The Treaty of Waitangi (), sometimes referred to as (), is a document of importance to the history of New Zealand, and its national identity. The cornerstone legislative recognition of the Treaty in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 represented a paradigm shift and a radically altered official discourse, relating to Māori rights and the relationship between Māori and the Crown. The role of the Treaty in the relationship between Māori and the Crown has become more prominent from the late 20th century. Although the Treaty of Waitangi is not incorporated as a binding international treaty within New Zealand's domestic law, its status as international law is debated. It was first signed on 6 February 1840 by Captain William Hobson as consul for the Crown and by Māori chiefs () from the North Island of New Zealand. The treaty's status has clouded the question of whether Māori had ceded sovereignty to the Crown in 1840, and if so, whether such sovereignty remains intact.
The treaty was written at a time when the New Zealand Company, acting on behalf of large numbers of settlers and would-be settlers, was establishing a colony in New Zealand, and when some Māori leaders had petitioned the British for protection against French ambitions. Once it had been written and translated, it was first signed by Northern Māori leaders at Waitangi. Copies were subsequently taken around New Zealand and over the following months many other chiefs signed. Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Māori language version of the Treaty of Waitangi, despite some Māori leaders cautioning against it. Only 39 signed the English version. pp 159 An immediate result of the treaty was that Queen Victoria's government gained the sole right to purchase land. In total there are nine signed copies of the Treaty of Waitangi, including the sheet signed on 6 February 1840 at Waitangi.
Text and interpretation The Treaty includes a preamble and three articles. There are two texts of the Treaty, one in English and one in the Māori language. Article one of the Māori text grants kawanatanga, translated by Hugh Kāwharu as complete governance, to the Crown while the English text cedes "all the rights and powers of sovereignty" to the Crown. A modern translation by Hugh Kāwharu indicates that the Māori chiefs "give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land". Article two of the Māori text uses the word rangatiratanga, translated by Hugh Kawharu as full chieftainship, to describe the chieftainship promised by the Crown to Māori as that exercised at the time by Māori over their lands, villages and all their treasures, and this article also establishes the agreement to sell land at agreed prices to the Queen and her agents. The English text describes the Māori constitutional authority that the Crown guaranteed to protect as the full, exclusive and undisturbed ownership of Māori over their lands and other resources generally, and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the Crown. Article three of the Māori text guaranteed Māori the protection of the Queen and the rights and duties of British citizenship. The English text grants Māori people royal protection and the rights and privileges of British subjects.
The two texts differ, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty, pp 20-116 with Donald Francis McKenzie viewing its interpretation as the contrast between a literate culture and one that was wholly oral. The rangatira may have initially viewed it as an agreement to share power and authority on equal terms; the Crown has always viewed it as the acquisition of Māori consent to cession of sovereignty.Waitangi Tribunal He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (Wai 1040) at 1 and 527, 525. These differences created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early 1990s. In the period following the New Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty, and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity".
As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into the written Māori language of the time, the Māori text is not a literal translation of the English text. Paul Moon and Sabine Fenton claimed that Henry Williams, the missionary entrusted with translating the treaty from English, was fluent in Māori and that, far from being a poor translator, he had in fact carefully crafted both versions to make each palatable to both parties without either noticing inherent contradictions.
Furthermore, is a loan translation from "governorship" and was not part of the Māori language. The term had been used by Henry Williams in his translation of the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand, which was signed by 35 northern Māori chiefs at Waitangi on 28 October 1835. The Declaration of Independence of New Zealand had stated "" to describe "all sovereign power and authority in the land". There is considerable debate about what would have been a more appropriate term. Scholars such as Ruth Ross argue that ('prestige', 'authority') would have more accurately conveyed the transfer of sovereignty. However, it has more recently been argued by others, including Judith Binney, that would not have been appropriate as is not the same thing as sovereignty, and because no one can give up their .
The English-language text recognises Māori rights to "properties", which seems to imply physical and perhaps intellectual property. The Māori text, on the other hand, mentions "taonga", meaning "treasures" or "precious things". In Māori usage the term applies much more broadly than the English concept of legal property, and since the 1980s courts have found that the term can encompass intangible things such as language and culture. Even where physical property such as land is concerned, differing cultural understandings as to what types of land are able to be privately owned have caused problems, such as in the foreshore and seabed controversy of 2003–04.
The pre-emption clause is generally not well translated. While pre-emption was present in the treaty from the very first draft, it was translated to , a word which simply meant "to buy, sell, or trade". Many Māori apparently believed that they were simply giving the British Queen first offer on land, after which they could sell it to anyone. Another less important difference is that , meaning England alone, is used throughout in the Māori text, whereas "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is used in the first paragraph of the English.
Based on these differences, there are many academics who argue that the two versions of the treaty are distinctly different documents, which they refer to as "Te Tiriti o Waitangi" and "The Treaty of Waitangi", and that the Māori text should take precedence because it was the one that was signed at Waitangi and by the most signatories. The Waitangi Tribunal, tasked with deciding issues raised by the differences between the two texts, also gives additional weight to the Māori text in its interpretations of the treaty.
The issue is further complicated by the fact that, at the time, writing was a novel introduction to Māori society. As members of a predominately oral society, Māori present at the signing of the treaty would have placed more value and reliance on what Hobson and the missionaries said, rather than on the written words of the treaty.Belich, James (1996), Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders from Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century, pp.195–6. Although there is still a great deal of scholarly debate surrounding the extent to which literacy had permeated Māori society at the time of the signing, what can be stated with clarity is that of the 600 plus chiefs who signed the written document only 12 signed their names in the Latin alphabet. Many others conveyed their identity by drawing parts of their (personal facial tattoo), while still others marked the document with an X.
Māori beliefs and attitudes towards ownership and use of land were different from those prevailing in Britain and Europe. The chiefs would traditionally grant permission for the land to be used for a time for a particular purpose. A northern chief, Nōpera Panakareao, early on summarised his understanding of the treaty as "" ("The shadow of the land will go to the Queen, but the substance of the land will remain with us"). Nōpera later reversed the statement – feeling that the substance of the land had indeed gone to the Queen while only the shadow remained for the Māori.
Beginning in the 1970s with a renewed Māori protest movement, Māori increasingly sought the recognition of the Treaty, sparking nation-wide debate over its meaning and interpretation, particularly in contemporary society.
In 1975 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, establishing the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with determining the meaning and effect of the two texts of the Treaty, investigating breaches of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown or its agents, and recommending means of redress.The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, section 5 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/whole.html Retrieved 25 July 2025. The Office of Treaty Settlements was set up in 1988 to negotiate settlements on behalf of the Crown to resolve claims about historical breaches of the Treaty directly with iwi. Settlements with a total value of roughly $1 billion have been awarded. Various legislation passed in the latter part of the 20th century has made reference to the treaty, which has led to ad hoc incorporation of the treaty into law. Increasingly, the treaty is recognised as a founding document in New Zealand's developing unwritten constitution. The New Zealand Day Act 1973 established Waitangi Day as a national holiday to commemorate the signing of the treaty.
Background
Treaty making by European powers with indigenous peoples had always been common in empire building. Treaties were dependent on the specific situation. In 19th century New Zealand, the British wanted to formalise their involvement in the country, protect British interests, regulate land speculation, control violence and disordered settlement. They were faced with a Māori population that was more numerous, with cultivated land and government. Therefore, the British drew up the Treaty of Waitangi. In comparison, this situation did not apply in Australia where no treaties were deemed necessary by the British.
While heading the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty years, leading to slave trading being prohibited in the British Empire in 1807, William Wilberforce, with other members of the Clapham Sect, championed the foundation of the Anglican Church Missionary Society (CMS) in 1799, with the determination to improve the treatment of indigenous people by the British. This led to the establishment of the Christian mission in New Zealand, which saw laymen arriving from 1814 to teach building, farming and Christianity to Māori, as well as training Māori ministers.