"Colonial Confetti: How Shane Jones Wants to Shred Hapū Sovereignty" - 23 June 2025

Kia ora whānau (Greetings family).

The colonial machine never sleeps, and Shane Jones has just handed it another weapon. NZ First's proposed legislation to force a single Ngāpuhi Treaty settlement represents a breathtaking act of Indigenous suppression wrapped in the false rhetoric of economic pragmatism \[1]. This bill strips hapū of their fundamental right to self-determination while serving the Crown's desperate need to maintain control over the largest iwi in Aotearoa \[2]. Jones, despite being Māori himself, has become the perfect colonial collaborator – using his Indigenous identity to legitimise policies that would make even the most hardened white supremacist proud.

Background: Understanding Ngāpuhi's Traditional Structure

The Confederation Reality

Ngāpuhi has never been a single, unified entity but rather a confederation of over 150 hapū with 55 marae, each maintaining their own mana and authority \[3]. This traditional structure is built around five natural regional groupings or "rohe potae": Hokianga, Waimate-Taiamai ki Kaikohe, Whangaroa, Te Pewhairangi and Whangarei ki Mangakahia \[4]. These groupings evolved as confederations of hapū united in common interests while remaining distinct, self-governing entities \[4]\[5]. The name "Ngāpuhi" itself derives from the confederation of puhi lines, with each hapū group having a puhi line that creates the hapū and demonstrates their whakapapa to the original Ariki \[5].

The Mandate Controversy

The current crisis stems from the deeply flawed mandating of Tūhoronuku Independent Mandated Authority, which was established despite massive opposition from hapū across the confederation \[6]\[7]. Over 70 hapū rejected this mandate, viewing it as an illegitimate Crown-backed structure that usurped their sovereignty \[8]\[7]. The controversy exposed fundamental questions about whether Ngāpuhi could or should be treated as a single entity when its traditional governance operates through hapū autonomy \[9].

Jones' Legislative Assault on Hapū Rights

The Proposed Bill

Shane Jones is drafting member's legislation that would legally mandate a single settlement for all Ngāpuhi, effectively making it illegal for individual hapū to negotiate their own settlements \[1]\[10]. Jones argues that allowing hapū to settle individually would reduce the country's largest iwi to "confetti," claiming that fragmented structures lack the economic muscle to create meaningful change \[1]\[10]. The bill will explicitly state there is "no separate Ngāpuhi hapū sovereignty" and shows "zero tolerance for any suggestion that there is separate hapū sovereignty" \[1].

The Sovereignty Flashpoint

This legislation comes in direct response to the previous Labour Government's inclusion of "agree-to-disagree" clauses in Treaty settlements, which acknowledged that iwi never ceded sovereignty when signing Te Tiriti \[11]\[12]. The Coalition Government has declared it will never progress settlements that dispute Crown sovereignty, prompting Ngāti Hine leader Pita Tipene to rule out any settlement under this Government \[11]\[13]. Tipene stated that accepting Crown sovereignty is "totally unacceptable" to his people \[13].

Economic Coercion as Colonial Strategy

Jones frames his intervention as economic necessity, pointing to the North's dire social statistics \[1]\[10]. He argues that a hapū-centric approach has failed for 20 years and will fail for another 20, claiming that only a "powerful economic endowment" through unified settlement can address systemic problems \[1]. This classic neoliberal framing reduces Indigenous sovereignty to economic calculations while ignoring the fundamental issue of self-determination \[14].

Analysis: Deconstructing the Colonial Violence

White Supremacist Logic in Indigenous Clothing

Jones' rhetoric employs classic white supremacist talking points about Indigenous peoples being incapable of governing themselves effectively \[15]\[16]. His dismissal of hapū as "economically insignificant" and "too small to be economically relevant" mirrors colonial arguments used to justify the destruction of traditional governance structures \[1]. The language of "confetti" dehumanises hapū authority, reducing complex political entities with centuries of governance experience to worthless fragments \[1].

This represents what critical race theorists call "internalised colonisation" – where colonised peoples adopt and promote the oppressor's worldview \[17]. Jones has become the perfect neoliberal subject, measuring Indigenous worth solely through economic output while erasing the cultural and political values that define Māori existence \[14].

Neoliberal Violence Disguised as Pragmatism

The proposed legislation represents pure neoliberal ideology in action – the reduction of all social relations to market calculations \[14]. Jones' argument that economic efficiency justifies the destruction of traditional governance structures directly parallels the Rogernomics revolution that devastated Māori communities in the 1980s \[14]. Just as Douglas and Richardson used "quantum leaps" to dismantle social protections, Jones proposes legislative violence to eliminate hapū autonomy \[14].

This neoliberal framework deliberately ignores the systemic racism and colonial dispossession that created Northland's socioeconomic crisis \[17]\[18]. Rather than addressing the structural violence of capitalism and colonialism, Jones offers more capitalism as the solution – a classic bait-and-switch that protects white supremacist power structures \[15].

The Sovereignty Denial Machine

Jones' rejection of sovereignty discussions reveals the deep colonial anxiety about Indigenous self-determination \[2]\[9]. The 2014 Waitangi Tribunal finding that northern chiefs never ceded sovereignty when signing Te Tiriti represents an existential threat to Crown legitimacy \[2]\[19]. By legislatively prohibiting sovereignty discussions, Jones seeks to bury this inconvenient truth beneath economic rhetoric \[1].

This sovereignty denial connects directly to broader white supremacist campaigns against co-governance and Māori rights \[15]\[20]. The "Stop Co-Governance" movement and similar far-right groups have spent years promoting the fiction that Māori sovereignty threatens "one law for all" \[20]. Jones' bill provides legislative backing for these white supremacist narratives \[13].

Statistical Reality vs. Colonial Mythology

The devastating statistics Jones cites to justify his intervention are themselves products of colonial violence, not evidence for its continuation \[18]\[21]. Northland suffers from unemployment rates of 9.7% (highest in the country), with Māori unemployment reaching 17.4% and youth unemployment hitting 30.7% \[22]\[23]. Median incomes sit at just \$21,700 compared to the national average of \$28,500 \[23]. Fifty-seven percent of Northland's population lives in deprivation compared to 40% nationally \[18].

These statistics reflect 180 years of systematic land theft, cultural destruction, and economic marginalisation \[17]\[24]. By 1908, less than 20% of the North remained in Māori control, with most remaining land being isolated and economically marginal \[25]. The Crown's aggressive purchasing policy left Māori with inadequate land for their needs while enriching Pākehā settlers \[25]\[24].

The False Binary of Unity vs. Fragmentation

Jones presents a fabricated choice between "unified" economic power and "fragmented" political weakness \[1]\[10]. This binary erases the sophisticated governance systems that allowed Ngāpuhi to maintain political autonomy while cooperating on common interests for centuries \[4]\[5]. Traditional rohe potae structures provided both local autonomy and confederation-level coordination without requiring the destruction of hapū mana \[4].

The real choice is between Indigenous self-determination and colonial control. Jones' bill eliminates this choice by legally mandating Crown-preferred structures while criminalising traditional governance \[1]. This represents legislative colonisation – using law to complete what military force and economic pressure began \[24].

Implications: The Broader Colonial Project

Template for Indigenous Suppression

If successful, Jones' legislation would provide a template for destroying Indigenous governance structures across the Pacific and beyond \[26]. The precedent of legally mandating settlement structures according to Crown preferences, rather than Indigenous political organisation, represents a new form of legislative colonisation \[1]. Other settler states watching this experiment will note how effectively Indigenous politicians can be used to legitimise colonial violence \[27].

Reinforcing White Supremacist Narratives

The bill strengthens far-right narratives about Māori being incapable of effective self-governance \[15]\[20]. By framing hapū autonomy as economic inefficiency, Jones provides academic cover for white supremacist arguments that Indigenous peoples need colonial management \[16]. This feeds directly into "Stop Co-Governance" campaigns and similar racist movements \[20].

Economic Colonisation

Jones' focus on creating a "powerful economic endowment" reveals the neoliberal obsession with turning everything into a commodity \[14]\[28]. Rather than addressing the structural racism that creates poverty, this approach seeks to make Māori more efficient participants in the capitalist system that oppresses them \[17]. The success of some iwi in accumulating capital (the combined wealth of 75 iwi groups reaching \$9 billion) becomes the model for all Indigenous development \[28].

This economic colonisation destroys the values of whakatōhea, manaakitanga, and whakapapa that define Māori existence in favour of profit maximisation \[5]. It represents the final stage of colonisation – the capture of Indigenous minds and values by capitalist logic \[14].

Implications for Māori Communities

The proposed legislation would catastrophically undermine hapū tino rangatiratanga across Ngāpuhi \[9]\[5]. By legally prohibiting separate hapū settlements, Jones seeks to destroy the traditional governance structures that have maintained Māori political identity for over 600 years \[3]\[29]. This represents cultural genocide disguised as economic efficiency \[1].

The bill would also establish a dangerous precedent for other iwi, showing that the Crown can simply legislate away Indigenous political structures that prove inconvenient \[26]. If Ngāpuhi hapū can be legally forced into artificial unity, what prevents similar attacks on other iwi confederation structures? \[3]

For Māori tamariki and rangatahi, this legislation sends the message that traditional governance is worthless compared to economic accumulation \[14]. It teaches that being Māori means accepting colonial definitions of success rather than asserting Indigenous values \[5]. This represents intergenerational violence against Māori political identity \[17].

Resisting Colonial Violence

Shane Jones' proposed legislation represents everything wrong with contemporary colonialism – the use of Indigenous politicians to legitimise white supremacist policies, the reduction of complex political relationships to economic calculations, and the legislative destruction of traditional governance \[1]\[14]. This bill must be recognised for what it is: an act of colonial violence designed to complete the dispossession that began in 1840 \[24].

The defence of hapū sovereignty is not about economics – it is about the fundamental right of Indigenous peoples to exist on their own terms \[9]\[5]. The 2014 Waitangi Tribunal finding that northern chiefs never ceded sovereignty remains a legal and moral reality that no amount of legislative violence can erase \[2]\[19]. Pita Tipene and other hapū leaders who refuse to compromise on sovereignty represent the true spirit of resistance \[13].

Ngāpuhi whānau must reject this colonial temptation and stand firm in defence of hapū tino rangatiratanga \[9]. The economic arguments are seductive, but they mask the deeper violence of forcing Indigenous peoples to organise according to Crown preferences rather than traditional governance \[1]\[4]. True decolonisation requires rejecting the neoliberal logic that reduces everything to economic efficiency \[14].

The real solution to Northland's problems lies not in more efficient colonisation but in genuine decolonisation – the return of stolen land, the restoration of traditional governance, and the dismantling of racist economic structures \[24]\[17]. Shane Jones offers the false choice between colonial unity and colonial fragmentation when the real choice is between colonisation and liberation \[1].

He whakatōhea, he rangatiratanga Māori (Stand firm, Māori sovereignty endures).

Ivor Jones - The Māori Green Lantern