I. Introduction
This argument supports the position that the Māori signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 knowingly ceded full sovereignty (kawanatanga) to the British Crown.
This conclusion is supported by:
- The text and structure of the Treaty itself,
- The intentions and instructions of the British Government,
- The contemporaneous understanding and conduct of Māori signatories,
- Subsequent government proclamations and legal developments, and
- The consistent exercise of sovereign authority by the Crown since 1840.
II. Legal Foundation of Sovereignty: Modes of Acquisition
Under international law, sovereignty can be acquired through:
1. Cession – Voluntary transfer by treaty or agreement.
2. Occupation – Settlement of previously unclaimed or ungoverned territory.
3. Conquest – Assertion of control through military victory.
4. Prescription – Peaceful and continuous exercise of authority over time.
New Zealand's sovereignty was acquired through a combination of legal mechanisms, most importantly through cession by treaty.
III. Cession by Treaty: The Treaty of Waitangi
A. Legal Character of the Treaty
- The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by over 500 Māori chiefs, including key rangatira from the North and South Islands, at 34 locations between 6 February and 21 May 1840.
- The English text clearly conveys a cession of sovereignty in Article 1: "The Chiefs ... cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty..."
- The Māori text uses the term kawanatanga, the same term used in the 1835 Declaration of Independence to describe government (kawanatanga o te Kingitanga o Ingarangi), understood as the authority to govern.
- Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson (1839) directed him to obtain “free and intelligent consent” of the chiefs to cede sovereignty to the Queen.
- Hobson’s proclamations of sovereignty (May-June 1840), later published in the London Gazette (October 2, 1840), were based on the Treaty and on grounds of discovery and occupation.
Statements from chiefs during the Treaty signing and at the Kohimarama Conference (1860) reflect an understanding that sovereignty had been transferred, not shared:
- Hori Kerei Te Kotuku: “There is no other Sovereign for us but the Queen … I saw [the law’s] benefits and embraced it.”
- Wi Te Tete: “We have now become one people under the Queen.”
- Tamati Waka Nene: “O Governor sit I Tamati Waka Nene say to thee sit. Do not thou go away from us remain for us a father a judge a peacemaker.
Yes it is good it is straight. Sit thou here dwell in our midst .Remain do not go away do not listen to what ( the chiefs of)
Ngapuhi say. Stay thou our friend our father our Governor”
The chiefs resolved at Kohimarama to do nothing inconsistent with their recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty.
IV. Sovereignty Confirmed by Crown Action and Māori Conduct
A. Proclamations and Legal Acts
By 1881:
From 1840 onwards, Māori:
- Sovereignty over the North Island was proclaimed via cession, while sovereignty over the South Island was claimed by discovery and occupation, further consolidating Crown authority over the whole territory.
By 1881:
- Settlers numbered over 500,000, compared to 45,000 Māori.
- The British Crown had established courts, law enforcement, infrastructure, and governance nationwide.
- Māori largely participated in and submitted to these institutions.
From 1840 onwards, Māori:
- Served in the Crown’s military and police
- Paid taxes
- Used Crown-issued passports
- Accessed Crown-funded health, education, and social services
- Sold land under the authority of the Native Land Court
- Participated in Treaty settlements and accepted compensation from the Crown
V. Rebuttal of Revisionist Interpretations
A. Waitangi Tribunal 2014 Report
The Tribunal controversially asserted that sovereignty was not ceded, and that the Treaty created a partnership. This interpretation is legally and historically flawed.
- It contradicts the explicit text of the English version and the consistent interpretation of kawanatanga as “sovereignty” in 1840.
- The Tribunal's view relies on modern reinterpretation (particularly post-1980s) and not on contemporaneous evidence.
- Sir Apirana Ngata (1922) MA, LLB, LITD: “The Treaty made one law for the Māori and the Pākehā. If things are wrong … blame our ancestors who gave away their rights when they were powerful.”
- See Apirana Ngata text The Treaty of Waitangi an Explanation 1922
- In the 1980s, maori scholar Sir Hugh Kawharu reinterpreted "kawanatanga" as "governance over settlers only" and "rangatiratanga" as full Māori authority.
- This reinterpretation and misrepresentation :
* Has no basis in the original documents
* Was never advanced at the time by chiefs, missionaries, or the Crown
* Conflicts with the very reason the Treaty was signed: to end inter-tribal warfare and establish a single sovereign authority
C. Legal Precedents and Doctrine
- The New Zealand courts have consistently operated under the assumption that Crown sovereignty is supreme.
- There is no precedent in New Zealand common law recognizing co-sovereignty or dual political authority.
VI. If Sovereignty Was Not Ceded: Legal Inconsistencies Arise
If Māori did not cede sovereignty, then multiple questions must be answered:
1. Why did Lord Normanby instruct Hobson to seek full sovereignty?
2. Why does the Treaty not distinguish between governance over Māori and Pākehā?
3. Why did the chiefs’ speeches at Waitangi indicate unity and submission to the Queen?
4. Why were proclamations of sovereignty made over both islands?
5. Why did the Kohimarama Conference affirm loyalty to the Queen?
6. Why did Ngata describe the Treaty as creating one law for both peoples?
7. Why has Māori conduct consistently affirmed Crown sovereignty?
No coherent legal theory explains how sovereignty was not ceded while Māori fully participated in a Crown-led society and accepted its laws, benefits, and protections.
VII. Conclusion: Sovereignty Was Lawfully Ceded
All available legal, historical, and behavioural evidence supports the conclusion that Māori chiefs ceded sovereignty to the British Crown in 1840 through the Treaty of Waitangi.
This sovereignty has been:
As Gary Judd KC rightly concludes: “There is only one Treaty, and the Māori chiefs understood they were ceding sovereignty to the Queen.”
Rob Paterson is a retired lawyer, who lives in Tauranga.
This sovereignty has been:
- Legally proclaimed
- Continuously exercised
- Universally accepted in both principle and practice by the Māori population and broader society
As Gary Judd KC rightly concludes: “There is only one Treaty, and the Māori chiefs understood they were ceding sovereignty to the Queen.”
Rob Paterson is a retired lawyer, who lives in Tauranga.
14 comments:
All the more reason, Luxon and co should put a line in the sand now. By not doing so they are disenfranchising generations of NZer’s, who understandably are upset at Māori receiving assets built up as a result of colonisation and moving into the modern world, and rightfully the property of all NZer’s.
Indeed, but when a significant portion of our Parliament now believe otherwise, we have a problem that will continue to fester like a suppurating sore. We need a referendum to put this to bed once and for all.
Simple solution.
Those who believe they attained sovereignty can remain in New Zealand as citizens.
Those who don't, can choose to return to their "mythical" homeland of Hawaiki.
Suggest those who endorse "tribalism" and the atrocities which accompany that form of social organization, be towed by the "Royal NZ Navy" outside our economic zone into international waters in their self-built "Wakas".
Referendum now! The people have the right to this.
but they are idijunus don't ya know!
Rob, thank you for your useful article which you claim, “reflects a unified legal sovereignty and is inconsistent with later political reinterpretations suggesting a dual or co-governing arrangement”.
It seems to me, a lay person, that you are correct and that the same conclusion is given by Paul McHugh in his The Maori Magna Carta: New Zealand Law and the Treaty of Waitangi, 1991. However, McHugh also raises the problem of Rangatiratanga of Article 2.
It is intriguing that the resolution is given in the title of his book which refers to the allegiance of the barons to King John, and which is also inconsistent with later political reinterpretations suggesting a dual or co-governing arrangement.
However, our Parliament refuses to acknowledge let alone accept that there is no problem with the cession of Maori sovereignty. It is curious that they have apparently been captured and subverted into claiming that there is. On the one hand, they have forgotten that we have elected them to represent us and on the other they have lost control of the judiciary and the public service who we employ to serve us.
The fundamental problem is that Parliament did not seek agreement from the people for the Constitution Act 1986, which should have been subject to a referendum.
It is necessary to assert that, as a matter of fact, We the people are sovereign and that Parliament need to seek our agreement that we vest our sovereignty in the Crown in Parliament for a term of three years at which time it returns to us.
Well done Rob. If sovereignty was not ceded, Parliament has no authority over Maori. Parliament therefore had no authority to create the Waitangi Tribunal, which therefore has no authority to make pronouncements on treaty breaches. Parliament therefore has no authority to legislate Treaty Settlements which logically must all be null and void. But if you believe all that, then like Alice in Wonderland you are capable of believing at least six impossible things before breakfast, But I guess that's what happens when you live down a rabbit hole.
I don't belive that maori had sovereignty to cede. They were a large number of independent tribes and sub tribes that each had their own way of running things and had no concept of ownership. You only retained what you had as long as you were able to stop someone taking it from you.
They did not have one person or group of people that they could call their soverien.
I don't believe maori had sovereignty to cede. They were a large group of independent tribes and subtribes that that killed each other at will to gain possessions and control over a weaker foe. They had no supreme commander or leader that they would all answer to so therefore no sovereignty.
The fact that 500 odd chiefs signed the treaty and not 1 king or Queen reinforces that.
Mr. Paterson must realise that his views are in opposition to the broad consensus for many years now among historians that whatever the intentions of Hobson and the British government, the Maori who signed the Treaty of Waitangi did not consciously concede sovereignty. The word “Kawanatanga” in the Māori text did not convey that meaning. Words like “Mana” or “Rangitiratanga” that might have were not used in the Maori text. This understanding among Maori was reinforced by the second article of the Treaty which guaranteed them “full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands etc…”
Mr. Paterson is right about one thing however. Sovereignty could not be established by signatures on a piece of paper. It was imposed to the extent it was through the exercise of governmental authority in the years that followed, overcoming Maori resistance on the battlefield and through use of other organs of state power.
Perhaps we need a new Treaty. A model could be the Freedom Charter drawn up by Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in the 1950s at the beginning of their struggle against the apartheid regime. This famous document began with the words “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white…” , but goes on to say that special recognition must be given to the rights of indigenous people, with “indigenous “ understood to mean not just those who got there first, but who established a relationship with the land through occupancy and labour over generations.
@Terry C says "did not consciously concede sovereignty. " unquote
Read the info below and then tell me that the chiefs did not know that they were signing FULL SOVEREIGNTY over to the Queen.
The words of the chiefs themselves display a full awareness that their acceptance of Governor Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson stood Queen Victoria.
Anyone who has read eyewitness accounts of the signing of the Treaty and continues to believe Maori thought they were going into “partnership” with the Crown needs to go away and boil their head to clear their thoughts.
ON 5 FEBRUARY 1840, THE TREATY WAS FIRST DEBATED AT WAITANGI BY NGAPUHI CHIEFS ASSEMBLED THERE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
*Te Kemara (Ngati Kawa) spoke first, observing that the effect of signing the Treaty would be for “the Governor to be up, and Te Kemara down.” Under the Governor, he could be “tried and condemned” and even “hung by the neck” should he behave badly enough.
* Rewa (Ngati Taweke) spoke next, saying: “This country is ours … we are the Governor.” Like Te Kemara, Rewa saw that chiefly authority would be trumped by that of Hobson: “[Authority over] Your land will be taken from you and your dignity as chiefs will be destroyed.”
* Moka (Patukeha) then stood up. “Let the governor return to his own country. Let us remain where we are [as ruling powers in the land].”
* Tamati Pukututu (Te Uri-o-Te-Hawato) was the first to speak up for Hobson: “Sit, Governor, sit, for me, for us. Remain here, a father for us.”
* Matiu (Uri-o-Ngongo) stood next, reiterating what the previous speaker had said: “Do not go back, but sit here, a Governor, a father for us.”
* Kawiti (Ngati Hine) was another who rejected the Governor: “We do not want to be tied up and trodden down. We are free. Let the missionaries remain, but, as for thee, return to thine own country.” His fellow chiefs were warned that acceptance of Hobson meant the Governor would be able to order: “Kawiti must not paddle this way, nor paddle that way, because the Governor said ‘No.’”
* Pumuka (Te Roroa) rose next, saying: “I will have this man a foster-father for me.” To the Governor: “I wish to have two fathers – thou and Busby, and the missionaries.”
* Warerahi (Ngaitawake), then addressed his fellow chiefs: “Is it not good to be in peace? We will have this man as our Governor” and “Say to this man of the Queen, Go back! No, no.”
* Hakiro (Ngatinanenane) was another recalcitrant: “We are not thy people. We are free. We will not have a Governor.”
* Tareha (Ngatirehia) stood after Hakiro and told Hobson: “We, we only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over.” Never would he accept “the Governor up high” and Tareha “down, under, beneath!”
* Rawiri (Ngatitautahi) rose to greet the Governor in English as his “Father,” saying, “Stay here, O Governor! … that we may be in peace.”
* Hone Heke (Matarahurahu) reiterated what previous speakers in favour of Hobson had said: “Remain, Governor, a father for us.”
* Hakitara (Te Rarawa), also stood up for the Governor, though most of his words were drowned out by side conversations taking place after Heke had spoken.
* Tamati Waka Nene (Ngatihao) then told Hobson: “[R]emain for us – a father, a judge, a peacemaker. Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.”
* Eruera Maehe Patuone, Tamati Waka Nene’s older brother, spoke next, saying: “Remain here with us, to be a father for us, that the French have us not.”
* Te Kemara (who’d spoken first) here jumped up again, saying to the Governor: “Go away; return to thine own land.” To the chiefs, he said: “Let us all be alike [in rank, in power].” Then in an abrupt about-face he told Hobson: “O Governor! remain. But, the Governor up! Te Kemara down, low, flat! No, no, no.”
After the Treaty was endorsed by the chiefs at Waitangi, Crown agents went throughout New Zealand seeking signatures. Most chiefs could see the benefit of signing and soon did so, but a substantial minority, centred on the Tainui, Tuwharetoa and Tuhoe Confederations did not.
"I don't believe maori had sovereignty to cede".
Neither did Chief Justice Prendergast. That is why he ruled the treaty a simple nullity in 1877, a ruling that stills stands.
Sovereignty = Power/Authority - the chiefs ceded chiefly authority (Sovereignty)
Sir Apirana Ngata - What is a "Government?" The English word is "Sovereignty"......."What is the Treaty of Waitangi?" It was the first article of the Treaty which transferred the chiefly authority of your ancestors, affecting you and future generations for ever. > https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
I have posted on this topic before:
“Barrie Davis: The Maori Magna Carta,” Breaking Views, 1 February 2025.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/02/barrie-davis-maori-magna-carta.html
The gist of it is that partnership is not provided in the Treaty, but in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which also set up the Waitangi Tribunal.
Your representative Parliament has participated to bring about the situation we presently enjoy. For reasons I do not understand, your own Government has undermined you.
The point is, this has little if anything to do with the Treaty of Waitangi, which as Rob Paterson says provides for Crown sovereignty. The whole Treaty thing is a farce, and we are being disrespectfully toyed with. You are being treated as a fool by your own government.
Post a Comment