the House of Ariki Act to establish an alternative, government friendly forum to the House of Ariki named the Koutu Nui.

For a number of reasons, the relationship between the House of Ariki and Premier Henry had disintegrated and the Koutu Nui comprising mata’iapo and rangatira, was enacted. The Koutu Nui was sworn in during a ceremony on Koutu Nui Day, 21 June 1973. Fast forward 48 years and it would seem these roles have been reversed with a more government favourable House of Ariki and a Koutu Nui who by the determination of the Kaumaiti Tou Ariki, “have behaved badly and must be disbanded”.

Regardless, the historical context which is important and sometimes gets lost in today’s thinking, we need to ask ourselves, should title disputes be settled in a court of law, or should they be settled by our traditional leaders. Should a magistrate, a lawyer and the kind of justice you can afford determine who should settle these disputes or our traditional leaders led by island communities and the protocol that they determine is how Ariki are selected.

And who should be the Head of State for our country. Should it be a political appointment drawing from the pillar of government for our country or should it be drawn from our traditional leaders and the House of Ariki. The question is what then becomes of our Constitution and who then do we swear allegiance to. This is a complicated matter but one we should all lean into, because the strength of our three pillars, and how they interact with our lives affects everyone who calls themselves a Cook Islands Maori.