Hobson’s Pledge and the Return of Majority Rule

By Dr Harpreet Singh | drhsinghnz.substack.com | FB: @DrHSinghNZ | BSky: @DrHSinghNZ | IG: @DrHSinghNZ

Hobson’s Pledge is not simply opposing a few Māori policies. It is part of a wider effort to remove the structures that allow Māori to have a distinct voice in government.

Its program would return New Zealand to a system where Māori could vote and stand for office as individuals, but would have fewer ways to exercise collective authority as tangata whenua.

The year 1975 was an important turning point. The Treaty of Waitangi Act created the Waitangi Tribunal and made the Crown more accountable for its obligations under Te Tiriti.

In 1985, the Tribunal was given the power to investigate Crown actions going back to 1840. This allowed confiscation, land loss, cultural suppression, and political exclusion to be examined publicly.

It also showed that New Zealand’s present distribution of land, wealth, and political power did not result from a fair or neutral process.

Since 1975, the Treaty framework has created ways to address some of these historical injustices. These include Treaty settlements, Māori representation, recognition of tikanga, protection of taonga, and Māori participation in decisions about land, water, and natural resources.

These arrangements do not place Māori above other New Zealanders. They are limited attempts to recognise the promises made in Te Tiriti and respond to the lasting effects of colonisation.

Removing these arrangements would not create a neutral system. It would return power to institutions established during a period when Māori authority was being sidelined.

Under simple majority rule, the largest group has the power to decide when and how Māori rights will be recognised. Māori may still vote and stand for election, but their collective rights and rangatiratanga remain dependent on what the majority is willing to allow.

Treating everyone in exactly the same way may sound fair, but it can protect existing inequality.

If one group gained land, wealth and power while another group experienced dispossession, treating both groups identically does not correct the imbalance. It allows the advantages created by the past to continue.

Removing institutions designed to address historical injustice does not create equality. It protects the results of that injustice from further challenge.

The campaigns against Māori wards, Treaty principles, co-governance, the Waitangi Tribunal, and other forms of Māori participation should not be viewed in isolation.

Together, they form a wider programme to reduce Māori influence within government. Each of these institutions places some limit on unrestricted majority power and recognises that democracy cannot simply mean the largest group always decides.

The result would be a system in which Māori culture could be celebrated through language, ceremonies and public events, while Māori political authority would have little real influence over government decisions.

Existing institutions would then appear fair and neutral, even though they were shaped by a history of colonisation and the removal of Māori authority.

Hobson’s Pledge can therefore be understood as an attempt to restore the kind of majority rule that existed before 1975.

By removing the institutions that allow Māori to challenge Crown power, its programme would protect existing political and economic structures. It would present historically created inequalities as the normal and natural result of democracy.

Share