Interesting discussion thanks. I was thinking this “debate” about whether sovereignty was ceded is kind of silly since, we can’t know what they were thinking back then. But it is of some interest to try and seek some understanding. Having said that the more important observation is why NZ is having this debate so vociferously today and question is really what is motivating that. What is the current “vision of the future of NZ?”. Are those who say Māori never ceded to the Crown making that case because they’d like to set up a parallel legal system, etc based on ethnicity or what? Or should NZ become a Māori ethnic state? And there lies the real debate... There are real risks here and the questions deserve robust but mature debate. I respect the ideals of tolerance and ethnic diversity including redress for past injustices but on the other hand I also fear an over focus on identitarianism leading to the unintended consequences of resulting in the 180 degree opposite of the intentions. You only need to dig a little into the underlying internal causes of Ukraine and Israeli civil breakdown to see how badly things can turn out when there lacks some cultural “glue” binding people together than pulling them apart. At least here in NZ we don’t have foreign powers overly vested in adding fuel to the fires of ethno-nationalism, but I really wish we could have a mature debate about it without both sides jumping straight to the extreme catastrophising of the outcome of even talking about it. It doesn’t really help reach a degree of mutual shared view. It’s kind of like a married couple who can no longer talk to each other without descending into an unconstructive shouting match. Seems infantile to me.
Great comments, thanks Malcolm! There's a lot of "presentism" going on in the obsessive debates about 1840 as a kind of traumatic Birthing Event for the nation. And you're right to point out that it's really about different versions of an imagined community. And yes, this kind of thing can turn out very badly if people aren't prepared to give up on something – and to argue as friends rather than as enemies. NZ is a comparatively functional state, though far from perfect, but we could make it dysfunctional if enough of us really try to. Arguing divisively about sovereignty is how it can start, by picking at an old wound. One day I should write about why "identity" is a self-contradictory and empty concept.
It's becoming obvious that certain entities from within the country such as the MSM, and activist elements within the Judiciary, are doing their best to create and foment as much division on this issue as they can.
I get what you're concerned about, Sean. Surely, though, none of those people actually gets up in the morning with the intention of creating as much division as they can. Or, do you know things about people that I don't know?
Actually Grant the evidence is clear from public statements made by individuals to policy decisions of the previous govt that there are people in NZ who hold such contempt towards what this Nation is . These radical individuals in some cases hold influencial positions within institutions and the government. They have been schooled in the ideology of critical theories such as decolonisation, CRT, etc, who see Western culture as nothing more than an oppressive system designed to perpetuate white supremacy, that must be deconstructed and ultimately destroyed from within.
I know some of the people you're talking about, Sean. They might argue that their intentions aren't quite as you portray them, but I don't speak for them.
"here in NZ we don’t have foreign powers overly vested in adding fuel to the fires of ethno-nationalism". Really? The Realm of New Zealand is an ethno-nationalist state. It's Head of State must be British. No "ifs", "buts" or "maybes" about that. And two foreign powers (Britain and Australia) invaded the country and did a lot of killing, looting and burning to keep it that way.
Since every Member of Parliament is required to swear allegiance to King Charles, to vote for such an act of usurpation of sovereignty would amount to a breach of oath and rebellion against the Crown. When Maori rebelled against the British Crown they were put down by force and their property confiscated and distributed among those who suppressed the rebellion. Would Messrs Luxon or Hipkins suffer a similar fate? Would Mr. Luxon's seven houses be distributed among members of the force that put down his rebellion? We will never know, because by both their oath of allegiance and their fear of the consequences New Zealand parliamentarians are constrained from trying to replace their un-elected-foreign-head-of-state-for-life with a democratically elected New Zealand citizen.
Yes, Barbados did it. The fact that only one in ten of its population are European might have helped. Most of the British Empire has decolonized but Australia, Canada and New Zealand have not. Why not? Because of the moral failure of their respective political establishments. So it becomes the responsibility of the patriotic element of our people to establish a truly democratic and egalitarian society in the face of a corrupt political system.
Agreed - I said "overly vested". The past is not the present and surely Geoff, you can see the difference between what is going on in NZ today, viz external influences, with what is going on in either Israel or Ukraine? I see little point in nit picking around the edges here. Sure there may be some neo-colonial attitudes overhanging but I was talking about internal cohesion building between two cultures, without ongoing current external influence.
One problem is that the colonialist regime in this country is delivering for only a small and self-entitled proportion of the population and things have been getting worse with every passing decade since 1984. Those who like Mr Luxon are doing very well thank you out of the income from seven houses on top of a lucrative salary may be happy with what colonialism has delivered, but the rest of us are starting to realize that there must be a better way, and to many of us that better way is rangatiratanga.
Colonialism and capitalism go together like a horse and carriage but they are distinct phenomena. Furthermore, every colony and every colonial relationship has its own unique characteristics. Even within the British empire, colonies differed widely in character. In particular, the New Zealand Company explicitly intended the Colony of New Zealand to be unequal, hierarchical and anti-democratic and that is they way it has been since the beginning of mass immigration, notwithstanding a working class Pakeha (naturalized European) push towards egalitarianism which commenced in the late nineteenth century but had fizzled out by the late twentieth century. Colonialism gives to New Zealand capitalism certain specific and on the whole repugnant characteristics which make it particularly contemptuous and exploitative of both people and the environment, and erasing colonialism is the first and necessary step towards curbing the excesses of capitalism in our motu. If you compare the kingitanga with the institution on which it was partly modeled (the British monarchy) you cannot fail to note that there is a world of difference. The Maori version has democratic features completely absent from the British model. Then again kingitanga is distinct from rangatiratanga, which is a thoroughly democratic system of governance that gives true agency and authority to the people themselves, in a way that the Westminster system never has and never will. So rangatiratanga is the only acceptable system of governance for some of us, and the fake democracy imposed by the colonialist regime will always meet resistance. Just as colonialism goes hand in hand with capitalism, so rangatiratanga goes with collectivism, but they should not be regarded as synonymous or for that matter inseparable.
It is a mistake to presume this issue of rising inequality is an ethnic problem that has an ethnic solution. We made that mistake with South Africa thinking once the Black Africans were in charge justice would prevail, instead corruption has. And it would be the case here too, or anywhere because corruption is colour blind. Adherence to the Milton Friedman neo liberal dogma is the underlying cause, and the solution is more redistributive policies through a fairer tax system etc.
A fairer tax system would help, I agree. But it's not sufficient in itself. More is needed to boost economic productivity and provide people with opportunities.
No, there is no ethnic solution to inequality, although historically multi-cultural states may be accompanied by higher levels of inequality than ethnically homogeneous states. I don't know who believed that "once the Black Africans were in charge justice would prevail" in South Africa. With the abolition of apartheid one set of injustices has been righted (which was important), but other injustices emerged or remained. I am sceptical of the idea that redistributive taxation will in itself be sufficient to correct the injustices of neo-liberal society. I think it will take more than that.
Great discussion thanks. What is always missing in these discussions is the fact there were people here before Maori. Maori committed genocide by killing most of those people and took over their land as well by killing them. Maori also attacked other Maori tribes. The Treaty bought a stop to that. Maori could no longer own slaves. Those freed slaves could now own land as everyone had equal rights - thanks to TOW. Equal rights for all is where NZ needs to be moving towards. No to race privileges
Yes that’s a convenient version that suits people that don’t want to look too deep. Try telling that to the descendant Ngati Hotu people from Persia (Iran) who were here before Maori and had most of their people murdered, enslaved or eaten by Maori.
Maybe you could write something to bring out the real truths as that is what our people are needing. Non-political truths. Real history for the sake of real history without personal bias or self interested gain. Just real history.
I'm not a professional historian, Buffy. In any case, I can foresee obstacles in the way of establishing 'real truths' in such a case. Iranian DNA could come from someone who arrived here in the 19th century, for instance.
I don’t think British colonisers can throw stones about “owning slaves” given what they did. In fact, while Maori slave owning comes from a time when that was a fairly practical response to tribal warfare and in line with other societies, the Brits had abolished slavery back in the 11th century but brought it back just to rape Africa.
Some Maori were pacifists and we also killed the peoplle who were here before the Maori right alongside the Maori, so again, throwing stones seems bad.
Hi Sapphi. You're right to remind us of the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. By 1840, though, slave-trading and slave-labour had been abolished in the British Empire. Hence it was illegal under the colonial government, for anyone of any race.
I’m aware it was illegal but I think it’s pretty ignorant and laughable to present the British as some sort of civilised, evolved, anti-slavery influence when they’d only just abolished slavery not even 40 years before and built their entire empire off of it on a scale Maori couldn’t even comprehend.
Personal sovereignty (meaning sovereignty over land and laws as opposed to just bodily autonomy) is a concept that doesn’t really exist imo. Sure you can declare yourself sovereign, just like you can declare yourself a leader of a group of just you. You’re technically not wrong. But do you have the power to back it up or enforce it in any meaningful way? Do you have a claim to legitimacy that others will respect? (e.g. if you were the leader of a group and all the others had died, people are less likely to challenge you than if you declare yourself a leader while leading absolutely no one).
This sov cit, libertarian, personal sovereignty-type stuff is some real main character syndrome. The perpetrators are people who can’t see to comprehend that each other person is equally as important as them, but instead of going around saying “I’m the most important person in the world”, they say, “We’re ALL the most important people in the world.” But while only acting for their own benefit. Thats what these individualistic philosphies do; promote self interest above the good of the collective.
It’s kinda like people who say “You were born alone, you’ll die alone.” Oh, you gave birth to yourself, did you? That’s quite the self-importance to forget the presence and input of your own mother. Human beings have never done anything alone EVER, everything we have is built on the backs of those around us and those who’ve come before. Personal sovereignty ignores the history and nuance that make these actually meaningful in favour of some dude saying, “Uh, I didn’t AGREE to that so I don’t think it applies to me.” Like their agreement is the be all and end all, and stuff everyone else.
Yes radical individualism can and does lead to excessive exploitation, and wealth concentration if not regulated through laws that protect the public interest, against the rapaciousness of private ones. Much of that has been stripped away in the last 3 decades, turning western democracy into oligarchy. But collectivism on a large scale sees the individual subsumed into a mass without rights leading as history has shown to suffering and exploitation on an enormous scale. Social Democracy and regulated capitalism was the closest we got to system that delivered the greatest good for the greatest number, and it was far from perfect.
There's a question that is still hanging in the air, even after two acts of legislation have taken aim at it: who owns the foreshore and seabed, te takutai moana?
A question that I haven't heard asked since the official recognition of Te Riu-A-Maui/Zealandia as a the 8th continent, is: what is extent of the foreshore, seabed and EEZ now? and who owns what?
Hi Sandra. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is clear that “Neither the Crown nor any other person owns, or is capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area”. That includes from mean high water mark out to the limits of EEZ. Local hapu/iwi can apply for customary marine title, but that's not an exclusive property right. The present govt wants to amend that Act to tighten it up, in light of a court judgement. I'm not a lawyer, so I may have missed something.
WRT whether the Crown or Parliament are the "sovereign", don't forget the 1975 dismissal of Gough Whitlam, Australia's Prime Minister, by the Governor-General. The Crown dismissed him, demonstrating that QEII via her governor-general was still Australia's head of state (sovereign). Surely "sovereignty" means "being the king (or queen)" - the ultimate decision-maker. So you're right to say that the government of a parliamentary democracy is more or less the sovereign on behalf of the people who elect them (where there's still a royal house, the king/queen rarely intervenes now). Or perhaps we should say that the parliamentary system is the sovereign, and the different parties who hold the helm of the ship of state change from time to time. In the context of Maori sovereignty and (here in Australia) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty, I interpret this as wanting to regain some control over traditional lands, waters and to gain control over programs to address the many disadvantages under which Indigenous peoples are suffering as consequences of colonisation and racism. Over here in Australia we also have an increasing number of "sovereign citizens" who try to argue that laws don't apply to them, but unsuccessfully.
Great point, Kai! The dismissal of Whitlam by GG Kerr in 1975 (controversial to this day!) was an exercise of reserve power. The Queen was not warned or consulted in advance – to save her from getting embroiled.
That is indeed an 'ultimate decision' as you put it, but can only be used when constitutionally necessary, in an impasse or in the absence of responsible advisers. Other than when routinely appointing a new PM, reserve powers have never been used by a GG in NZ, but it came close in 1911 (when Ward wanted to prorogue parliament) and 1984 (when Muldoon was acting as if he hadn't been defeated). In NZ, a fair amount has been done to restore property rights to iwi and hapu, under the Crown's aegis. And, I'm glad you mentioned the sovereign citizens, a movement that I think originated in the US, and which has a few stubborn adherents (bless them!) in NZ too. The distribution of power between sovereigns (or GGs) and assemblies has evolved – in the latter's favour! Parliament is supreme, and the GG by convention assents to all Bills passed by the House, thus making them into enforceable Acts. Cheers. Grant
Kia ora Grant. Your article is one of the most objective, well-informed and rigorous that has been written on this topic recently, but to introduce even greater rigor to the debate, the British King Charles III is sovereign in the Realm of New Zealand. Period. Everything else is a matter of convention, and in the end convention will always bow to perceived political imperatives. When you place this fact in context of government decisions which are increasingly being driven by non-elected elements of the state (a trend that first became plainly apparent in the economic policies of the Lange-Douglas government, and now extends to the foreign policy dictates of the military and intelligence services) then you have to acknowledge that the actual question of sovereignty is more than academic. Those of us who rightfully say that "Maori did not cede sovereignty" and uphold rangatiratanga as a system of governance and the enduring sovereignty of iwi under Te Whakaminenga may, as you suggest, be placed in an awkward position by being subject to colonialist imposts (rates, taxes and so on) and therefore feeling practically obliged to accept some of the benefits (real or perceived) that flow from the colonialist entity, such as health care, education, roading etc, even policing in certain situations. This is a complex area and I do not see or advocate a purist approach for tangata motu. It seems to me that all we can aim for is a direction of motion towards self-sufficiency, mana motuhake and freedom from dependence on the colonialist state. We have always had tangata motu institutions (marae and so on) which have provided for a wide range of our social and material needs, and the aim should be to constantly strengthen and extend those institutions. Meanwhile the colonialist state is by the day becoming more dysfunctional, less democratic and more subject to the influence of vested foreign interests. There will come a time when the balance tips in favour of rangatiratanga and then the reality of the contest for sovereignty will become inescapable.
Kia ora Geoff. Thanks for your comments and thoughts. Maybe you'll be proven right, if enough people have the stomach for it. I'm hesitant about predictions myself, as there are so many contrary forces out there. E.g., what's just happened in state elections in Germany wasn't anticipated after the Berlin wall fell. I'll explain in the next post.
I wasn't referring to the wars of resistance between the crown and Iwi, which you accurately describe, i was referring to the history of inter tribal wars before 1840. A feature of tribal societies around the world from my reading of history is frequent violent conflict. The Nation State is far from perfect, and needs a lot of improvement to tackle the many pressing social issues. Yes it takes away sovereignty and limits self determination, but it also has benefits, such as security from roaming war parties for eg, and economic opportunities conected to a global market. We may disagree on the type of system that would best serve the needs of the many ethnic groups that now call NZ home.
It seems that those most loudly proclaiming that sovereignty was never ceded want the Crown to help fund and facilitate their alternatives. Another point that gets forgotten about the context around the signing of the Treaty is the twenty years of brutal tribal conflict known as the musket wars, that preceeded it, and the trauma and social upheaval it caused.
Given that we are all forced into a “social contract”, being “stateless” or living outside of society, underground or off the grid is practically impossible. With the states limitless power to act as the authority on all matters regarding “ownership” or “belonging”. How do you propose one lives outside of welfare, education, or medical care?
How much unowned land is there? If you bought land, what is that process like? You cannot have currency, you cannot trade, you cannot exist without the state.
If you chose this life and collapsed somewhere, you would be retrieved and given medical care. If you were discovered living off grid on crown land you would be evicted and either put in jail, a half-way house or otherwise entered into the system.
So how exactly could anybody actually feasibly “go underground”.
It cannot be said that if you disagree with the sovereign state that you must reject it outright as that implies you have another viable option.
Unless we simply say; submit or kill yourself.
Sovereignty is recognised use of extreme violence against those who have no recognised defence.
In order to enact changes you must live within the bounds of the state you’re in, and attempt to promote changes within that realm. Being critical of the government for ever increasing breaches of individual choice should not be so controversial in a democratic regime.
Hi Peter. I'd distinguish between criticising a government's policies (which everyone does) and rejecting the grounds of the system of government itself. Sovereignty isn't normally "extreme violence" (though that does happen sometimes), but it does rely on legitimated uses of coercion. Most people will prefer a peaceful life and swallow the dead rat of sovereign power. When that's no longer feasible, revolutionary action begins. The outcomes may or may not be worth it.
Absolutes are necessary in the realm of ideas, but relativity rules in the material world. People in Aotearoa can and do live lives that are far distant, though not completely removed, from the machinery of the state. Those of us who "disagree with the state" (more precisely challenge the claim to legitimacy of a particular manifestation of state, being the Realm of New Zealand) do reject that state and we do have other viable options. In our case the object is not to "promote changes within that realm" ( a futile object given the consistent historical direction of the colonialist entity over the past half-century) but to restore and develop an order (rangatiratanga) which is in no way dependent on colonialism.
There is another use of the word ‘sovereign’ that gets casually bandied about at the intersection of ‘tech’ and ‘identity’ .. they call it ‘self sovereign identity’, the definition of which will vary depending on who’s written it, who’s read it and how deep you dig.
I get ‘the idea’, but I wrestle with its real meaning .. and part of my life is in that space!
If relevant and interesting to you, would love to read and have to hand a part two of this essay .. after all, Aotearoa is trying to wrestle the concept of identity down to the ground as we transition to an increasingly digital world (where the focus is) and seemingly ignoring the physical world (where we primarily live).
Thanks, John! From what I've seen, SSI is like the Bitcoin version of ID verification: you don't need the state institutions as 'trusted third party'...? And I probably will write something about the politics of 'identity' and identification.
Yup .. the tech story that the blockchain solves identity is indeed the mantra .. add ‘DIDs’ (decentralized identifiers) and Nirvana is yours. With no explanation .. let alone working implementation of ‘how’ .. because at the end of identity is ‘trust’ .. and trust is tricky.
When Jim Bolger was PM he undersaw the first formal Treaty settlements, and went on to tell its opponents, "yes, you could play the race card, but how would you run the country tomorrow?"
Whatever one's beliefs on sovereignty, "poking the taniwha" gets tactical votes but is ultimately a strategic failure. We shouldn't be surprised if there's not 1, but multiple Bastion Point moments in the next 2 years. And it's not just Maoridom that the Govt is alienating, there are already rumblings from frontline health workers.
How big could the trouble get? Going by historical precedent:
- The miners' strike of 1913, which was largely a Waihi regional thing.
- The 1930s Great Depression unrest under Forbes-Coates.
- The 1951 waterfront dispute.
- Muldoon had Bastion Point in 1977 and the 1981 Tour.
- The 4th Labour Govt tore itself in half over the pace & intensity of Rogernomics, paving the way for Jim Anderton's New Labour & the subsequent Alliance.
- Ruthenasia ran riot until Bolger had the good grace to sack Ruth Richardson; Winston Peters quit the Nats to form NZ First; and the Rogernomes & Ruthenasians formed ACT.
- The foreshore & seabed affair led to the formation of Te Pati Maori.
- The anti-vax occupation was largely on Parliament Grounds.
AFAIK, there's never been a 1977/1981 moment and a 1931-35/1951/1991 moment both at once. Would it be too big for an austerity-hobbled civil service to handle?
Good historical recollection there. I'd say 1981 tops it for sheer scale. The police lacked the numbers to control it. But no one was killed, thankfully. NZ seems to have a way of pulling back from the worst. I guess that not enough people get angry enough to go to the extreme. And it's more likely to boil over when the population is demographically weighted towards the young – which it's presently not. Not enough people feel they have a stake in toppling "the system", and they'd have trouble mustering sufficient numbers to cause even another 1981. Of course I could be proven wrong! I recommend Peter Turchin's End Times.
One way to create a common group or power base is to create a common enemy. This can be based on race, nationality, religion etc. Talk of sovereignty is about TPM and Maōri strengthening,enlarging and defining their power base.
No, it is a response to the racist dogwhistling in the election campaign by ACT, National and NZ First, and the blatantly racist, Māori-bashing actions of this coalition government.
Kiri Tamihere-Waititi's comments have been dismissed as a "rant" and a "rave" and have been denounced for their "profanity". Those were the emotional reactions to an emotional speech. Christopher Trotter, speaking on The Platform, responded rather more rationally, arguing that Tamihere-Waititi's speech may be representative of a widespread anger among Maori, and that it would be wise to call a constitutional convention in order to forestall possible outbreaks of violence and a serious threat to the stability of the colonialist regime (my words). However I believe that the time for such a convention may already be long past. The regime has stuck doggedly to its imperial connections for 184 years, with successive heads of the colonialist government arguing that while independence (mana motuhake) is "inevitable" it "will not happen on their watch". Meanwhile the situation on the ground has been shifting inexorably. Tangata motu no longer need an avenue provided by the regime in order to advance the cause of rangatiratanga. It is happening independently. A constitutional convention clearly designed to sideline this organic evolutionary process may be no more likely to succeed than ACT's Treaty Principles Bill. Indeed, like the Treaty Principles Bill it could give rise to even greater social division in New Zealand as a whole. As a side note, it is hard to see how Te Pati Maori, who currently and awkwardly occupy a space within the colonialist system, can have a front and centre role in the on-going re-emergence of rangatiratanga as a genuine vehicle for mana motuhake. Kiri Tamihere-Waititi might have to bid farewell to her present job if she has ambitions to challenge the colonialist regime at a fundamental level.
Interesting discussion thanks. I was thinking this “debate” about whether sovereignty was ceded is kind of silly since, we can’t know what they were thinking back then. But it is of some interest to try and seek some understanding. Having said that the more important observation is why NZ is having this debate so vociferously today and question is really what is motivating that. What is the current “vision of the future of NZ?”. Are those who say Māori never ceded to the Crown making that case because they’d like to set up a parallel legal system, etc based on ethnicity or what? Or should NZ become a Māori ethnic state? And there lies the real debate... There are real risks here and the questions deserve robust but mature debate. I respect the ideals of tolerance and ethnic diversity including redress for past injustices but on the other hand I also fear an over focus on identitarianism leading to the unintended consequences of resulting in the 180 degree opposite of the intentions. You only need to dig a little into the underlying internal causes of Ukraine and Israeli civil breakdown to see how badly things can turn out when there lacks some cultural “glue” binding people together than pulling them apart. At least here in NZ we don’t have foreign powers overly vested in adding fuel to the fires of ethno-nationalism, but I really wish we could have a mature debate about it without both sides jumping straight to the extreme catastrophising of the outcome of even talking about it. It doesn’t really help reach a degree of mutual shared view. It’s kind of like a married couple who can no longer talk to each other without descending into an unconstructive shouting match. Seems infantile to me.
Great comments, thanks Malcolm! There's a lot of "presentism" going on in the obsessive debates about 1840 as a kind of traumatic Birthing Event for the nation. And you're right to point out that it's really about different versions of an imagined community. And yes, this kind of thing can turn out very badly if people aren't prepared to give up on something – and to argue as friends rather than as enemies. NZ is a comparatively functional state, though far from perfect, but we could make it dysfunctional if enough of us really try to. Arguing divisively about sovereignty is how it can start, by picking at an old wound. One day I should write about why "identity" is a self-contradictory and empty concept.
It's becoming obvious that certain entities from within the country such as the MSM, and activist elements within the Judiciary, are doing their best to create and foment as much division on this issue as they can.
I get what you're concerned about, Sean. Surely, though, none of those people actually gets up in the morning with the intention of creating as much division as they can. Or, do you know things about people that I don't know?
Actually Grant the evidence is clear from public statements made by individuals to policy decisions of the previous govt that there are people in NZ who hold such contempt towards what this Nation is . These radical individuals in some cases hold influencial positions within institutions and the government. They have been schooled in the ideology of critical theories such as decolonisation, CRT, etc, who see Western culture as nothing more than an oppressive system designed to perpetuate white supremacy, that must be deconstructed and ultimately destroyed from within.
I know some of the people you're talking about, Sean. They might argue that their intentions aren't quite as you portray them, but I don't speak for them.
"here in NZ we don’t have foreign powers overly vested in adding fuel to the fires of ethno-nationalism". Really? The Realm of New Zealand is an ethno-nationalist state. It's Head of State must be British. No "ifs", "buts" or "maybes" about that. And two foreign powers (Britain and Australia) invaded the country and did a lot of killing, looting and burning to keep it that way.
It would only take an Act of parliament to change the head of state to a NZ citizen
Since every Member of Parliament is required to swear allegiance to King Charles, to vote for such an act of usurpation of sovereignty would amount to a breach of oath and rebellion against the Crown. When Maori rebelled against the British Crown they were put down by force and their property confiscated and distributed among those who suppressed the rebellion. Would Messrs Luxon or Hipkins suffer a similar fate? Would Mr. Luxon's seven houses be distributed among members of the force that put down his rebellion? We will never know, because by both their oath of allegiance and their fear of the consequences New Zealand parliamentarians are constrained from trying to replace their un-elected-foreign-head-of-state-for-life with a democratically elected New Zealand citizen.
Barbados did it. No one would intervene like that
Yes, Barbados did it. The fact that only one in ten of its population are European might have helped. Most of the British Empire has decolonized but Australia, Canada and New Zealand have not. Why not? Because of the moral failure of their respective political establishments. So it becomes the responsibility of the patriotic element of our people to establish a truly democratic and egalitarian society in the face of a corrupt political system.
You can't have an egalitarian multi cultural state and an ethno nationalist state at the same time.
Agreed - I said "overly vested". The past is not the present and surely Geoff, you can see the difference between what is going on in NZ today, viz external influences, with what is going on in either Israel or Ukraine? I see little point in nit picking around the edges here. Sure there may be some neo-colonial attitudes overhanging but I was talking about internal cohesion building between two cultures, without ongoing current external influence.
One problem is that the colonialist regime in this country is delivering for only a small and self-entitled proportion of the population and things have been getting worse with every passing decade since 1984. Those who like Mr Luxon are doing very well thank you out of the income from seven houses on top of a lucrative salary may be happy with what colonialism has delivered, but the rest of us are starting to realize that there must be a better way, and to many of us that better way is rangatiratanga.
I think the problem you're alluding to is capitalism.
Colonialism and capitalism go together like a horse and carriage but they are distinct phenomena. Furthermore, every colony and every colonial relationship has its own unique characteristics. Even within the British empire, colonies differed widely in character. In particular, the New Zealand Company explicitly intended the Colony of New Zealand to be unequal, hierarchical and anti-democratic and that is they way it has been since the beginning of mass immigration, notwithstanding a working class Pakeha (naturalized European) push towards egalitarianism which commenced in the late nineteenth century but had fizzled out by the late twentieth century. Colonialism gives to New Zealand capitalism certain specific and on the whole repugnant characteristics which make it particularly contemptuous and exploitative of both people and the environment, and erasing colonialism is the first and necessary step towards curbing the excesses of capitalism in our motu. If you compare the kingitanga with the institution on which it was partly modeled (the British monarchy) you cannot fail to note that there is a world of difference. The Maori version has democratic features completely absent from the British model. Then again kingitanga is distinct from rangatiratanga, which is a thoroughly democratic system of governance that gives true agency and authority to the people themselves, in a way that the Westminster system never has and never will. So rangatiratanga is the only acceptable system of governance for some of us, and the fake democracy imposed by the colonialist regime will always meet resistance. Just as colonialism goes hand in hand with capitalism, so rangatiratanga goes with collectivism, but they should not be regarded as synonymous or for that matter inseparable.
It is a mistake to presume this issue of rising inequality is an ethnic problem that has an ethnic solution. We made that mistake with South Africa thinking once the Black Africans were in charge justice would prevail, instead corruption has. And it would be the case here too, or anywhere because corruption is colour blind. Adherence to the Milton Friedman neo liberal dogma is the underlying cause, and the solution is more redistributive policies through a fairer tax system etc.
A fairer tax system would help, I agree. But it's not sufficient in itself. More is needed to boost economic productivity and provide people with opportunities.
No, there is no ethnic solution to inequality, although historically multi-cultural states may be accompanied by higher levels of inequality than ethnically homogeneous states. I don't know who believed that "once the Black Africans were in charge justice would prevail" in South Africa. With the abolition of apartheid one set of injustices has been righted (which was important), but other injustices emerged or remained. I am sceptical of the idea that redistributive taxation will in itself be sufficient to correct the injustices of neo-liberal society. I think it will take more than that.
Great discussion thanks. What is always missing in these discussions is the fact there were people here before Maori. Maori committed genocide by killing most of those people and took over their land as well by killing them. Maori also attacked other Maori tribes. The Treaty bought a stop to that. Maori could no longer own slaves. Those freed slaves could now own land as everyone had equal rights - thanks to TOW. Equal rights for all is where NZ needs to be moving towards. No to race privileges
I recommend rereading history Buffy.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1
Yes that’s a convenient version that suits people that don’t want to look too deep. Try telling that to the descendant Ngati Hotu people from Persia (Iran) who were here before Maori and had most of their people murdered, enslaved or eaten by Maori.
https://tangatawhenua16.wixsite.com/the-first-ones-blog/single-post/2016/03/13/36-ngati-hotu-the-redheads
Ok maybe. Any Persian heritage would show up in DNA.
And the DNA does show up. Contact Monica?
Maybe you could write something to bring out the real truths as that is what our people are needing. Non-political truths. Real history for the sake of real history without personal bias or self interested gain. Just real history.
I'm not a professional historian, Buffy. In any case, I can foresee obstacles in the way of establishing 'real truths' in such a case. Iranian DNA could come from someone who arrived here in the 19th century, for instance.
Maybe start the story and hopefully a historian without political agenda may take it the next step?
Grant, you of all people do have the skills to initiate this. Descendants are alive, easy to locate and have DNA pathway identified.
I don’t think British colonisers can throw stones about “owning slaves” given what they did. In fact, while Maori slave owning comes from a time when that was a fairly practical response to tribal warfare and in line with other societies, the Brits had abolished slavery back in the 11th century but brought it back just to rape Africa.
Some Maori were pacifists and we also killed the peoplle who were here before the Maori right alongside the Maori, so again, throwing stones seems bad.
Hi Sapphi. You're right to remind us of the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. By 1840, though, slave-trading and slave-labour had been abolished in the British Empire. Hence it was illegal under the colonial government, for anyone of any race.
I did a podcast on slavery...
https://grantduncanphd.substack.com/p/slavery
Cheers.
I’m aware it was illegal but I think it’s pretty ignorant and laughable to present the British as some sort of civilised, evolved, anti-slavery influence when they’d only just abolished slavery not even 40 years before and built their entire empire off of it on a scale Maori couldn’t even comprehend.
Personal sovereignty (meaning sovereignty over land and laws as opposed to just bodily autonomy) is a concept that doesn’t really exist imo. Sure you can declare yourself sovereign, just like you can declare yourself a leader of a group of just you. You’re technically not wrong. But do you have the power to back it up or enforce it in any meaningful way? Do you have a claim to legitimacy that others will respect? (e.g. if you were the leader of a group and all the others had died, people are less likely to challenge you than if you declare yourself a leader while leading absolutely no one).
This sov cit, libertarian, personal sovereignty-type stuff is some real main character syndrome. The perpetrators are people who can’t see to comprehend that each other person is equally as important as them, but instead of going around saying “I’m the most important person in the world”, they say, “We’re ALL the most important people in the world.” But while only acting for their own benefit. Thats what these individualistic philosphies do; promote self interest above the good of the collective.
It’s kinda like people who say “You were born alone, you’ll die alone.” Oh, you gave birth to yourself, did you? That’s quite the self-importance to forget the presence and input of your own mother. Human beings have never done anything alone EVER, everything we have is built on the backs of those around us and those who’ve come before. Personal sovereignty ignores the history and nuance that make these actually meaningful in favour of some dude saying, “Uh, I didn’t AGREE to that so I don’t think it applies to me.” Like their agreement is the be all and end all, and stuff everyone else.
Great comment, thanks Sapphi! We don't achieve anything alone. Cheers. Grant
Yes radical individualism can and does lead to excessive exploitation, and wealth concentration if not regulated through laws that protect the public interest, against the rapaciousness of private ones. Much of that has been stripped away in the last 3 decades, turning western democracy into oligarchy. But collectivism on a large scale sees the individual subsumed into a mass without rights leading as history has shown to suffering and exploitation on an enormous scale. Social Democracy and regulated capitalism was the closest we got to system that delivered the greatest good for the greatest number, and it was far from perfect.
There's a question that is still hanging in the air, even after two acts of legislation have taken aim at it: who owns the foreshore and seabed, te takutai moana?
A question that I haven't heard asked since the official recognition of Te Riu-A-Maui/Zealandia as a the 8th continent, is: what is extent of the foreshore, seabed and EEZ now? and who owns what?
Hi Sandra. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 is clear that “Neither the Crown nor any other person owns, or is capable of owning, the common marine and coastal area”. That includes from mean high water mark out to the limits of EEZ. Local hapu/iwi can apply for customary marine title, but that's not an exclusive property right. The present govt wants to amend that Act to tighten it up, in light of a court judgement. I'm not a lawyer, so I may have missed something.
You certainly have missed something.
WRT whether the Crown or Parliament are the "sovereign", don't forget the 1975 dismissal of Gough Whitlam, Australia's Prime Minister, by the Governor-General. The Crown dismissed him, demonstrating that QEII via her governor-general was still Australia's head of state (sovereign). Surely "sovereignty" means "being the king (or queen)" - the ultimate decision-maker. So you're right to say that the government of a parliamentary democracy is more or less the sovereign on behalf of the people who elect them (where there's still a royal house, the king/queen rarely intervenes now). Or perhaps we should say that the parliamentary system is the sovereign, and the different parties who hold the helm of the ship of state change from time to time. In the context of Maori sovereignty and (here in Australia) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty, I interpret this as wanting to regain some control over traditional lands, waters and to gain control over programs to address the many disadvantages under which Indigenous peoples are suffering as consequences of colonisation and racism. Over here in Australia we also have an increasing number of "sovereign citizens" who try to argue that laws don't apply to them, but unsuccessfully.
Great point, Kai! The dismissal of Whitlam by GG Kerr in 1975 (controversial to this day!) was an exercise of reserve power. The Queen was not warned or consulted in advance – to save her from getting embroiled.
https://theconversation.com/palace-letters-show-the-queen-did-not-advise-or-encourage-kerr-to-sack-whitlam-government-142376
That is indeed an 'ultimate decision' as you put it, but can only be used when constitutionally necessary, in an impasse or in the absence of responsible advisers. Other than when routinely appointing a new PM, reserve powers have never been used by a GG in NZ, but it came close in 1911 (when Ward wanted to prorogue parliament) and 1984 (when Muldoon was acting as if he hadn't been defeated). In NZ, a fair amount has been done to restore property rights to iwi and hapu, under the Crown's aegis. And, I'm glad you mentioned the sovereign citizens, a movement that I think originated in the US, and which has a few stubborn adherents (bless them!) in NZ too. The distribution of power between sovereigns (or GGs) and assemblies has evolved – in the latter's favour! Parliament is supreme, and the GG by convention assents to all Bills passed by the House, thus making them into enforceable Acts. Cheers. Grant
Kia ora Grant. Your article is one of the most objective, well-informed and rigorous that has been written on this topic recently, but to introduce even greater rigor to the debate, the British King Charles III is sovereign in the Realm of New Zealand. Period. Everything else is a matter of convention, and in the end convention will always bow to perceived political imperatives. When you place this fact in context of government decisions which are increasingly being driven by non-elected elements of the state (a trend that first became plainly apparent in the economic policies of the Lange-Douglas government, and now extends to the foreign policy dictates of the military and intelligence services) then you have to acknowledge that the actual question of sovereignty is more than academic. Those of us who rightfully say that "Maori did not cede sovereignty" and uphold rangatiratanga as a system of governance and the enduring sovereignty of iwi under Te Whakaminenga may, as you suggest, be placed in an awkward position by being subject to colonialist imposts (rates, taxes and so on) and therefore feeling practically obliged to accept some of the benefits (real or perceived) that flow from the colonialist entity, such as health care, education, roading etc, even policing in certain situations. This is a complex area and I do not see or advocate a purist approach for tangata motu. It seems to me that all we can aim for is a direction of motion towards self-sufficiency, mana motuhake and freedom from dependence on the colonialist state. We have always had tangata motu institutions (marae and so on) which have provided for a wide range of our social and material needs, and the aim should be to constantly strengthen and extend those institutions. Meanwhile the colonialist state is by the day becoming more dysfunctional, less democratic and more subject to the influence of vested foreign interests. There will come a time when the balance tips in favour of rangatiratanga and then the reality of the contest for sovereignty will become inescapable.
Kia ora Geoff. Thanks for your comments and thoughts. Maybe you'll be proven right, if enough people have the stomach for it. I'm hesitant about predictions myself, as there are so many contrary forces out there. E.g., what's just happened in state elections in Germany wasn't anticipated after the Berlin wall fell. I'll explain in the next post.
God, we tangle ourselves in mind/language games and think we're so clever don't we.
Sovereignty is supreme power or authority. There you are, four words.
Just because NZers try to weasel their around it, doesn't the clear description that those four words provide.
I wasn't referring to the wars of resistance between the crown and Iwi, which you accurately describe, i was referring to the history of inter tribal wars before 1840. A feature of tribal societies around the world from my reading of history is frequent violent conflict. The Nation State is far from perfect, and needs a lot of improvement to tackle the many pressing social issues. Yes it takes away sovereignty and limits self determination, but it also has benefits, such as security from roaming war parties for eg, and economic opportunities conected to a global market. We may disagree on the type of system that would best serve the needs of the many ethnic groups that now call NZ home.
It's Head of state is the interim Tainui King.
Govt. is not the Head of State.
It seems that those most loudly proclaiming that sovereignty was never ceded want the Crown to help fund and facilitate their alternatives. Another point that gets forgotten about the context around the signing of the Treaty is the twenty years of brutal tribal conflict known as the musket wars, that preceeded it, and the trauma and social upheaval it caused.
And I didn't mention in my post that te Tiriti does invite the Queen to form a government for the whole country.
I disagree with the last sentiment.
Given that we are all forced into a “social contract”, being “stateless” or living outside of society, underground or off the grid is practically impossible. With the states limitless power to act as the authority on all matters regarding “ownership” or “belonging”. How do you propose one lives outside of welfare, education, or medical care?
How much unowned land is there? If you bought land, what is that process like? You cannot have currency, you cannot trade, you cannot exist without the state.
If you chose this life and collapsed somewhere, you would be retrieved and given medical care. If you were discovered living off grid on crown land you would be evicted and either put in jail, a half-way house or otherwise entered into the system.
So how exactly could anybody actually feasibly “go underground”.
It cannot be said that if you disagree with the sovereign state that you must reject it outright as that implies you have another viable option.
Unless we simply say; submit or kill yourself.
Sovereignty is recognised use of extreme violence against those who have no recognised defence.
In order to enact changes you must live within the bounds of the state you’re in, and attempt to promote changes within that realm. Being critical of the government for ever increasing breaches of individual choice should not be so controversial in a democratic regime.
Hi Peter. I'd distinguish between criticising a government's policies (which everyone does) and rejecting the grounds of the system of government itself. Sovereignty isn't normally "extreme violence" (though that does happen sometimes), but it does rely on legitimated uses of coercion. Most people will prefer a peaceful life and swallow the dead rat of sovereign power. When that's no longer feasible, revolutionary action begins. The outcomes may or may not be worth it.
Absolutes are necessary in the realm of ideas, but relativity rules in the material world. People in Aotearoa can and do live lives that are far distant, though not completely removed, from the machinery of the state. Those of us who "disagree with the state" (more precisely challenge the claim to legitimacy of a particular manifestation of state, being the Realm of New Zealand) do reject that state and we do have other viable options. In our case the object is not to "promote changes within that realm" ( a futile object given the consistent historical direction of the colonialist entity over the past half-century) but to restore and develop an order (rangatiratanga) which is in no way dependent on colonialism.
Great summary, thankyou.
There is another use of the word ‘sovereign’ that gets casually bandied about at the intersection of ‘tech’ and ‘identity’ .. they call it ‘self sovereign identity’, the definition of which will vary depending on who’s written it, who’s read it and how deep you dig.
I get ‘the idea’, but I wrestle with its real meaning .. and part of my life is in that space!
If relevant and interesting to you, would love to read and have to hand a part two of this essay .. after all, Aotearoa is trying to wrestle the concept of identity down to the ground as we transition to an increasingly digital world (where the focus is) and seemingly ignoring the physical world (where we primarily live).
Thanks, John! From what I've seen, SSI is like the Bitcoin version of ID verification: you don't need the state institutions as 'trusted third party'...? And I probably will write something about the politics of 'identity' and identification.
Yup .. the tech story that the blockchain solves identity is indeed the mantra .. add ‘DIDs’ (decentralized identifiers) and Nirvana is yours. With no explanation .. let alone working implementation of ‘how’ .. because at the end of identity is ‘trust’ .. and trust is tricky.
When Jim Bolger was PM he undersaw the first formal Treaty settlements, and went on to tell its opponents, "yes, you could play the race card, but how would you run the country tomorrow?"
Whatever one's beliefs on sovereignty, "poking the taniwha" gets tactical votes but is ultimately a strategic failure. We shouldn't be surprised if there's not 1, but multiple Bastion Point moments in the next 2 years. And it's not just Maoridom that the Govt is alienating, there are already rumblings from frontline health workers.
Treaty settlement bills get unanimously passed now. So Bolger was proven right. But I agree that there’s trouble brewing again.
How big could the trouble get? Going by historical precedent:
- The miners' strike of 1913, which was largely a Waihi regional thing.
- The 1930s Great Depression unrest under Forbes-Coates.
- The 1951 waterfront dispute.
- Muldoon had Bastion Point in 1977 and the 1981 Tour.
- The 4th Labour Govt tore itself in half over the pace & intensity of Rogernomics, paving the way for Jim Anderton's New Labour & the subsequent Alliance.
- Ruthenasia ran riot until Bolger had the good grace to sack Ruth Richardson; Winston Peters quit the Nats to form NZ First; and the Rogernomes & Ruthenasians formed ACT.
- The foreshore & seabed affair led to the formation of Te Pati Maori.
- The anti-vax occupation was largely on Parliament Grounds.
AFAIK, there's never been a 1977/1981 moment and a 1931-35/1951/1991 moment both at once. Would it be too big for an austerity-hobbled civil service to handle?
Good historical recollection there. I'd say 1981 tops it for sheer scale. The police lacked the numbers to control it. But no one was killed, thankfully. NZ seems to have a way of pulling back from the worst. I guess that not enough people get angry enough to go to the extreme. And it's more likely to boil over when the population is demographically weighted towards the young – which it's presently not. Not enough people feel they have a stake in toppling "the system", and they'd have trouble mustering sufficient numbers to cause even another 1981. Of course I could be proven wrong! I recommend Peter Turchin's End Times.
One way to create a common group or power base is to create a common enemy. This can be based on race, nationality, religion etc. Talk of sovereignty is about TPM and Maōri strengthening,enlarging and defining their power base.
No, it is a response to the racist dogwhistling in the election campaign by ACT, National and NZ First, and the blatantly racist, Māori-bashing actions of this coalition government.
so if this is not a step towards inciting violence??https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/07/22/maori-party-political-leader-curses-and-rants-on-video-calling-for-overthrow-of-new-zealands-government/
Kiri Tamihere-Waititi's comments have been dismissed as a "rant" and a "rave" and have been denounced for their "profanity". Those were the emotional reactions to an emotional speech. Christopher Trotter, speaking on The Platform, responded rather more rationally, arguing that Tamihere-Waititi's speech may be representative of a widespread anger among Maori, and that it would be wise to call a constitutional convention in order to forestall possible outbreaks of violence and a serious threat to the stability of the colonialist regime (my words). However I believe that the time for such a convention may already be long past. The regime has stuck doggedly to its imperial connections for 184 years, with successive heads of the colonialist government arguing that while independence (mana motuhake) is "inevitable" it "will not happen on their watch". Meanwhile the situation on the ground has been shifting inexorably. Tangata motu no longer need an avenue provided by the regime in order to advance the cause of rangatiratanga. It is happening independently. A constitutional convention clearly designed to sideline this organic evolutionary process may be no more likely to succeed than ACT's Treaty Principles Bill. Indeed, like the Treaty Principles Bill it could give rise to even greater social division in New Zealand as a whole. As a side note, it is hard to see how Te Pati Maori, who currently and awkwardly occupy a space within the colonialist system, can have a front and centre role in the on-going re-emergence of rangatiratanga as a genuine vehicle for mana motuhake. Kiri Tamihere-Waititi might have to bid farewell to her present job if she has ambitions to challenge the colonialist regime at a fundamental level.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=775161784804324&set=a.235699755417199&__cft__[0]=AZVBaiNw4o9BiuiEJsl_QhSbM37CMOpVMAFhZK_VVdEa7uJ0KyLTb_3ZhRQuEzChkvxkk6xlP1H4IQiIr8dn0N-Durac-0vinSsalMB0Lqr4fNndToaKJU9mcK-3isg_L6pJjAA1ZQF3bVhGgTtvXH4MdhK4dEudXT7vhrTfEvc9UqzjrGMuMdUQWRFNSOKQycaMg-mTzLcMhc3KjQT90W9pTWIshtvYzwId0_VEubMjOw&__tn__=EH-R
What is TPM's agenda???