It used to be accepted knowledge. The man who features on our $50 bills Sir Apirana Ngata, was clear about it in 1922.

Now, however, to say Māori ceded sovereignty is regarded as almost blasphemous by the professional, political, and managerial classes. That is to say, our decision-makers in the public service, media, academia, and in much of the corporate sphere have created a new taboo.

As we have got farther away from the events of 1840 it seems these people are more confident that those reporting on the matter much closer to the time were wholly incorrect. 

I stumbled across a discussion I had with Dr Michael Bassett about the matter of sovereignty back in 2017 and thought I would share his wisdom with you. A noted historian, Dr Bassett was a Cabinet Minister in the fourth Labour Government and a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for ten years.

Q1. Did Māori chiefs cede sovereignty to the British Crown when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi or, as is now contended by some, did they not?

Michael Bassett: There has been some debate over the years about what, exactly, Māori believed they were signing in 1840 as Claudia Orange shows in her big book published in 1987 called "The Treaty of Waitangi".  Historians have chosen to work from a translation of the Māori version of the Treaty believing that to be the only fair basis for assessing the degree of Māori understanding.  Sir Apirana Ngata prepared an English translation of the Treaty in 1922 that argued that the Chiefs had “cede(d) absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all their lands”.  By the time I chaired the 1990 Commission and then served for a decade on the Waitangi Tribunal (1994-2004), the standard translation we used throughout our deliberations had been made by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu.  Here is his full translation of the Treaty:

“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.  But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”

Sir Hugh and the Tribunal in my time were in no doubt that the chiefs had ceded sovereignty to the Queen. A few inventive minds have more recently tried to dispute this, but after 170 plus years of acceptance there would seem to me as an historian to be a degree of futility, not to say deliberate trouble-making, in trying after all these years to upset what has been accepted by both Māori and Pakeha for so long.

Q2. Does the Treaty of Waitangi imply some kind of “partnership” between those New Zealanders with a Māori ancestor and the Crown (now represented by Her Majesty’s New Zealand Government), implying a qualitatively different relationship between those who chance to have a Māori ancestor and the rest of us? 

MB: If ever there was a declaration that we are one people and that Māori have the same rights and duties of citizenship, surely it is Sir Hugh’s translation of the Treaty’s third clause?  

It needs to be remembered that right from the beginning there was a problem defining who was a Māori. Intermarriage and co-habitation had started before the Treaty. Governments determined from early times, and this was defined in law, that a Māori was someone who was a half caste or more. That was important in defining whether someone was eligible to enrol on the Māori Roll for electoral purposes, or was obliged to enrol on the General roll. The problem was that fewer and fewer people had sufficient Māori blood to be eligible to enrol on the Māori rolls, and the rolls had a total of many fewer names on them than the rolls for general seats. The turnouts of Māori voters became conspicuously smaller than in general seats. No one checked as to whether anyone possessed sufficient Māori blood to satisfy the legal definition, and it would have been impossible to do so. 

In the Māori Purposes Act 1974, the definition of a Māori was altered. “Māori means a person of the Māori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person”.  This was a controversial decision by the Kirk Labour Government and over the years it has enabled many people who are almost entirely of Pakeha ancestry to claim to be Māori if they wish to.  One suspects that neither the Crown nor the Māori signatories of the Treaty in 1840 would have anticipated or accepted such an extension of the Treaty’s provisions.  But then, as many historians will attest, few treaties last 177 years, and there is only one between some tribes somewhere in Afghanistan, I’m told, that lasted through a war. 

Some efforts have been made to argue that some kind of “partnership" exists between the Crown and Māori, but no one has tried so far as I know to determine whether either of the signatories had in mind a “partnership" between the Crown and someone who is, say, one sixty- fourth Māori, as many New Zealanders are today.

In any event, Sir Hugh’s translation of Article 3 surely rules out any special relationship/privilege for Māori or for their modern descendants over non-Māori.  And since there was no such thing as a properly functioning democracy either in England or in New Zealand in 1840, the question of “political rights” wasn’t an issue at the time. Are some people just trying to re-write the Treaty to suit their current agendas?

Q3. Does the Treaty of Waitangi, Article 3 of which (in every version of the Treaty) guaranteed the “rights and privileges of British subjects” to all New Zealanders, imply that those with a Māori ancestor should have different political rights to those enjoyed by other New Zealanders?

MB: From Sir Hugh Kawharu’s translation of the Treaty above, there most certainly was no implication of special rights, “political” or otherwise for Māori.  Their land was protected, but so was the right of Māori to sell that land on agreed terms.  And Māori had the same “rights and duties of citizenship” as non-Māori.

Q4. In a society with many scores of ethnicities, is it conducive to social harmony to accord special political status to those with a Māori ancestor?

MB: The desirability of racial harmony is the biggest issue for [critics of Hobson's Pledge] – indeed for all New Zealanders – to think about.  For me, having lived in the southern states (the ex-slave states) of the US, and having visited and taught South African history over the years, I know of no examples of the concept of nationhood or unity being enhanced in any society by a government allowing one set of privileges denied to others on racial grounds. Apart from which, with Māori rapidly losing their original visual distinction, how can the rest of society work out who is entitled to any special treatment?  Special privileges for some will inevitably encourage the less scrupulous in society to join them. Where does that lead us?  And who benefits from the fraud?

Dr Bassett makes some excellent points. But despite being one of the New Zealanders most qualified to speak on the matter, he is just as likely as any of us to be shouted down and hounded for expressing such moderate and inoffensive views.

The reality is that no matter how politely expressed nor how expert the speaker, holding the view that Māori ceded sovereignty is unacceptable to the media, academia, and public sector.  

This week in Parliament, Te Pāti Māori MP Takuta Ferris gave a speech in which he made some frankly outrageous claims. They were laughable, in fact. I believe there is a term for what he was doing: 'gaslighting' (manipulate someone using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning). He said:

"When you mention "constitution" in this House, everyone runs for cover. This House seems allergic to constitutional discussion or debate—unless, of course, they are defining the terms of engagement themselves with no regard to the history or evidence...

...Well, we're not going anywhere and neither is the debate. And when you're ready to have it with te iwi Māori—an open debate—the invitation is here, and we'll be waiting."   

Mr Ferris, there are plenty of New Zealanders who are willing to have the discussion. Many New Zealanders think the discussion should be had urgently. However, in our experience those who would agree with Te Pāti Māori are the ones 'running for cover' and being 'allergic' to debating the issues.

To have a discussion does not mean that Mr Ferris and Te Pāti Māori tell the rest of us how it is going to be while we remain silent. That is the opposite of a discussion. A discussion requires Mr Ferris and co to actually listen to those they disagree withand then he can expect to be listened to in return. 

There can be no mature discussion about our future as a country until everybody accepts that the Treaty provided for the government to have final authority, with all citizens - no matter their ancestry - having equal rights.

Thank you for your ongoing support.