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.

A few weeks ago I wrote to you urging that, if you lived in one of the 45 towns and districts which have created Māori wards, or have decided to create Māori wards as from the next local body elections in 2025, you should write to your local councillors urging them to think again.

Recap: the Helen Clark Labour Government gave local councils the right to establish Māori wards but, because creating racially-based wards was a major constitutional issue, also gave ratepayers the right to demand a referendum if they objected to such wards.

In every district where councils sought to create Māori wards ratepayers demanded a referendum on the issue, and in every district except Wairoa ratepayers made it abundantly clear – with overwhelming majorities – that they did not want racially-based wards.

Then along came another Labour Government but, unlike Helen Clark, Jacinda Ardern wasn't such a fan of accepting clear messages from the public. In 2021, Ardern's Government removed the right of ratepayers to demand a referendum. 

Following this, thirty-two councils promptly created Māori wards in time for the 2022 local body elections, and 13 more councils voted to establish Māori wards as from the 2025 elections.

Thanks to the current Government's coalition agreements, the three governing parties passed legislation this year under which councils which failed to allow referenda before the creation of Māori wards were allowed to rescind those decisions before 6 September 2024 or would be obliged to hold a referendum on the matter at the local body elections next year.

My previous email urged you to write to your local councillors asking them rescind their decision to create a Māori ward (or wards) in order to avoid the cost of a referendum next year given the very high probability based on past experience that, when allowed to vote on the issue, the great majority of ratepayers will reject racially based representation.

A very large number of our supporters used our online tool and many thousands of emails were sent to councillors of the 45 councils affected.

The result? Alas, only two councils – Kaipara and Upper Hutt – voted to reverse their previous decision.

The other councils decided – either from the arrogance of “we know best” or from fear of intimidation (and there were many angry scenes) – to stick with their earlier decision, and to hell with the extra cost. 

I personally witnessed some brave councillors who argued strongly against race-based political representation but sadly they were in a minority.

This is not the end of the matter of course. There will now need to be 45 referenda around the country where ratepayers will be able to tell their councils, from the privacy of the voting booth, what they think of race-based political representation. Hobson’s Pledge will be campaigning next year to ensure that all New Zealanders get voted into office on merit, not on the basis of who their ancestors were.

Of course the same principle applies to Parliament. The logic of having separate Māori electorates has long since gone. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986, almost 40 years ago, argued that Māori electorates should be scrapped if we adopted the MMP electoral system because, they argued, that system would enable many Māori to be elected.  And so it has proved to be: the proportion of Māori MPs in Parliament now well exceeds the proportion of Māori in the population, and 35% of the current Cabinet are Māori.

Three successive National Party leaders have pledged to scrap Māori electorates – Bill English, John Key and I – but nothing has changed (in my own case, I was never in a position to do so). But it is beyond time for this issue to be dealt with, especially when those elected in Māori electorates increasingly seem to reject the basic rules of Parliamentary democracy.

Choosing our political representatives on the basis of merit not on the basis of race will continue to be a major focus for Hobson’s Pledge in the years ahead.

The Government put out a press release this week about the Treaty Principles Bill and it included something we weren't expecting... trust me when I say we are going to need everyone to pitch in if we are to secure a victory now.

The Cabinet has agreed in advance to three principles being added to the Bill as it now heads off to the drafters. It has been clear to all that National are deeply uncomfortable at having to deliver on their coalition promise and it appears they have attempted to neuter the Bill before it is even written. Here are Cabinet's additional principles:

1. Civil Government: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
2. Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori: The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.
3. Right to Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.

Number two would entrench the race-based rights that we were hoping that this Bill would do away with!

The Cabinet's position is that it will be perfectly ok for two levels of rights; that it is perfectly acceptable that different groups get different rights. That so long as Parliament legislates race-based discrimination, then that's ok.

This is madness! It is the very opposite of what the Treaty Principles Bill is meant to do.

We must do two things in order to get a workable Treaty Principles Bill over the line:

1. We need to get as many submissions on the Bill as possible. More than we have ever had before.

2. We need those submitters to support the Bill but oppose the inclusion of number two of the Cabinet's principles as currently worded.

Are you with us? Join us in this most crucial of fights.

The media is going to be no help to us whatsoever. They have decided that the Treaty Principles Bill must be defeated and they will publish open letters on the front page to ensure that outcome. Meanwhile, they refuse to print our ads.

We must find ways to communicate with New Zealanders that don't involve the partisan and patronising media. If you're as frustrated as we are, join the fight.

We will need a dedicated website to facilitate submissions and provide information. Then we've got to send New Zealanders to it.

You will have seen us run campaigns on Facebook and Instagram before and that is one tactic we want to use again. But running ads on social media comes at a cost. Fortunately, our ads always have an incredibly low 'cost per click' because people eagerly engage with them and this means we can get good bang for our buck. Click here to chip in to fund social media ads.

We also need to find friends who have websites, large social media platforms, billboards, signage space and similar because experience tells us the mainstream companies will be too afraid. We will hear "we just want to stay out of it" over and over.

Please reply to this email if you can help in this regard.

This is a 'now or never' situation. It isn't the first time Parliament has attempted to define the principles, but one gets the feeling the door will slam shut if this Bill fails too. Will you take this rare opportunity to change the course of our country for the better? Chip in to the Treaty Principles Fund.

The Prime Minister says the Bill will be introduced in November. That leaves us a matter of weeks to build our website and prepare our strategy. But without the involvement of supporters like you, we won't be able to do it. Are you in?

Elliot and I will stand on the side of the road waving a sign if it comes to it, but if we want to succeed we have to go big!

So what do you think? Will you answer the call?

As always, on behalf of Hobson's Pledge, I thank you for your continued support.

I was unimpressed with the front page of the NZ Herald today.

The lead story was basically free advertising for a small group of church leaders opposing the Treaty Principles Bill. Just imagine if we tried to pay for an advertisement to support it! We are still in the naughty corner for our factual Marine and Coastal Area Act ad!

In their open letter, the church leaders misrepresent the proposed Treaty Principles Bill in a brazen attempt to influence their followers with nonsense regarding a matter of democratic importance to all New Zealanders.

They kick things off with a creative re-interpretation of Psalm 15 which actually highlights the very dynamics about the Treaty of Waitangi that we are concerned about – reinterpreting historical texts to suit certain agendas.

Church leaders should hold and speak their views, but their open letter isn't about discourse. It is about shutting down debate, discussion, and dialogue. 

I am worried that they are joining with the elitists to advocate against democratic parliamentary processes. They use the same manipulative language of those who seek to cancel and deplatform. They talk of social cohesion and potential harm from people talking about ideas.

This group appear to have little faith in New Zealanders' ability to think, discuss, and debate issues of importance to them. 

For Christians like myself, there is further reason for alarm because the leaders appear to be elevating the Treaty of Waitangi with sacred covenants between God and humanity in the Old Testament. 

To refer to the relationship between any church and any treaty as being a "sacred covenant" borders on the heretical.

Hobson’s Pledge rejects the many inaccuracies within the church leaders’ statement. We think it is poor of them to make such a public declaration about a Bill they haven't read yet. It is only going to Cabinet today!

The focus on "collective rights" rather than individual rights indicates that these church leaders misunderstand the treaty. A quick look through their organisational websites shows a lot of hard left politics, and that context is totally missing from the front page article.

With all due respect to these church leaders, keep to historical and literal truth.

He iwi tahi tātou / We are now one people.