Professor Paul Moon argues that the Treaty debate has become ideological, and that history offers a steadier guide than politics. That is true. But history can only perform that role when the record is examined in full. On the question of sovereignty, Moon’s analysis is disciplined in tone yet selective in substance. The clarity he claims emerges only through omission of the most explicit documentary evidence we possess.
History is not constructed from what can be plausibly inferred, but from what was written, said, understood, and acted upon at the time. When those elements are considered together, the conclusion is not ambiguous. Māori sovereignty was ceded to the Crown in 1840 — unevenly enforced, imperfectly realised, but ceded nonetheless.
The Normanby Instructions: The Document That Defines Crown Intent
Moon relies on earlier British correspondence to argue that the Crown intended jurisdiction only over British subjects. What he does not address is the decisive document that actually authorised the Treaty: Lord Normanby’s instructions to Lieutenant-Governor Hobson in August 1839.
Normanby explicitly directed Hobson to secure “the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereignty in the Islands.” He further instructed that effective protection for Māori was impossible unless the Queen was acknowledged as sovereign — not merely over settlers, but over the country, or at least those districts in which British subjects would reside.
Most importantly, Hobson was ordered to place “whatever territories may be acquired in sovereignty by the Queen in New Zealand” into a dependent relationship with the Government of New South Wales. Sovereignty here is territorial and constitutional. Nowhere does Normanby suggest a settlers-only jurisdiction, nor a divided or conditional sovereignty.
Moon relies on earlier British correspondence to argue that the Crown intended jurisdiction only over British subjects. What he does not address is the decisive document that actually authorised the Treaty: Lord Normanby’s instructions to Lieutenant-Governor Hobson in August 1839.
Normanby explicitly directed Hobson to secure “the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereignty in the Islands.” He further instructed that effective protection for Māori was impossible unless the Queen was acknowledged as sovereign — not merely over settlers, but over the country, or at least those districts in which British subjects would reside.
Most importantly, Hobson was ordered to place “whatever territories may be acquired in sovereignty by the Queen in New Zealand” into a dependent relationship with the Government of New South Wales. Sovereignty here is territorial and constitutional. Nowhere does Normanby suggest a settlers-only jurisdiction, nor a divided or conditional sovereignty.
If Moon believes British sovereignty was intended to apply only to British subjects, he must explain why the Crown explicitly instructed its governor to acquire sovereignty over territory, not people.
The Treaty Text Leaves No Doubt About Purpose
The Crown’s intention was also explicit in the Treaty drafting process itself. The February 4, 1840 Busby draft — often referred to as the Littlewood Treaty, which mirrors the signed Māori version — states plainly that Hobson was appointed to treat with the chiefs “for the cession of the sovereignty of their country.” This language is neither casual nor incidental. It reflects the legal objective of the Crown at the point of execution.
This understanding is reinforced by the legislated official English Treaty text, as recognised in statute in 1975, which authorised Hobson “to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands.” Again, the authority sought is territorial and sovereign. There is no suggestion of a jurisdiction limited to settlers, nor of a divided or conditional sovereignty.
Taken together, these texts demonstrate continuity of purpose rather than confusion or contradiction. The Crown sought sovereignty openly, articulated it in draft and statute, and proceeded on that basis thereafter.
Attempts to recast sovereignty as an unintended consequence rather than an expressed goal collapse in the face of this wording.
This understanding is reinforced by the legislated official English Treaty text, as recognised in statute in 1975, which authorised Hobson “to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands.” Again, the authority sought is territorial and sovereign. There is no suggestion of a jurisdiction limited to settlers, nor of a divided or conditional sovereignty.
Taken together, these texts demonstrate continuity of purpose rather than confusion or contradiction. The Crown sought sovereignty openly, articulated it in draft and statute, and proceeded on that basis thereafter.
Attempts to recast sovereignty as an unintended consequence rather than an expressed goal collapse in the face of this wording.
Articles 2 and 3 Presuppose Sovereignty
Māori Understanding at Waitangi
Moon suggests that Māori could not have comprehended sovereignty as such. Yet contemporary accounts of the debates at Waitangi contradict this claim. Chiefs spoke openly about whether Hobson would rule over them. Some opposed this prospect. Others accepted it for reasons of protection, order, and stability. None spoke as though authority would apply only to settlers.
William Colenso’s detailed account records these concerns clearly. Reverend John Warren’s account corroborates them. The debates make sense only if “kawanatanga” was understood as authority extending over Māori themselves.
This understanding was not a later invention. Sir Apirana Ngata, writing in the early twentieth century, stated unambiguously that the first article of the Treaty transferred chiefly authority from Māori to the Crown, affecting future generations permanently. Ngata’s interpretation reflects continuity, not revisionism.
Post-Treaty Practice Does Not Negate Legal Sovereignty
Moon points to the continuation of hapū authority after 1840 as evidence that sovereignty was not ceded. This conflates effective control with constitutional authority. States frequently exercise sovereignty imperfectly, particularly in frontier conditions. Weak enforcement does not nullify legal transfer.
The Crown’s accommodation of Māori authority in the 1840s reflects pragmatism, not uncertainty about sovereignty. When challenged directly, as in the Northern War, the Crown acted precisely as a sovereign power asserting supremacy within its territory.
Kohimarama 1860: Confirmation, Not Transformation
The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 is particularly damaging to claims of retained sovereignty. Attended by 112 chiefs, many of them Treaty signatories, it explicitly affirmed loyalty to the Queen and rejected the Kingitanga challenge to Crown authority. Chiefs declared themselves one people under the Queen and pledged to act consistently with her sovereignty.
This was not coerced submission. It was an explicit reaffirmation of what many chiefs already understood the Treaty to have established.
The Modern Distortion
Even Sir Doug Graham, Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations during the 1990s, acknowledged the reality: once the Treaty was confirmed, sovereignty as it was commonly understood passed from Māori to Britain.
Recognising this fact does not deny that serious conflicts and land confiscations followed the Treaty. It simply acknowledges constitutional reality. Sovereignty was ceded — and has been retroactively denied only because that truth conflicts with contemporary political narratives.
History should discipline politics, not be reshaped by it. On sovereignty, the record is clear — but politically inconvenient for some.
Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.
The Treaty must be read as a coherent constitutional instrument, not as a collection of detachable clauses.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty only make sense if sovereignty was ceded in Article 1. Guaranteed property rights require a sovereign legal authority capable of defining and enforcing ownership. Likewise, protection requires supreme control over law and force. Māori acceptance of Crown-recognised land titles and Crown protection is therefore not neutral behaviour — it reflects participation in, and acceptance of, the Crown’s sovereignty.
Māori Understanding at Waitangi
Moon suggests that Māori could not have comprehended sovereignty as such. Yet contemporary accounts of the debates at Waitangi contradict this claim. Chiefs spoke openly about whether Hobson would rule over them. Some opposed this prospect. Others accepted it for reasons of protection, order, and stability. None spoke as though authority would apply only to settlers.
William Colenso’s detailed account records these concerns clearly. Reverend John Warren’s account corroborates them. The debates make sense only if “kawanatanga” was understood as authority extending over Māori themselves.
This understanding was not a later invention. Sir Apirana Ngata, writing in the early twentieth century, stated unambiguously that the first article of the Treaty transferred chiefly authority from Māori to the Crown, affecting future generations permanently. Ngata’s interpretation reflects continuity, not revisionism.
Post-Treaty Practice Does Not Negate Legal Sovereignty
Moon points to the continuation of hapū authority after 1840 as evidence that sovereignty was not ceded. This conflates effective control with constitutional authority. States frequently exercise sovereignty imperfectly, particularly in frontier conditions. Weak enforcement does not nullify legal transfer.
The Crown’s accommodation of Māori authority in the 1840s reflects pragmatism, not uncertainty about sovereignty. When challenged directly, as in the Northern War, the Crown acted precisely as a sovereign power asserting supremacy within its territory.
Kohimarama 1860: Confirmation, Not Transformation
The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 is particularly damaging to claims of retained sovereignty. Attended by 112 chiefs, many of them Treaty signatories, it explicitly affirmed loyalty to the Queen and rejected the Kingitanga challenge to Crown authority. Chiefs declared themselves one people under the Queen and pledged to act consistently with her sovereignty.
This was not coerced submission. It was an explicit reaffirmation of what many chiefs already understood the Treaty to have established.
The Modern Distortion
Even Sir Doug Graham, Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations during the 1990s, acknowledged the reality: once the Treaty was confirmed, sovereignty as it was commonly understood passed from Māori to Britain.
Recognising this fact does not deny that serious conflicts and land confiscations followed the Treaty. It simply acknowledges constitutional reality. Sovereignty was ceded — and has been retroactively denied only because that truth conflicts with contemporary political narratives.
History should discipline politics, not be reshaped by it. On sovereignty, the record is clear — but politically inconvenient for some.
Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.