Ele Ludemann: If the Crown doesn’t have sovereignty . . .

Robert MacCulloch says race activists in NZ should get over themselves & accept we’ll never know whether “sovereignty” was ceded in the Treaty of Waitangi.

So its become ludicrous that we now have two sides to the Treaty debate, each convinced they know the truth as to what was in the minds of British Administrators & Māori Chieftains 150 years ago. Both sides to the Sovereignty debate only have beliefs about what they think is the truth – neither will ever know with any certainty what really happened. . .

We can’t possibly know whether or not the Māori who signed the Treaty ceded sovereignty, or even understood what it meant. But surely enough is known about Queen Victoria to be clear that she would not be open to the idea of sharing sovereignty nor allowing any of her subjects to have it.

The challenge for New Zealanders is to come to grips with the fact that the answer to the question, “Was sovereignty ceded in the Treaty of Waitangi?” will never be known. Our most pressing need is to instead answer the truly relevant question, “Where does that leave us?”. Yes it was a monumentally important document. Its just a shame no one knows what the parties were agreeing to. Maybe they didn’t know themselves. Most of us who sign a contract aren’t particularly clear what we’re signing up to. Ambiguity abounds in every deal. That may be hard to swallow, but isn’t it the truth? In this sense, ACT may have made a mistake with its proposed “Treaty Principles Bill”. By naming it as such, with “Treaty” in the title, ACT may have made the (empty) debate about what the Treaty means an even more intense argument about nothing. The debate is not rational: it has become a religious-style disagreement based on faith, with followers joining different camps – each comprising born-again believers – each trying to convert disbelievers to their cause. ACT’s bill should instead probably be called something like, “The Constitutional Principles Bill”. It should simply map out the fundamental values all Kiwis hold dear, avoiding the futile Treaty-interpretation and mind reading game. Mind reading’s hard enough to do even with your own family right now, let alone with people you never knew who lived nearly 200 years ago. Its not too late to re-purpose ACT’s bill to ensure that it gets the support it needs to become law.

Stephen Franks tweets in response:

We do know that “sovereignty” was ceded. For nearly 180 years there has been no doubt that only the Crown has claimed and successfully upheld its exclusive right to use force to collect taxes and demand obedience to its rules. In international law, that success is the test. It is irrelevant whether it came from the Treaty of Waitangi (which many hapu did not sign) or from suppressing rebellion (with the vital assistance of more Maori than rebelled) or from long-established custom. Only a failed or failing state ceases to insist forcefully, immediately and consistently on its established sovereignty. But that seems to be where the sooks now have New Zealand.

Quite.

We’re a constitutional monarchy. The ruling monarch is our head of state but the power to make and pass legislation resides with our government. A Crown can’t share sovereignty with some of its citizens nor can its sovereignty, and it’s government’s powers and laws, apply to some and not to others.

Whatever was meant and understood by the signatories when they signed the Treaty, the Crown, has sovereignty over us all.

If it doesn’t we’d have apartheid and anarchy.

Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.