Rob Paterson: Yes - Sovereignty Was Ceded

Legal Argument: Māori Chiefs Ceded Sovereignty to the British Crown in 1840

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.

This interpretation reflects a unified legal sovereignty and is inconsistent with later political reinterpretations suggesting a dual or co-governing arrangement.

 

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.

B. Intent of the Crown and Its Representatives

• 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.

C. Contemporaneous Māori Understanding

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

• 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.

B. Occupation and Effective Control

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.

C. Conduct of Māori People Under the Law

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

Such consistent conduct reflects a de facto and de jure recognition of Crown sovereignty.

 
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

B. The Kawharu Redefinition

• 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:

• Legally proclaimed

• Continuously exercised

• Universally accepted in both principle and practice by the Māori population and broader society

Claims of a “Treaty partnership” or non-cession of sovereignty may hold political utility but are ridiculous and unsupported by historical fact or legal doctrine.

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.