Reconstituting Aotearoa-New Zealand.
Can Māori sovereignty, extinguished by force, ever be re-established by peaceful means?
“A BICULTURAL REPUBLIC? A constitution based on the concept of shared sovereignty between Māori and Pakeha? The provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi entrenched as the fundamental law of Aotearoa-New Zealand? What are the chances of any of these things coming to pass?”
Such were the questions with which I began “The Constitution of Sovereignty” – lead article of the April/May 1995 issue of New Zealand Political Review.
“Since our present constitutional arrangements grew out of the armed conquest of Māori land and the refusal of our ancestors to honour the Treaty of Waitangi”, the article continued, “the chances of Māori sovereignty being reclaimed without a similar struggle would appear to be slim.
“It is almost inconceivable that Pakeha New Zealanders would surrender their dominant position in this society without a fight. The challenge, therefore, has been to construct a scenario in which a sufficient number of disaffected Pakeha could be convinced that joining forces with radical Māori was the only effective way of defending the interests of both races.”
The passage of thirty years has in no way moderated that challenge. Uniting Māori and Pakeha in a popular political campaign for comprehensive constitutional reform remains the crucial precondition for a future worth inhabiting in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Sadly, setting such a campaign in motion is no easier now than it was thirty years ago, indeed, it shows every sign of having become a great deal harder.
While Māori have devoted a great deal of time and energy to the problem of how to construct a constitution capable of giving effect to te Tiriti (as Māori understand it) Pakeha have not.
Non-Māori engagement with the subject is mostly limited to “allies” offering enthusiastic support for Māori constitutional proposals, most notably Moana Jackson’s “Matike Mai Aotearoa”.
Outside of this academic and left-wing activist milieu, however, Pakeha engagement on constitutional matters has been almost exclusively reactive. Right-wing opinion overwhelmingly backs the status-quo, although the volume at which its defenders make their case is usually inversely proportional to their numbers.
The Pakeha “middle ground”, meanwhile, prefers to keep well away from the whole subject. Constitutional reform is probably needed, they’ll concede, but the toxic quality of contemporary politics argues much more convincingly for keeping one’s head well below the parapet.
The response to David Seymour and his Treaty Principles Bill has hardly been encouraging. Responding to the Treaty with anything other than uncritical admiration and unquestioning support has proved to be not so much a “Third Rail” issue, as a tripwire attached to the trigger of a ꞏ50 calibre rhetorical machine-gun!
The extraordinarily well-organised and massive response to the Treaty Principles Bill did, however, remind me forcefully of the “Revolutionary Scenario” I had constructed for my readers back in 1995:
“The mass mobilisation of popular resistance to the Coalition, advocated by the Opposition in Parliament and spearheaded by the seasoned campaigners for Māori sovereignty on the streets, sees a dangerous escalation in civic disorder – culminating in huge street demonstrations and a nationwide general strike. When the Government attempts to quell these protests by force, Māori elements of the armed forces mutiny, disarm their Pakeha comrades, and join the demonstrators. In Wellington, thousands of workers, students, and young unemployed Māori, protected from the Police by mutinous Māori soldiers, storm Parliament, arrest the New Right leaders, and declare the Republic of Aotearoa-New Zealand.”
Were I constructing such a scenario today, I would have the mutinous Māori soldiers joined by armed gang members. And, with the example of the record-breaking Toitū te Tiriti demonstration before me, I’d extend the scope of Māori participation to include the entire demographic spectrum of the tangata whenua.
Those vociferous critics of Māori nationalism should, perhaps, pause and give thought to the extraordinary fact that upwards of 80,000 aggrieved Māori came onto the streets of Wellington, marched to Parliament in perfect order, without violence, and declined to seize power.
That the largest single political demonstration in New Zealand history dispersed in peace is, in my opinion, the greatest cause for retaining confidence in this country’s future. Proof that Māori are convinced that change can still be made with Pakeha – rather than against them.
The problem needing to be solved, therefore, is how to arrange for Pakeha to engage in a national conversation about New Zealand’s constitutional future without the whole exercise being gate-crashed and subverted by furious Māori nationalists unwilling to countenance such discussions occurring without Māori input. “Nothing about us, without us!”, they’d cry, aghast at the prospect of te Tiriti being debated by unsupervised Pakeha.
What those same Māori nationalists would then have to explain, however, is why the “Matike Mai Aotearoa” constitutional exercise was undertaken by Māori, for Māori, behind closed doors, and with only a handful of respectfully silent Pakeha in attendance.
Presumably, those disposed to respond to such a question would argue that inviting Māori to express their views about what a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa might look like, while a clutch of po-faced Pakeha stood around snorting and tut-tutting, would be a complete waste of time. Certainly, there is a large measure of absurdity attached to the suggestion that colonisation’s victors should be allowed to criticise and correct the remedies proposed by colonisation’s victims.
Except, after all the sound and fury inspired by the Treaty Principles Bill, it would require a very brave Pakeha indeed to give free-rein to his or her constitutional ideas in a room full of Tina Ngatas and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarkes. Especially if the ideas being expressed flatly contradicted constitutional proposals already being promoted by many Māori activists. Such face-to-face confrontations might very quickly descend into epithet-heavy recriminations and chaos.
One possible route out of this impasse is by way of a “Citizens’ Assembly”. These are gatherings of citizens selected at random to consider matters upon which public opinion is sharply divided and/or confused. Much like a jury (also comprised of citizens chosen at random) a Citizens’ Assembly is presented with the evidence of expert witnesses and, guided by this material, attempts to rationally resolve the issues placed before them.
But who would those “experts” be? Waitangi Tribunal Members? Supreme Court Judges? Academics? Public Servants? Journalists? Kaumatua? Rangatahi? Hobson’s Pledge? Thirty years ago, a hundred New Zealanders chosen at random would probably have been willing to be guided by such luminaries. In the sharply polarised New Zealand of 2025, however, disinterested and dispassionate experts are hard to find – and even harder to trust.
In the end, you simply can’t take the politics out of politics. New Zealand’s constitutional future is, therefore, likely to be decided by a party-driven exercise not dissimilar to the one the New Zealand parliament has just voted to terminate.
At some point, a political party, or group of parties, will again present a constitutional proposition to the nation. Not a statement of principles this time, but a bill requiring the election of a constituent assembly charged with drawing-up a constitution which, when completed, will be presented to the New Zealand people for ratification.
The same arguments that dogged David Seymour’s bill: angry denunciations of “the tyranny of the majority”; passionate defences of liberty, equality, and human solidarity; imprecations against those who would traduce the sacred Treaty of Waitangi; will again be flung in the faces of the electorate. On this occasion, however, those presenting the bill will be united in their determination to vote it through. What happens then? Will the tens-of-thousands of angry Māori, or Pakeha, marching on Parliament disperse peacefully a second time?
Re-reading my “Constitution of Sovereignty” I was struck by how hard it was to answer the key question posed by my younger self:
“Expressed in its most brutal terms, the notion of national sovereignty may be reduced to the simple question: ‘Who enjoys the monopoly over the use of organised violence?’ Settler sovereignty over New Zealand could not be enforced until the military power of the iwi was extinguished. Could Māori sovereignty, destroyed by force of arms, ever be re-established by peaceful means?”
Chris
I wonder why you write articles like this. Is it just to be provocative, to stir up the passions of both Maori and non-Maori? To re-affirm your left leaning credentials? Why?
To address the points you raise:
“Shared Sovereignty” is an ahistorical fantasy that does not exist in any version of the Treaty. Those who advocate for it are delusional. In any event, Te Pati Maori does not want ‘shared Sovereignty’ they want Maori Sovereignty. They refuse to acknowledge the authority of Parliament whose tax payers fund their MP’s salaries and seek to establish a privileges committee of their own. They refuse to submit to Parliamentary authority relying upon the institution only for their salaries. They are the tip of your spear.
To raise the spectre of ‘armed conquest’ in our current context is grossly irresponsible.
It is not incumbent upon Non-Maori to revisit ‘constitutional matters’. Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 with very few tribal exceptions. Maori were given property rights, albeit they have been abused by the crown, Maori were given British citizenship, that is to say equality before the rule of law.
The Waitangi Tribunal as originally established sought to address historical claims. It has morphed into something ‘other’ presently with more than 200 claims that fall outside of its original mandate. No wonder Richard Prebble called ‘time’ on the farce.
Where does all the talk of ‘mutinous Maori soldiers supported by gang members storming parliament come from? This is irresponsible rhetoric.
We have a ‘citizens assembly’ it is called Parliament. We don’t need another one!
To answer your question as to ‘who enjoys the monopoly over the use of organised violence’? it is the State as expressed through the democratically elected Parliament. No one else, thank God. This is one gift that Western Civilisation has given to us including all Maori, and the majority of Maori Chiefs in 1840 understood this perfectly. They had experienced 30 years of musket wars that decimated the Maori population, and they wanted the British rule of law that stood outside and above their tribal hatreds.
They wanted peace.
Now here’s some uncomfortable truths explained very clearly today by social commentator and researcher Lindsay Mitchell https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/lindsay-mitchell-maori-must-take-control She rehearses one area where, if Maori are to have an economic future, they need to exercise control and I quote:
“There were 17,028 Maori babies born in 2024.
According to an official information response from the Ministry of Social Development, 5,997 were dependent on welfare by the end of the year. That's 35.2 percent. Most would have been born onto a benefit.
Of the 17,397 born in 2023, 7,737 were on a benefit by age two. That's 44.5 percent. The equivalent percentages for non-Maori babies are respectively 11.4 and 14.8 percent
These extraordinarily high Maori numbers aren't due to unemployment - just one in ten of the Maori babies born last year became dependent on a Job Seeker benefit. Eighty percent have sole parents. The future expected time on a benefit for sole parents is 17 years.
Growing up in homes where nobody works is bad for children. They are more exposed to transience, abuse and neglect, violence, poor educational outcomes, poor health outcomes and substance abuse. This is an entrenched pattern of behaviour for too many Maori. It lies at the heart of all of the downstream negative statistics which we are then told to believe are caused by colonisation and racism.
Come on. Non-Maori might feel aggrieved by this finger-pointing but they are not the ones who are hurt and damaged by it. Maori children are.”
The State, iwi, and extended family are no substitute for functional birth families. This stubborn fact is yet to be embraced by Maori leadership. Where is Te Pati Maori on this issue? Nothing will change for Maori until this issue is addressed.
80,000 Māori came to Parliament in a hikoi? How did that number double from what was estimated on the day? Does a Pākehā in a hikoi become a Māori for a day? And no property got destroyed that day, so it definitively shows they’ll be completely trustworthy to be given what they want. Give me a break, Chris - every group of people in the world has the same mixture of the greedy and corrupt amongst them as anyone else. This is demonstrated by what we’re seeing amongst some iwi with their dubious revenue gathering practices from anyone who even glances sideways at land the iwi claim their ancestors once did something on. Revenue which in many cases doesn’t seem to make it past the pockets of the iwi leaders. There will be little benefit at all to regular Māori from anything that looks like co-governance or special concessions.