What does the Treaty Debate, especially regarding the question of whether Sovereignty was ceded or not, have in common with the OJ Simpson Murder Trial in America? A lot. An incredible feature of OJ's trial was that surveys reported up to 75% of white Americans were convinced he committed the murders, whereas 75% of Black Americans were equally convinced he had not. None of those surveyed had attended the trial.
If you were a black American who'd been beaten up by a police officer and whose father had been stitched up for a murder he didn't commit, then you would be convinced OJ was innocent. But if you were a white American who'd been robbed by a black American then you would be convinced he was guilty.
The battles raging in the world today are largely battles of beliefs. Many economic models are now being built that assume no-one knows the value of crucial parameters that determine the workings of the economy, but instead we just have beliefs about them, like the relationship between effort and reward, based on our own experiences that we're constantly changing. Statisticians call the process "Bayesian Updating". It was the name given to the Super Yacht that recently sank off Sicily. Artificial Intelligence applications of this process were how the ship's owner, Mike Lynch, became a billionaire.
Along similar lines to the OJ Simpson trial, a recent poll conducted by David Farrar of 1,000 people revealed that 35% of New Zealanders believe Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty in 1840, whereas 27% believe they did not, and the balance are undecided. Its getting close to the point where a third of the population believe sovereignty was ceded, a third believe it was not, and a third are undecided. Like OJ's trial, none of those 1,000 people have likely looked into the matter in any detail, and even if they did, would be no better off.
Along similar lines to the OJ Simpson trial, a recent poll conducted by David Farrar of 1,000 people revealed that 35% of New Zealanders believe Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty in 1840, whereas 27% believe they did not, and the balance are undecided. Its getting close to the point where a third of the population believe sovereignty was ceded, a third believe it was not, and a third are undecided. Like OJ's trial, none of those 1,000 people have likely looked into the matter in any detail, and even if they did, would be no better off.
I bet if you asked the 1,000 people exactly what is "sovereignty" they couldn't tell you. I'm not sure on the definition either. In political science & economics, the sovereign authority is sometimes defined as the one who has a monopoly on the use of the force. That force mainly comes in the form of the power to tax and to use violence. Only the State can levy charges on you, and bust into your house and throw you into prison for something it claims you did wrong. Others can accuse you of wronging them, but they have no right to punish you with violence.
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.
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.
So its always amusing to read folks like Dr Brash and Dr Basset, both very knowledgeable people, make argument after argument, based on good reason, about how sovereignty was ceded in 1840. And its equally amusing hearing from politicians, academics, lawyers, sociologists and historians make equally sound arguments, also based on good reason, on how sovereignty was not ceded. Both sides are convinced they know the truth.
But they've become like a Jewish person arguing with a Muslim, arguing with a Christian, arguing with a Hindu, about who is closer to the one-and-only-truth. They may have devout beliefs - and good on them - but that's it. An historian friend of mine became so exasperated with the subject that they quit, telling me their frustration was how many of the most interesting historical questions turn on finding out what was in the mind of a leading player at the time - which almost never can be worked out with much certainty.
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.
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
20 comments:
If sovereignty was not ceded and was only in respect to sovereignty regarding the settlers, then what was the point of the Chiefs signing at all as according to the 2024 experts sovereignty was nothing to do with the 1840 Chiefs and tribes
From wikipedia..
Article one of the Māori text grants governance rights to the Crown while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to the Crown.
Seems to me that sovereignty means governance. Not a difficult concept.
At the Kohimaramara conference in 1860, the Maori chiefs re affirmed their acceptance of the Queen's sovereignty.
If the English and Maori texts vary so much on such an important point then clearly there was no agreement. No agreement means no treaty.
I am concerned about ACT's bill for the reasons you state. The Constitutional Principles Bill sounds like a much better idea.
If one accepts, as I do, that the Treaty is written in Maori, then sovereignty does not appear in the Treaty. There, it is a matter of who is subject to whom and the chiefs agreed to be subject to Queen Victoria. Sovereignty has two meanings when applied to the Treaty: for the chiefs the supreme power or authority was limited to their respective tribes; Queen Victoria, however, was the sovereign power over a quarter of the earth’s people and a quarter of the landmass.
While there are beliefs regarding the Treaty, there are also facts, such as Colenso’s report of the speeches made at the meeting on 5 February 1840 at Waitangi and the fact that ‘partnership’ is not mentioned in the Treaty. ACTs Treaty bill was an attempt to realign the Waitangi Tribunal with the historical facts of the Treaty. It was initially fine and an abomination now.
Ngata firmly believed it had been.
He was not alone in that belief.
Who should we respect and believe, the men who lived closer to that time and were highly educated and respected in their communities or the come lately bunch of activists who seem ill-educated and barely represent a blip in their respective communites.....?
The answer is obvious to anyone who has a reasoned intellegence and void of personal agenda.......
If sovereignty (whatever that actually means, but I think it means the power to govern), and Maori are living in a separate legal/political world from the rest of us (who are citizens of New Zealand), then why have we citizens of New Zealand given Maori billions of dollars??? If they are all non-citizens of New Zealand, we owe the NOTHING.
To Nuku: an instance of having one's cake and eating it too. Settlements in perpetuity in the name of redress for an 1849 event is the gift that keeps on giving. To keep this at all costs.
I agree that ACT's proposed bill could have been better titled.
Because - from the ORIGINAL Treaty (Not the fictional "Tiriti" version that the Waitangi Tribunal has dreamed up) there were:-
No "Principles" and
No "partnership".
Debates over whether sovereignty was or was not ceded are pointless.
The English version said sovereignty and the Maori version said "Governance." Any unbiassed observer would translate these 1840 words to mean the same thing in 2024.
Also - at the Kohimaramara conference in 1860, the chiefs confirmed their acceptance of sovereignty - welcomed it, in fact.
The leaders of Labour, the Greens and TPM say sovereignty wasn't ceded by Iwi. It is fairly clear what the next Government are going to put in place by 2040.
Unfortunately Professor, we have those cursed 'principles' inserted throughout our legislation, so they either must be removed, or addressed by definition if we ever want to live in anything like harmony as a united nation. Since there appears to be no real will to remove them, then it's a case of the latter, and calling them something else will just provide continued latitude for the activists while those other 'principles' remain.
But as for the main premise, Maori absolutely did cede sovereignty/governance, well leastwise as best they could given they didn't really have a unified entity to cede. As for the nonsense about tino rangatiratanga - yes, they received that, but so did all the people of Nu Tirani/New Zealand, if one rightly accepts there can only be one Treaty - that version written in Maori.
And for those that claim otherwise, isn't it interesting how they've readily accepted all the Treaty settlements to date. If good faith is important, then how about returning all that first and then we can talk about what the Treaty means. And, I still can't for the life of me understand why, arguably the most powerful force of the time, the Crown would have offered protection and the equivalent of British citizenship to an uncivilised, divided bunch of marauding, cannibalistic warmongers, just for the pleasure a governing at most a few thousand expatriates on the other side of the planet? Such simply does not make sense, and no amount of 'Treaty twisting' can justify it.
But Barrie is correct. The proposed revised second principle is an abomination, which will only continue to divide rather than unite us.
Yes Barrie, you can say that last sentence again, and again and again ... as you previously said, the latest change to the wording of that 2nd Principle with the hapu and iwi has ruined what was an elegant, simple and cohesive set of three elements that did not contradict one another and transformed it to an inconsistent set of dangerous contradictions. It can now be interpreted (and clearly will be by those with an agenda) to have the opposite meaning to that which was in the original Act policy and for which which we voted. To believe that there is nothing wrong with recognising hapu and iwi rights, so long as they are no different from the rights everyone can reasonably expect has that word "reasonably" in it. That being the case, there is no need at all to call iwi/hapu out separately, since that only serves to reinforce the inference that some in New Zealand are more equal than others and sadly, we all know that that to be true. Allowing NZ First to clean out the principle nonsense from all legislation is a important step but maybe as Professor MacCulloch suggests, the bill could be renamed to disconnect it from the Treaty and I would then suggest it be reset to its self consistent state and taken to referendum, so that NZers can lock the values they want our governments to apply into a constitutional frame.
WELL SAID , Peter !!
Your last three paragraphs sum it up exactly !
This is such a one-eyed storm in a teacup it’s long since ceased to be funny.
It’s really simple. If Maori didn’t cede sovereignty like is recently claimed, why did the Queen of England sign anything at all?
What was England getting if not full sovereignty of the land?
This is where the activists spring the co-governance concept you.
Now it’s a simple exercise in seeing what is most likely. Ceded sovereignty like everyone believed and behaved like untill very recently? Or the Queen of England, the most powerful nation on earth decided to equally share authority with pre-Neolithic cannibals on the other end of the world? Which sounds more likely to of occurred? 🤔
And that is to say nothing of the amazing situation of a sovereigns subjects (Maori) now being equal to and sharing the same power with their sovereign they are supposed to be subjects of
This not ceded sovereignty argument should have been laughed outta any house it was uttered in.
The Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 30th July 1839 issued by Victoria by the Grace of God under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland extended the boundaries and laws of New South Wales over all the islands of New Zealand.
Extract from said document:
“And whereas we did by certain other letters patent under the great seal of our said United Kingdom, bearing date at Westminster the 15th day of June 1839 in the third year of our reign revoke so much of the said first recited letters patent as describes the limits of our said territory of New South Wales, and did further extend the limits of our said territory of New South Wales to also include any territory which is or may be acquired in sovereignty by us our heirs or successors within that group of islands in the pacific ocean commonly called New Zealand, and lying in or about the latitude of 34 degrees 30 minutes north and 47 degrees 10 minutes south, and 166 degrees 5 minutes and 179 degrees east longitude from the said meridian of Greenwich”.
“You the said William Hobson do by those present constitute and appoint you to be our lieutenant Governor in and over that part of our territory so described as foresaid in our said last recited letters patent which is or maybe acquired in sovereignty by us our heirs or successors within that group of islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand”.
“Our captain general and governor in chief in and over our territory of New South Wales and its dependencies or in the event of his death or absence from the limits of his government and command by the officer for the time being administering the government of our said territory and its dependencies. And whereas it is necessary that provision be made for the execution of the office of our lieutenant governor of our said territories in New Zealand in the event of your death or absence therefrom, we do therefore by these presents authorise and empower the said Sir George Gipps or the officer administering the government of our said territory of New South Wales and its dependencies for the time being to nominate and appoint by an instrument under the public seal of our said territory of New South Wales, such person as he may think fit to act provisionally as our lieutenant governor of our said territories in New Zealand”.
By extending the boundaries of the New South Wales territory, a British Colony, over all the islands of New Zealand, Britain had formally claimed sovereignty over New Zealand, six months before the Maori chiefs signed their treaty, agreeing to become British subjects in exchange for the Queens protection.
As for sovereignty, they had zero sovereignty to cede.
No one wanted nz. The dutch got there first, mapped it, but never went ashore. There is no way the british would EVER have said, let's ' set up a partnership. Why would they? .Those iwi who say that it was a 50/50 partnership must pay back the british govt for all the infrastructure, roads, cities,, water, electricity, schools, hospitals in that case, as they definitely did not contribute in 1840.
Anonymous 1.21, I think that this is the most important point, prior to Europeans arriving, Maori were a number of tribes, often in conflict with each other, with no one having any authority over all Maori, i.e. there was no sovereign. Maori chiefs didn't cede sovereignty, they didn't have any to cede, they may not have understand the concept, or even have had a word for it. This doesn't mean that they didn't accept Queen Victoria as their overall ruler while they kept all of their rights as the chief of their tribes.
NZ is not alone! For entertainment, follow the forthcoming CHOGM meeting in Samoa. Eye watering sums for reparation dating back centuries demanded by former British colonies. These would bankrupt modern welfare states. China's hand in this mischief is clear.....leader of the new world order. No doubt Winston will attend as Foreign Minister and deliver a suitably acerbic riposte.
Prof MacCulloch is right. What the Treaty says was “then”. What’s important is what we do now.
Let’s focus on that.
Rebranding Seymour’s bill a “Constitutional Principles Bill” would achieve that.
It would also sideline the incessant arguments over whether Maori did or didn’t cede sovereignty.
What matters now is what principles we adopt for how the country is governed in the future.
In that respect, I can’t see how anyone can sensibly argue for one section of society to have more rights than the rest.
Let’s just get to the nub of the issue and agree on this point and put it in writing.
Who knows - it might lead on to the creation of a written constitution which would put the issue beyond debate in the future.
All of the discussion above illustrates well that NZ First’s approach to the problem: removing references to non-existent “treaty principles” is the best course. If something doesn’t actually exist in the treaty as it is written then there is no need for a debate or discussion about it.
This is why Chief Justice Prendergast ruled the TOW a simple nullity stating, “So far indeed as that instrument purported to cede the sovereignty it must be regarded as a simple nullity. No political body existed capable of making cession of sovereignty”.
Chief Justice Prendergast also stated that Lord Normanby had simply contradicted himself when in treaty instructions to Hobson he wrote, “We acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state, so far at least as it is possible to make such acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even to deliberate in concert”.
PS. The Royal Charter Letters/Patent ending, “Given at our court at Buckingham place the 30th day of July 1839, in the third year of our reign, by her majesty’s command, Lord Normandy.
Post a Comment