In a recent appearance on Q+A, Margaret Mutu advanced arguments implying that Māori never ceded sovereignty, that New Zealand is fundamentally a Māori country, and that democratic structures should be reshaped to reflect Māori authority.
It is a powerful narrative. It is also one that collapses under constitutional scrutiny.
No modern democracy can function if sovereignty is permanently “unsettled”. For more than 180 years, New Zealand has operated as a single state under a single system of law, recognised internationally and accepted domestically. Elections, legislation, courts, treaties, and international agreements all presuppose settled sovereignty. To deny that reality is not radical insight; it is constitutional denialism.
The Treaty of Waitangi is rightly recognised as historically and morally significant. It has been used to address historical grievances—some of which remain open to debate—through settlements and recognition. But it did not create a system of ethnic authority. Modern judicial interpretations of the Treaty guide government conduct only where Parliament has chosen to reference them; they do not override parliamentary sovereignty or democratic equality. To claim otherwise is to convert a moral obligation into an implied constitutional revolution—without public consent.
Much weight is placed on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Yet the declaration is non-binding and explicitly framed to operate within existing nation-states. It does not mandate co-governance, shared sovereignty, or veto powers. No comparable liberal democracy has interpreted it as requiring race-based political authority.
We are also told that New Zealand is afflicted by “entrenched, normalised racism”. That claim sits uneasily with reality. New Zealand today has ethnicity-based funding, ethnicity-based health structures, ethnicity-based political representation, and ethnicity-based governance bodies. A country actively redesigning public institutions around Māori identity is not marginalising Māori. It is elevating ethnicity into a governing principle—often without electoral mandate.
He Puapua exemplified this problem. It proposed far-reaching constitutional change without having been put to voters. Opposition to He Puapua was not anti-Māori; it was opposition to constitutional transformation by stealth.
Historical claims also require accuracy. Māori tribes were independent of one another, frequently in conflict, and no unified authority existed that could “invite” settlement on behalf of the entire country. Mana whenua is a local concept tied to particular land and iwi, not a claim to national political authority. He Whakaputanga was signed by some northern chiefs, not all Māori, and never functioned as a modern nation-state.
Perhaps the most troubling claim is that democracy itself must be redefined according to a Māori “consensus” model. While consensus may operate within iwi or hapū, it is not democracy at the national level. Democracy rests on equal votes, accountability, and the ability of citizens to remove decision-makers. Proposals such as co-governance arise from this redefinition of democracy, yet co-governance bodies appointed on the basis of ancestry satisfy none of these democratic conditions.
New Zealand is not an anti-Māori country. Māori culture is celebrated, the Māori language is protected, and Māori leadership is prominent across public life. What is being challenged is not Māori identity, but the idea that political power should depend on ancestry rather than citizenship. Fair-minded New Zealanders are not “anti-Māori”; they are defending democracy, opposing all forms of racism, and rejecting distorted accounts of our history on which much contemporary racial division is built.
This country belongs to all who are citizens of it. Māori history is central to our national story, but the future must be shared on the basis of citizenship. A democracy divided by race is not justice; it is a retreat from the principle that made modern New Zealand possible.
The Treaty is honoured not by abandoning equality, but by upholding a system in which rights flow from citizenship, governments are accountable to voters, and no group—however alleged to be historically wronged—rules over others.
That is not anti-Māori. It is pro-democracy—and pro–New Zealand.
Much of today’s grievance politics rests on the assumption that historical difference must translate into permanent political distinction. That is not how a modern democracy works. Democracy exists to allow people of different origins to stand equal under a shared system of law, not to entrench ancestry as a source of authority. New Zealand today provides Māori citizens with the same legal rights, political voice, education, and opportunity as any other citizen. That may sit uncomfortably with tribal models of authority rooted in lineage and hierarchy, but it is the very essence of democratic citizenship. History explains how we arrived here; it does not justify dividing the future along racial lines.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
The Treaty of Waitangi is rightly recognised as historically and morally significant. It has been used to address historical grievances—some of which remain open to debate—through settlements and recognition. But it did not create a system of ethnic authority. Modern judicial interpretations of the Treaty guide government conduct only where Parliament has chosen to reference them; they do not override parliamentary sovereignty or democratic equality. To claim otherwise is to convert a moral obligation into an implied constitutional revolution—without public consent.
Much weight is placed on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Yet the declaration is non-binding and explicitly framed to operate within existing nation-states. It does not mandate co-governance, shared sovereignty, or veto powers. No comparable liberal democracy has interpreted it as requiring race-based political authority.
We are also told that New Zealand is afflicted by “entrenched, normalised racism”. That claim sits uneasily with reality. New Zealand today has ethnicity-based funding, ethnicity-based health structures, ethnicity-based political representation, and ethnicity-based governance bodies. A country actively redesigning public institutions around Māori identity is not marginalising Māori. It is elevating ethnicity into a governing principle—often without electoral mandate.
He Puapua exemplified this problem. It proposed far-reaching constitutional change without having been put to voters. Opposition to He Puapua was not anti-Māori; it was opposition to constitutional transformation by stealth.
Historical claims also require accuracy. Māori tribes were independent of one another, frequently in conflict, and no unified authority existed that could “invite” settlement on behalf of the entire country. Mana whenua is a local concept tied to particular land and iwi, not a claim to national political authority. He Whakaputanga was signed by some northern chiefs, not all Māori, and never functioned as a modern nation-state.
Perhaps the most troubling claim is that democracy itself must be redefined according to a Māori “consensus” model. While consensus may operate within iwi or hapū, it is not democracy at the national level. Democracy rests on equal votes, accountability, and the ability of citizens to remove decision-makers. Proposals such as co-governance arise from this redefinition of democracy, yet co-governance bodies appointed on the basis of ancestry satisfy none of these democratic conditions.
New Zealand is not an anti-Māori country. Māori culture is celebrated, the Māori language is protected, and Māori leadership is prominent across public life. What is being challenged is not Māori identity, but the idea that political power should depend on ancestry rather than citizenship. Fair-minded New Zealanders are not “anti-Māori”; they are defending democracy, opposing all forms of racism, and rejecting distorted accounts of our history on which much contemporary racial division is built.
This country belongs to all who are citizens of it. Māori history is central to our national story, but the future must be shared on the basis of citizenship. A democracy divided by race is not justice; it is a retreat from the principle that made modern New Zealand possible.
The Treaty is honoured not by abandoning equality, but by upholding a system in which rights flow from citizenship, governments are accountable to voters, and no group—however alleged to be historically wronged—rules over others.
That is not anti-Māori. It is pro-democracy—and pro–New Zealand.
Much of today’s grievance politics rests on the assumption that historical difference must translate into permanent political distinction. That is not how a modern democracy works. Democracy exists to allow people of different origins to stand equal under a shared system of law, not to entrench ancestry as a source of authority. New Zealand today provides Māori citizens with the same legal rights, political voice, education, and opportunity as any other citizen. That may sit uncomfortably with tribal models of authority rooted in lineage and hierarchy, but it is the very essence of democratic citizenship. History explains how we arrived here; it does not justify dividing the future along racial lines.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
4 comments:
Well said.So much for Luxon and his election promises to sort all of this out for New Zealanders
Is NZ going forward, generating prosperity for the people with world leading health, education etc. No we are focused on the 1800's and seriously going backwards
UNDRIP ( non legally binding) Art 46: no action taken can alter or undermine the sovereign state without permission.
He Puapua seeks to do exactly this -without any formal consent from NZ citizens. This is routinely ignored and without serious challenge.
NZ: reap what you sow.
This country is slipping into the 3rd world more and more each day-thanks to the Maoris.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.