top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!


MURIEL NEWMAN: Governing For All

At his first press conference after being elected unopposed as Labour’s new leader, Chris Hipkins was caught out by a journalist for being unable to explain the three articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In this, he followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, Jacinda Ardern, who was also unable to explain the Treaty, when she first became Labour leader and New Zealand’s Prime Minister.

These faux pas are surprising given the degree to which Labour has embedded the Treaty within our society - and concerning, in that our country’s leaders appear to have accepted the mantra of radical Maori, who are using fabricated claims about the Treaty to secure control of public services and resources through co-governance.

Instead of admitting that the Treaty was a contract that established the Queen as our Sovereign, protected private property rights, and gave Maori the same rights and privileges of British citizenship as every other New Zealander, the tribal elite are undermining democracy by promoting the lie that Maori are in a ‘Treaty partnership’ with the Crown to elevate themselves into a ‘power-sharing’ ruling aristocracy.

As an ardent disciple of Marxism and identity politics, Jacinda Ardern’s ignorance about the true meaning of the Treaty led our former Prime Minister to embrace the tribal elite’s agenda, dividing New Zealanders by race and introducing Apartheid into the delivery of public services.

Former Labour Prime Ministers did not allow themselves to be ‘captured’ in this way.

Helen Clark was clear that as Prime Minister, she had to understand minority concerns, but govern for all New Zealanders: “We hear the concern being expressed but my method is that we must govern in the interests of all New Zealanders to get the fair balance we are striving for.”

As a result, in 2003, she rejected outright a Waitangi Tribunal finding that Maori had a claim over oil and gas reserves, stating that Crown ownership was in the public interest.

In 2004, she refused to meet with protestors marching on Parliament over her plan to restore Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed, branding them as “haters and wreckers”, and instead visiting with Shrek, the celebrity sheep from Central Otago, whom she claimed was “better company”.

Governing for all New Zealanders was also behind her 2005 decision to set a deadline for lodging historic Treaty claims: “Both Maori and Pakeha want us to complete treaty settlements so we can move forward together. Achieving that will need a closing off date for the lodging of claims to be set. The focus then can be forward looking.”

Prime Minister Clark refused excessive Maori demands, knowing that her job was to govern in the wider interest of New Zealand.

Former Labour Prime Minister David Lange also governed for all New Zealanders, rejecting outright Maori demands for sovereignty: “Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority, and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both.”

Former Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk also governed for all New Zealanders, instituting “New Zealand Day” in 1974 as a national day of celebration to commemorate the signing of the Treaty and the establishment of New Zealand as a diverse nation bound together by common citizenship and a love of our country: “This is our nation, our opportunity to foster and encourage New Zealand nationhood that we mark with pride and gratitude… and resolve that for the future, together we work to build the society in New Zealand that gratifies us and becomes the envy of others.”

But while Jacinda Ardern in her 2020 election night victory speech claimed she would “govern for all New Zealanders”, her words were a deception, as she embarked on her secret and unmandated He Puapua agenda to empower the tribal elite through policies that privilege Maori over everyone else.

Whether Chris Hipkins will allow Jacinda Ardern’s Apartheid legacy to remain in place, or whether he will reject it and emulate other Labour Prime Ministers by governing for all New Zealanders, remains to be seen. But whichever direction he takes, it is imperative that he acquires a full understanding of the original meaning of the Treaty.

With that in mind, there is probably no better reference than the explanation of the Maori version of the Treaty that was written in 1922 by the great Maori leader and Member of Parliament Sir Apirana Ngata, long before radicalised Maori sovereignty activists began re-inventing the Treaty. His simple explanation was published by the Maori Purposes Fund Board and distributed to all Maori families to clarify the exact meaning of the Treaty.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentary (see below) is Sir Apirana Ngata’s booklet, The Treaty of Waitangi, which clearly outlines the three articles of the Treaty:

“These are the words of the first article of the Treaty of Waitangi: The Chiefs assembled including Chiefs not present at the assembly hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the government of all of their lands.

“This is the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi: The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes and all their possessions…

“This is the third article of the Treaty: In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal Protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects.

In his introductory comments, Sir Apirana Ngata explained that the Queen wanted to establish a government to avert the danger to Maori and Europeans ‘living under no laws’ during these ‘cannibal times’ and ‘illiterate days’: “The Maori did not have any government when the European first came to these islands. There was no unified chiefly authority over man or land… Within one tribe there were many divisions into sub-tribes each under their own chief. How could such an organisation, as a Government, be established under Maori custom? There was without doubt Maori chieftainship, but it was limited in its scope to its subtribe, and even to only a family group. The Maori did not have authority or a government which could make laws to govern the whole of the Maori Race.

“These were the reasons for the direct approach by Governor Hobson to the Maori Chiefs and for arranging for copies of the Treaty to be taken from end to end of each island, seeking to obtain the concurrence of chief after chief… 512 Maori Chiefs subscribed their marks or their names to the Treaty of Waitangi.”

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

Even though the Treaty is clear that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Queen - and that it is constitutionally impossible for a partnership to exist between the sovereign and the governed - the ‘Treaty partnership’ fabrication has flourished under Labour.

Critical public services are now controlled by Maori. As a consequence of the health system being under the influence of the tribal elite, we now face the intolerable situation where health care is no longer being prioritised on the basis of clinical need, but by race. Indeed, warnings are now emerging from those working within the sector that some areas are in such a mess, they are in danger of collapse.

Then there’s the universally hated Three Waters scheme that not only confiscates services and infrastructure from councils, to put control firmly into the hands of Maori, but it forces ratepayers to underwrite the massive debts that these new mega agencies are expected to accumulate.

(Graph source and notes here)

As a result, Chris Hipkins needs to understand that it’s not just co-governance that should be scrapped, but the whole scheme – including the devious Te Mana o te Wai provisions, which effectively give local Maori full authority over the management of water in each catchment area.

New Zealanders need to reject any cosmetic changes the PM is likely to introduce, and strengthen the call for Nanaia Mahuta’s entire scheme to be thrown out.

As the debate over co-governance and He Puapua has progressed throughout this term of government, it is clear that along with Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party, and apparently some National MPs, most mainstream media journalists have swallowed the ‘Treaty partnership’ fabrication that’s being pushed by the iwi elite, without questioning their underlying agenda for control of the country.

Labour’s $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund has played a big part in corrupting the media by requiring anyone participating in the scheme to proactively promote the Treaty ‘partnership’ lie.

The only politicians to have rejected the partnership fabrication from the outset have been David Seymour and Winston Peters.

Meanwhile, comments from iwi leaders over Waitangi weekend indicated how desperate they are not to let the foothold in government they forged under Jacinda Ardern, slip away.

Former MP Tukoroirangi Morgan, the newly appointed co-chair of the Region One Three Waters Entity, stated in his typically menacing manner, “The challenge we've put to the prime minister today is will he succumb to the attack dogs of the National party and ACT as they fan the flames of racism and anti-Maori sentiments, and throw us under the bus for the sake of keeping alive three waters?”

In true Orwellian style, iwi leaders have the audacity to claim that those who want every New Zealander treated as equals are racists, while those who want the country divided by race, are not!

For most people, the concept of their skin colour being used to determine their rights, is utterly abhorrent. Kiwis have never wanted to be divided by race, which is why the on-going attempts by separatists to establish Maori seats in local government, failed in almost every referendum.

It is therefore unsurprising that the public is now objecting to enforced racial categorisation. And that’s the bottom line: Kiwis want to be treated as equals, united as one people under one flag, with New Zealand, one nation - a country of equal citizens, not a collection of competing tribes.

This is what Chris Hipkins needs to recognise if he is to succeed as our country’s leader. He must govern for all New Zealanders, if his party is to regain the confidence of middle New Zealand. Tinkering with policies will not be enough.

And that’s also what Christopher Luxon - and his National Party - needs to realise if he is to have any hope of one day becoming our Prime Minister. Governing for all New Zealanders is the only way to build a successful future.


“It was on the 6th day of February, 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was made. It was made between Governor William Hobson on behalf of Queen Victoria and Maori Chiefs who gathered there on that day…

“From then to now the Treaty and the provisions therein have been the subject of discussion by learned men and administrators of Maori affairs. It is on the lips of the humble and the great, of the ignorant and of the thoughtful. It was an old lady who asked me quite recently, ‘Now you tell me what are its conditions and why is it the subject of discussion on the maraes?’

“The Treaty of Waitangi was first written in the English language and then translated into the Maori language. The draft was actually written by Governor Hobson and Busby (who was the previous administrator for the Queen before Governor Hobson) corrected it. This is what Busby said and it was printed in the Parliamentary papers for the year 1861: ‘The draft of the Treaty was made by me and was approved by Captain Hobson. He made a few alterations but the fundamental provisions were not altered.’

“The Maori version of the Treaty was by Henry Williams, referred to as the Four-eyed Williams, one of the ancestors of the subtribe of the Williams. The English expressions in the Treaty were not adequately rendered into Maori. There were minor parts left out. However, the Maori version clearly explained the main provisions of the Treaty, therefore, let the Maori version of the Treaty explain itself…”

Read the full booklet at the NZCPR here

NZCPR Founder and Director: Dr Muriel Newman established the New Zealand Centre for Political Research as a public policy think tank in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. A former Chamber of Commerce President, her background is in business and education.

5,037 views119 comments

119 commenti

“Lady Tureiti Moxon: The Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership and not a takeover”.

Undemocratic bicultural bunkum more likely.

What is being plugged is consensus decision making. This would result in an undemocratic sharing of power and resources, paid for by the multicultural majority.

To establish lucrative privileges in perpetuity for a undemocratic small tribe. A minority of a minority.

NZ is a long standing multicultural democracy.

Democracy should not be brushed aside to satisfy wokes.

So, I and many others want a binding referendum on repealing the TOW legislation.

If legitimately passed by eligible voters, I want parliament to repeal such legislation.

Never mind sly and soothing words about how wonderful consensus would be. A pipe dream actually.


Mi piace
Risposta a

Hello Brian

Brian writes constructively.

Do any posters to this forum have a Masters in Public Policy? If so, they, as part of a small team, would be best suited to lodge a petition for a binding referendum to repeal all TOW legislation.

To succeed, a small, energetic and organised team of wordsmiths is required -

They will -

1. know their way around central government;

2. know how to appeal to politicians;

3. know how to appeal to Select Committee members and Chairs;

4. know how to garner public support;

5. know how to effectively lobby, to make their petition compelling to voters.

An uphill battle for sure, as neither major political party want a petition, let alone a…

Mi piace

Aaron Shanahan
Aaron Shanahan
12 feb 2023

One people, yes, one people, live here, pay taxes , and strive for a better outcome.

It matters not to me what ethnicity, what so called indigenous right one perceives they possess.

This country is one. One people, of many backgrounds, dialects, and thought that need not to be shaped by identity, but the love of this country.

We are all one. And no matter where you live, no matter where you come from, and no matter your so called indigenous background, we all have a duty to take this country out of the hands of the intellectual idiots , to stay the hand of division and reject, outright, their version of socialist utopia, and to return it to…

Mi piace

The Treaty of Waitangi was a means to achieve a necessary end at a time very different from today. Unfortunatately, most people have a romanticized notion of history that is false and unrealistic. Most accept the delusion that pre-european NZ was a nation instead of an ungoverned and lawless palce where many independent tribes competed for the available resources and terrtory. People of today cannot conceive of what living here was like before the introduction of British government, law and order. Most people cannot appreciate the devastation that occurred when Maori tribes fought one another during the musket wars and an estimated 1/3 of the people were killed. Many of them were also eaten and we can't appreciate that either. So we have constructed a…

Mi piace
Risposta a

You’re correct when you say that the treaty was a means of controlling the destructive warfare between tribal enemies - article 3 gave them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

While it served this purpose, article 2 offered further protections to the Māori, guaranteeing them 'te tino rangatiratanga' or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures.

The decisions of people long gone dead should not prevent how we want our nation to be governed, but people alive now who want past promises honoured should still be recognised.

Mi piace

Excellent article Muriel, and once again the comments are of equal calibre, especially the one by Octavian Augustus reminding us that politics at a grassroots level can and do make a difference. The idea of a Swiss-style democracy has been alive in NZ for a while now, and there are many advantages to empowering the people to be an effective opposition. See Direct Demorcacy NZ. Check them out on FB.

Mi piace

11 feb 2023

First, congratulations to Muriel for her ongoing efforts to promote genuine democracy in New Zealand. I hope my fellow readers will support her efforts and donate to NZCPR if they can.

The brutal reality is that we can't trust our politicians to act in our best interests and to govern

in a way which reflects our values and concerns.

We can't rely on the mass media for balanced and accurate coverage of political and social issues.

Muriel along with some other commentators do the research and have created platforms for genuine discussion and debate. They are the front line warriors and I say we the people who want a country fit for people to live in should support them -…

Mi piace
Risposta a

We used to fundamentally trust all of them, whoever was in power. Now we trust none of them.

Mi piace
bottom of page