Classic Example of Failure

Classic Example of Failure

I see that the Leader of the Labour Party, Chris Hipkins was reported in the New Zealand Herald as claiming that “Māori did not cede sovereignty” when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi.

He was quoted as stating:

“It’s pretty clear that if you follow the various court rulings over time, the academic research, and the Treaty settlement process, the answer is no.”

He further clarified, “That doesn’t mean the Crown doesn’t have sovereignty now, but Māori didn’t cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty.”

It is beyond belief that anyone, (let alone the leader of the Labour Party) could make such a statement given the wording of the 1^st article of the Treaty document (see copy of the Littlewood draft below):-

   Article one: “The chiefs of the confederation of united tribes, and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire sovereignty of their country.”

This is also backed up by the writing of one of New Zealand’s most acclaimed Maori Leaders; Sir Apirana Ngata- M.A. LLB. LIT.D in his book, the "Treaty of Waitangi" which concludes with the words:

"The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their    rights in the days when they were powerful".

He makes the claim that they did not cede sovereignty and then immediately goes on to say that this doesn’t mean that the Crown doesn’t have sovereignty now.

This in my opinion is, as the headline states, a classic example of why he failed as leader of the Labour Party. He is contradicting himself in relation to the sovereignty question by claiming that Maori didn’t cede sovereignty and then saying that the Crown has sovereignty now.

The only way that would be possible would be for Maori to have ceded sovereignty at some stage and therefore his argument that they didn’t cede sovereignty is wrong as evidenced by his own claim that the Crown “now” has sovereignty.

In my opinion this not only confirms that he has very little real understanding of what the Treaty document contains and that he is quite prepared to promote a race based division of New Zealand to benefit his political aims.

This claim that the Treaty of Waitangi did not cede sovereignty to the Crown is not supported by any of the documentation of the Treaty although the latter-day reinterpretations of the Treaty he states such as the various court rulings over time, the academic research, and the Treaty settlement process are simply stated as a fact.

There is no acknowledgement anywhere in his statements that this assertion was flatly contradicted by many of the speeches recorded by Colenso in writing at the time (on 5 February 1840) and flatly contradicted also by speeches made by numerous chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860.

If he truly believes that Maori didn’t cede sovereignty to the Crown in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary he must have rocks in his head.

Even his own previous Labour Prime Minister and Party Leader David Lange stated that his government could not acknowledge the existence of a dual sovereignty.

In a speech given by David Lange in the year 2000 he highlighted the danger to democracy of proceeding down the path of dual sovereignty. Mr Lange said that in a democracy what we cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as we do that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t co-exist and we can’t have them both. He went on to say that the court of appeal once, absurdly, described the treaty as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not.  

Hipkins’ claim that Māori did not cede sovereignty is not only wrong in fact, but it also promotes racial separation of our country and creates a serious threat to our democratic system of governance.

He either has very little real understanding of what the Treaty document contains or he is quite prepared to ignore the facts and promote a race based division of New Zealand to benefit his political aims; either way his claims do no more than provide a classic example of failure and give a deeper insight into why the Labour Government lost the 2023 general election.