Māori did not cede Sovereignty.
There were two versions of the Treaty, the majority of Māori signed the version in Māori.
We are signed to UN Declarations that state when a Treaty is in 2 versions, the indigenous version takes precedence.
So, Māori did not cede Sovereignty.
That’s not to say the NZ Crown isn’t Sovereign.
It is, and it is via two means.
The first is simple osmosis, it is Sovereign because it has the Police, the Army, the Judiciary, the tax system – it is Sovereign because it has the power.
It’s also Sovereign because every Treaty settlement has the Iwi acknowledge the Crown’s Sovereignty.
So how do you honour a Treaty with an indigenous people who didn’t cede Sovereignty?
This was what the Treaty Principles was an attempt at, to put together a loose set of guidelines open to interpretation by those willing to work together.
The Treaty Principles give us a blueprint, an infrastructure to build upon and pragmatic Pakeha and Māori used the space created by the Treaty Principles to build; It is this legal infrastructure that ACT want a referendum over.
Put aside the injustice of the majority deciding the rights of the minority, what the hard right are longing for by removing the Treaty Principles is Conquest Sovereignty minus the bloodshed and violence of actual conquest.
This fantasy, that Māori will allow the hard right to redefine the Treaty relationship between them and the Crown MINUS any input from them is being allowed to go ahead because Chris Luxon is so incredibly weak as a Prime Minister.
We shouldn’t be frightened about debating the issues, but Treaty’s are to be honoured, not settled.
….yet.
Hi Martyn,
I love your work even though I disagree with a lot of it. The Working Group podcast is brilliant, I hope it stays for a long time.
If what you say is true, that Maori didn’t cede Sovereignty and yet the Crown is Sovereign well then the only resolution to this paradox is that the Crown has no authority over Maori. Denying this is to say that they have authority over Maori because they “have the power” as you put it which is a dangerous argument. That implies one just needs to gain power to have authority. That never ends well.
I think you may have gotten a bit swept up with this whole principles (non)issue. First of all the principles are not a proper noun. The Treaty of Waitangi Act is:
“An Act to provide for the observance, and confirmation, of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by establishing a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and to determine whether certain matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty”
The courts attempting to define the principles is irrelevant. Section 5(2) states:
“In exercising any of its functions under this section the Tribunal shall have regard to the 2 texts of the Treaty set out in Schedule 1 and, for the purposes of this Act, shall have exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them.”
The Tribunal has exclusive authority. End of story right there. And so they should.
But all of this is totally irrelevant. We have huge problems with policies and other decisions being made on race in this country. It is just as stupid as policies based on hair colour. People are just bad at deriving meaning from statistics. For example, we care about health. So we measure health outcomes. Then someone has a stupid idea of grouping it by race. We see Maori disproportionately have worse outcomes. We would probably see the same thing for people with dark hair. Does that mean we should provide more assistance to dark haired people? No you can’t use statistics this way. Correlation is causation. High school grade statistics. If you did this in your exam you would fail. But it sure works to convince most people because. It is the underlying factors that matter. In this case living rurally in lower quality housing is far more likely to be the underlying cause. Group the statistics that way and I bet you find even greater correlation than race or hair colour. Ok so how do we provide better access to healthcare and better quality homes for people living rurally? Oh but wait no we are just going to give people preferential treatment in the cities to people based on race. Yeah… that ain’t going to fix diddly squat. In fact that’s probably going to end up taking more money away from remote clinics.
But my point is, where in this bad policy did the Treaty come into play? Did the Tribunal decide this? No, some misguided bureaucrats did. They didn’t do this because of some misinterpretation of the treaty principles. They did it because of social and political pressure which is completely misguided. So then why the heck will defining (unenforceable) treaty principles change anything?
John Campbell got totally shot down by David Seymour the other night. David’s made some very great points but he actually failed to answer the root of John’s question. How specifically will defining the treaty principles prevent race based policies? Please ask him this next time he is on your podcast. Don’t get bamboozled like John did. David’s has to say how the principles being undefined led to this problem (whether you actually agree with the problem or not is irrelevant) and specifically how defining them fixes it. I’ll tell you now, it won’t and he won’t be able to answer.
Oh and I asked him specifically if he would repeal section 5(2) the other week at a town hall meeting and he just hand waved it away saying the Treaty Principles Bill would supersede it. That’s total BS.
This bill is never meant to pass. I think Hooton has a point. This isn’t going to swing voters left or right but it might pull some voters from National and NZ First into Act.
All this is very disappointing. They could have achieved so much more with meta-regulations such as the Regulatory Responsibility Act which finally had a chance at getting through and they blew it with this treaty principles nonsense.
Anyway, I hope something here sparks some interesting thoughts and conversations and I look forward to hearing about it.
The treaty was not signed by any government as NZ did not have a government till 15 years later .So what gives Semoure and luxon the right to even think about changing the principals of the treaty .Surely the only parties who could and should talk are Maori and the current King who is actually the crown .
You are confused.
It is about communities, Jason, not race. I have a Maori health provider which delivers an excellent level of service with largely but not exclusively Maori staff. The local marae provides me with material and social support in the event of emergency (Covid or Cyclone Gabrielle). There are no institutions of black (or grey) haired people out there which are able to do the same. (And before anyone accuses me of pure self-interest, I do my best to reciprocate and to honour the kaupapa)
It is hard for me to relate to the idea of the New Zealand state as a benefactor. From my experiences as an inmate of a juvenile detention centre to adult prison and through my working life I have seen colonialism as a harshly amoral system of government.
The left have their treaty principles, and the right have their (travesty of) treaty principles, and frankly I don’t give a damn for either of them, but I do want to retain those definitively Maori institutions which make life not only easier, but worth living. I want those institutions to become stronger and more pervasive. Ultimately I would like to see them supersede the colonialist state.
What would happen if all the treaties signed after world war 1 and 2 were all of a sudden deemed to be not suited to the views of one section of society ?.Would that mean the Nazis could start slaughtering non whites again or that the USA could drop more atomic bombs on Japan tomorrow ?No doubt there would be out rage .Here in NZ where the treaty has never really been honored by one party and was used to relieve the other of land and rights to exist as they did before the treaty which were parts of said treaty .Hobson said to Maori that they could now enjoy their perfect independence .
The Treaty is a an irrelevant smoke screen.
The simple reality is that the right wing wanted revenge at the 2023 election.
National looked set to win in 2017 but Peters switched sides because of a slight from the Right.
So Adern became PM and the right wing believed she and Labour were fake and would soon fall.
But then the Christchurch massacre happened.
Adern and Labour gained world acclaim.
Then Covid struck.
The right wing absolutely hated the way Adern became the Covid Goddess.
The right wing hated how Adern and Labour gained world acclaim .
The right endured two years of Adern/Labour worship daily on TV.
The right wing hated how Labour destroyed the right wing in 2020.
Then Adern left meaning she remains undefeated.
Bt 2023 the right wing were totally off their head with jealousy, rage and on revenge overload.
So the right wing reverted to type, to gutter politics and resorted to the one sure policy winner.
Maori blaming, leading to Maori hate leading to Maori bashing leading to right wing election victory.
And as they always do the majority White voters took the bait like hyhena on methamphetamine.
Those are the historical political facts.
Treaty talk is just a smoke screen.
Appealing to White prejudice ignorance and power has always enabled the right White wing
to dominate NZ Politics, always has always will.
Seymore is the new champion of the Free White Right who want to do away with all this Maaori nonsense. However what he needs to realise, is that Māori are te tangata whenua and that most Māori land was acquired by stealth. Even Uncle Winnie & his Cuzzie Bro Shane are clearly ignorant of Early NZ History. Baldrick 6 Pads Luxton is just way off the mark.
This Treaty Principles Bill is going to turn into a right Dogs Breakfast it will be quite entertaining Seymore wil rant and rave until he turns blue in the face , Baldrick will say sweet FA as he is largely uneducated on NZ History and Winnie and Shame Jones will throw their 5 cents in when they think it is appropriate. Stock up on the popcorn “It’s Going to be Fun” IMHO.
Maori ceded kawanatanga but not rangatiratanga to the British Crown, which gave the poms the right to govern Aotearoa but that governance has to recognise the self determination and authority of Maori, aka their sovereignty.
Seymore is acting ultra vires, beyond his powers, and any responsible government would never make such a foolish mistake as calling for a referendum calling for a re-write of the principles, which would clearly be illegal.
Show’s how incompetent National and Luxon really are letting this thing develop into what will be a huge Dog’s Breakfast.
What is new? The irony. Still the white man … telling the ‘ others’ how to appease the Colonial lords and then the ‘ others’ still having to seek the white man’s permission on how to exist since forever.
THE MOTIVES FOR ANNIHILATING A RACE OF PEOPLE – A DELUSIONAL BELIEF IN WHITE SUPERIORITY IN ALL THINGS AND FOR UNBRIDLED POWER TO PROFIT THE FEW FEUDAL LORDS.
17TH Century the Irish language, education and expressions of Irish culture, such as its music, were banned under the Penal Laws of 1695. The Protestant ruling class brought in laws to stop Irish natives from owning or buying land. They were forbidden from entering professions, holding public office, receiving education, renting land of over a certain value, renting or inheriting from Protestants, owning horses of a value of more than five pounds or trading.
THE BANNING OF MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS BECAUSE IT ORALLY CONVEYED HISTORY DOWN THROUGH THE CENTURIES !!!
And if you ‘ others ‘ do not submit across the British Empire the Colonial powers will make it illegal to exist other than the WHITE way.
.The Native Exemption Ordinance 1844.
. The New Zealand Constitution Act 1846
.The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852
.The Resident Magistrates’ Act 1867.
.Tohunga Suppression Act 1907.
.Land Claims Ordinance 184.
. Native Land Purchase Ordinance 1846.
. New Zealand Settlements Act 1863.
. Native Lands Acts 1862.
. Native Lands Acts 1865
. The ‘10-owner rule’.
AND THE WHITE MAN RECORDED EVIDENCE OF HIS OWN CRIMES…
” MP Robert Bruce declared that ‘we could not devise a more ingenious method of destroying the whole of the Maori race than by these land courts. The natives come from the villages in the interior, and have to hang about for months in our centres of population … They are brought into contact with the lowest classes of society, and are exposed to temptation, the result is that a great number contract our diseases and die.”
And in between the superior Colonial powers will prevail by a ‘ whack a mole ‘ system of changing of legislation as it arises if skirmishes of rebellion or non submission arise ( sometimes by killing too).
. West Coast Reserves Settlement Act 1881.
. The Native Lands Rating Act 1882 (Māori land was rated at up to 300% of equivalent European land).
.Public Works Lands Act 1864.Maori Land Amendment Act 1952
.Native Rights Bill 1894.
. Maori Lands Administration Act 1900
. Maori Land Amendment Act 1952.
. The Maori Affairs Act 1953 ( more than 90% of Māori land had been alienated by 1952 )
. 1950s a series of laws overruled Māori inheritance customs.
. The Status of Children Act 1969.
.Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995.
. Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.
. Some of the ones Seymour is hunting down now with the Regulations SS crew and his Screw the Treaty Bill because they hold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
• State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, section 9, the Conservation Act 1987, section 4, the Resource Management Act 1991, section 8, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000, section 6.
Te Ture Whenua Māori 1993
. the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
. The Care of Children – Chhour 2024
2024 CHANGE THE LAW AGAIN, The FUCK TE TIRITI BILL – IT’S IS IN THE WAY !
……
AND TODAY JUST LIKE THOSE FECKIN INFERIOR NATIVE IRISH SAVAGES
ERICA ANNOUNCED ( JUST AFTER MAORI LANGUAGE WEEK ) THE END OF FUNDING FOR …… ( NO not Japanese, Mandarin, German, French , Spanish ..)
the end of funding for Maori language learning by teachers in order to fund the private interests of the authors of a back to the 50s maths book.
Like 100%
If you want to preserve a language, learn the language. It’s pathetic to ramble on about gubmints while you hold, a hand out for $. Just study free materials, go to free classes. Start a study groups. Ffs, why is there such a dependency mindset when it comes to saving a culture?
YAWN…..seems maori are excempt from things they sign, if they don’t like it later on!
Blah…blah..blah, sovereignty was indeed ceded, get used to it.
I didn’t read past the paywall, but there has been some interesting comment from Chris Trotter of “The Democracy Project”. In response to the question “Is it possible to defend the Treaty and Democracy?” Trotter offers the opinion that “the greatest enemy of Māori, since 1853, has been the Pakeha Parliament”. This pernicious comment tries to pit Maori against Pakeha. Yet Trotter knows very well that it is not a “Pakeha” parliament either in form or substance. He chooses to represent it as such in order to create distrust of Pakeha. The fact that a majority of the parliamentarians “European New Zealanders” is purely accidental. The problem is not with their race, but their colonialist (and now neo-liberal) political ideology which is reinforced by the very structures of parliament and constitution.
The greatest enemy of Maori since 1840 (not 1853) has been colonialism. Period.
Trotter also seems to be saying that we will have to choose between the “Treaty” and “Democracy” (and it is not at all clear which side this infamous political chameleon will come down on). In fact the only way that te Tiriti can be honoured is through rangatiratanga which is the only genuinely democratic system of governance we have ever known.
If you want to preserve a language, learn the language. It’s pathetic to ramble on about gubmints while you hold, a hand out for $. Just study free materials, go to free classes. Start a study groups. Ffs, why is there such a dependency mindset when it comes to saving a culture?