Bassett went on to observe:
A few claims even challenge Article One which ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria.
It is this ever-growing confusion over the Treaty that David Seymour is belatedly trying to resolve with his promise of a Principles of the Treaty Bill.
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick yesterday demonstrated she is among those who would benefit from the sovereignty issue being clarified once and for all.
At Question Time in Parliament, she asked of the PM:
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, “Part of the history of modern New Zealand has been our struggle to understand the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty. … That work is still happening and will keep going.”, and, if so, can he set out his understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by telling the House whether he believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?
Hansard records Christopher Luxon’s response:
In answer [to] the first part of the question: yes.
Swarbrick wasn’t satisfied and asked:
Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori ceded sovereignty?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is the Crown is sovereign.
The Deputy PM clambered in at this point to offer a morsel of his understanding of the country’s history.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that 102 years ago, in a major thesis, Sir Āpirana Ngata set out the very circumstances of the Treaty and he said that Māori ceded sovereignty—far closer to the action he was, as were other Māori leaders of that time?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, our position is that the Crown is sovereign and also, importantly, the Treaty of Waitangi has protections in there for both Crown and Māori interests.
Swarbrick apparently spotted a chink in the PM’s armour.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take from that answer that the Prime Minister believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how I can be clearer in answer to the first question.
Chlöe Swarbrick: When did Māori cede sovereignty?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say to the member: we have a Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. In there is protection for both Crown and Māori interests. But as I said to you, the position is very clear: Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.
That led to Swarbrick raising a question about legislation that – so far as Point of Order understands – she has never seen, let alone analysed.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does his Government’s Treaty principles bill consider the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding from 10 years ago that, “The rangatira who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede [their] sovereignty to Britain,” or does he continue or intend to continue to sideline the Waitangi Tribunal?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t seen a Treaty principles bill yet.
And that (praise be) was that.
But only for now. You can count on the indomitable Swarbrick trying again – and again – to have the PM change his position and rewrite history.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog - where this article was sourced.
It is this ever-growing confusion over the Treaty that David Seymour is belatedly trying to resolve with his promise of a Principles of the Treaty Bill.
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick yesterday demonstrated she is among those who would benefit from the sovereignty issue being clarified once and for all.
At Question Time in Parliament, she asked of the PM:
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, “Part of the history of modern New Zealand has been our struggle to understand the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty. … That work is still happening and will keep going.”, and, if so, can he set out his understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by telling the House whether he believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?
Hansard records Christopher Luxon’s response:
In answer [to] the first part of the question: yes.
Swarbrick wasn’t satisfied and asked:
Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori ceded sovereignty?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is the Crown is sovereign.
The Deputy PM clambered in at this point to offer a morsel of his understanding of the country’s history.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that 102 years ago, in a major thesis, Sir Āpirana Ngata set out the very circumstances of the Treaty and he said that Māori ceded sovereignty—far closer to the action he was, as were other Māori leaders of that time?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, our position is that the Crown is sovereign and also, importantly, the Treaty of Waitangi has protections in there for both Crown and Māori interests.
Swarbrick apparently spotted a chink in the PM’s armour.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take from that answer that the Prime Minister believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how I can be clearer in answer to the first question.
Chlöe Swarbrick: When did Māori cede sovereignty?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say to the member: we have a Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. In there is protection for both Crown and Māori interests. But as I said to you, the position is very clear: Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.
That led to Swarbrick raising a question about legislation that – so far as Point of Order understands – she has never seen, let alone analysed.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does his Government’s Treaty principles bill consider the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding from 10 years ago that, “The rangatira who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede [their] sovereignty to Britain,” or does he continue or intend to continue to sideline the Waitangi Tribunal?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t seen a Treaty principles bill yet.
And that (praise be) was that.
But only for now. You can count on the indomitable Swarbrick trying again – and again – to have the PM change his position and rewrite history.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Even if Maori didn't cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty (and they did) , they have been voting, accepting welfare, education, health care and acting in every way as subjects of the Crown since 1840. Now saying they aren't is like a person ordering a meal at a restaurant and then saying they never agreed to pay for it. But even if that is wrong, all Maori must have become subjects by their pakeha blood.
But Luxon also needs a history lesson. How did the Treaty get to be our founding document? It didn't make NZ a country.
"Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is the Crown is sovereign". Is it?
If that's the case, then why is the Maori mafia ruling the roost and wealth transferring vast sums of money and assets from us to them?
What else would you really expect from a deluded "From the river to the sea" chanter?
Post a Comment