The Treaty of Waitangi; or, how New Zealand became a British Colony

Meantime the eligibility of New Zealand as a colony was being discussed both in New South Wales and in England, and ultimately in 184 °Captain Hobson, R.N., was despatched to New Zealand with two commissions, one as British Consul, and the other as Lieutenant-Governor. He reached the Bay of Islands on the 29th of January 1840, and on the 5th and 6th of February the Treaty of Waitangi was signed by many chiefs, then assembled at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands. The treaty states, inter alia: "Her Majesty, therefore, being desirous to establish a settled form of civil government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary laws and institutions alike to the native population and to her subjects, has been graciously pleased to empower and authorise me, William Hobson, a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Consul and Lieutenant-Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following articles and conditions."

Then follow three articles. The first article deals with the cession. It is as follows: "The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand, and the separate and independent chiefs who have not become members of the confederation, cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England, absolutely and without reservation, all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said confederation or individual chiefs respectively exercise or possess or may be supposed to exercise or possess over their respective territories as the sole sovereigns thereof."

The second and the third articles are as follows: "Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, and fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession: but the chiefs of the united tribes and the individual chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate, at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf." The third is as follows: "(3) In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the natives of New Zealand her royal protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects."

Copies of the treaty were taken to various parts of both islands, and the chiefs throughout New Zealand signed it, and to the present day the treaty is regarded as their Magna Charta. The Lieutenant-Governor on the 21st May 1840 issued a proclamation, proclaiming and declaring that after the date of the treaty the full sovereignty of the North Island of New Zealand vested in Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors for ever.

A further proclamation was issued on the same day proclaiming and declaring that all the Islands of New Zealand vested in Her Majesty, that is, including all country between 34° 30´ north to 47° 10´ south latitude and between 166° 5´ to 179° east longitude. A mistake was made in this proclamation in that it proclaimed from 34° 30´ north instead of as was intended 34° 30´ south. The ground of the proclamation over the South Island was that of discovery. Since then it has been recognised that the lands in the islands not sold by the natives belonged to the natives. All the old authorities are agreed that for every part of land there was a native owner. Two authorities may be cited. Bishop Selwyn said as follows: "Three points then seem to be clear on this subject: (1) That there was originally a distinct owner for every habitable spot in the Northern Island: (2) That these claims have been complicated by the obvious causes of inheritance and marriage without forms of conveyance or bequest: (3) That the rights of ownership whether in one or many joint proprietors were not alienable without the consent of the tribe."

The late Sir William Martin, formerly Chief-Justice of New Zealand, said: "So far as yet appears the whole surface of the islands, or as much of it as is of any value to man, has been appropriated by the natives, and, with the exception of the part they have sold, is held by them as property. Nowhere was any piece of land discovered or heard of (by the commissioners) which was not owned by some person or set of persons… There might be several conflicting claimants of the same land: but however the natives might be divided amongst themselves as to the validity of any one of the several claims, still no man doubted that there was in every case a right of property subsisting in some one of the claimants. In this Northern Island at least it may now be regarded as absolutely certain that, with the exception of lands already purchased from the Natives, there is not an acre of land available for purposes of colonisation, but has an owner amongst the Natives according to their own customs."

The Governor and the Legislature of New Zealand accepted this position, and numerous ordinances and acts of Parliament have been passed to enable the Maoris to transmute their customary title into freehold. The position all along assumed has been that the lands are vested in the Crown, and until the Crown issues a freehold title the customary titles cannot be recognised; but that the Crown will give to all who prove that the land was theirs a freehold title. The Crown has not assumed that land could be taken or kept by the Crown from the Natives, unless the natives ceded their rights to the Crown. Thousands of purchases in both islands have been made by the Crown, and thousands of deeds of cession are in existence. The reason why the Crown did not recognise any title in the land till a grant from the Crown had issued is dealt with in the classic judgment of the late Mr. Justice H. S. Chapman, delivered in 1847 in the case of Reg. v. Symonds, and in the judgment of the then Chief-Justice Sir William Martin, who agreed with the judgment of Mr. Justice Chapman. After their judgments, the Imperial Parliament in the New Zealand Constitution Act (15 and 16 Vict. c. 72, sec. 73) recognised the native title. Section 73 of that Act is as follows: "It shall not be lawful for any person other than Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, to purchase or in any wise acquire or accept from the aboriginal Natives land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal Natives in any such land as aforesaid: and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the conveyance or transfer of any such land, either in perpetuity or for any term or period, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in property or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or extinguishment as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect, unless the same be made to, or entered into with and accepted by Her Majesty, her heirs or successors. Provided always that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions under the signet and royal sign manual, or signified through one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State to delegate her powers of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases, or relinquishments, to the Governor of New Zealand, or the superintendent of any province within the limits of such colony, and to prescribe or regulate the terms of such conveyances or agreements, releases or extinguishments shall be accepted."

That the Crown in New Zealand recognised that it could not treat the Native land – that is, the land over which the Natives had not given up their rights of cession – as Crown in the fullest sense is plain from various things done: (1) In 1862 the first Act to provide for the ascertainment of the ownership of Native lands, and for granting certificates of title therein, and for regulating the disposal of Native lands was passed. The preamble is as follows: "Whereas by the Treaty of Waitangi entered into by and between Her Majesty and the chiefs of New Zealand, it was among other things declared that Her Majesty confirmed and guaranteed to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand and the respective families and individuals thereof the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, which they collectively or individually held so long as it should be their desire to retain the same: And it was further declared that the chiefs yielded to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof might be disposed to alienate: And whereas it would greatly promote the peaceful settlement of the colony and the advancement and the civilisation of the Natives if their rights to land were ascertained, defined, and declared, and if the ownership of such lands when so ascertained, defined, and declared were assimilated as nearly as possible to the ownership of land according to British law: And whereas with a view to the foregoing objects, Her Majesty may be pleased to waive in favour of the Natives so much of the said Treaty of Waitangi as reserves to Her Majesty the right of pre-emption of their lands, and to establish Courts and to make other provision for ascertaining and defining the rights of the Natives to their lands, and for otherwise giving effect to the provisions of the Act: And it is expedient that the General Assembly of New Zealand should facilitate the said objects by enacting such provisions as are hereinafter contained."

(2) When the natives committed rebellion or were guilty of insurrection, a special Act was passed allowing the Governor in Council to take their lands. See inter alia the New Zealand Settlements Act, 1863. A few of the sections may be cited: "2. Whenever the Governor in Council shall be satisfied that any Native tribe or section of a tribe or any considerable number thereof has since the first day of January 1863 been engaged in rebellion against Her Majesty's authority, it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to declare that the district within which any land being the property or being in the possession of such tribe or section or considerable number thereof shall be situate, shall be a district within the provisions of this Act, and the boundaries of such district in like manner to define and vary as he shall think fit."

"3. It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council from time to time to set apart within any such district eligible sites for settlements for colonisation, and the boundaries of such settlements to define and vary."

"4. For the purposes of such settlements the Governor in Council may from time to time reserve or take any land within such district, and such land shall be deemed to be Crown land, freed and discharged from all title interest, or claim of any person whomsoever as soon as the Governor in Council shall have declared that such land is required for the purposes of this Act, and is subject to the provisions thereof."

Section 5 provided for compensation to persons whose land has been taken, provided that they had not been in rebellion.

(3) Before Native land was treated as Crown land, open for sale and settlement, proclamations were generally made so declaring the land open. See, for example, section 6 of the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1873, and section 247 of the Land Act, 1885.

It is not necessary to point out that if the Crown in New Zealand had not conserved the Native rights and carried out the treaty a gross wrong would have been perpetrated. Since the recognition of the Native rights so often made, there may have been interference by legislation with Native land, both before and after the ascertainment of title. If, however, there were such interferences, they have been based on the theory of eminent domain. There have been statutes passed providing how Native lands may be leased, but a similar kind of interference has been witnessed in the United Kingdom in the case of the Irish Land Acts and the Scottish Crofters' Statutes. Such interferences did not destroy the title of Natives. Native lands and freehold lands belonging to persons of the white race have also been taken under such a theory when it appeared it was for the interest of the State to do so. In such cases compensation has been awarded. To interfere with Native lands, merely because they are Native lands, and without compensation, would of course be such an act of spoliation and tyranny that this Court ought not to assume it to be possible in any civilised community.

The decision of Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, 3 J.R., N.S., S.C. 72, does not derogate from that position. It only emphasised the decision in Reg. v. Symonds, that the Supreme Court could take no cognisance of treaty rights not embodied in a statute, and that Native Customary Title was a kind of tenure that the Court could not deal with. In the case of Tamaki v. Baker (1901), A.C. 561, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council recognised, however, that the Natives had rights under our statute law to their customary lands.

The Native Land Act, 1909, has various sections dealing with the customary land of the Maoris (sections 84, 85, 86, and 87). What was the need of such sections if a declaration by a law officer of the Crown was all that was necessary to say that the land claimed as Customary Native Land was Crown Land? Section 88 is significant in this connection. It states "(1) for the purpose of recovering possession of customary land from any person in wrongful occupation thereof, and for the purpose of preventing any trespass or other injury thereto, or of recovering damages for any such trespass or injury, all such land shall be deemed to be Crown Lands within the meaning of the Land Act, 1908. (2) No action or other proceeding, other than a proceeding by or on behalf of the Crown under the last preceding subsection, shall be brought in any Court by any person for the recovery of the possession of customary land, or for damages or an injunction in respect of any trespass, or injury to such land." Sections 90 and 91 show that the customary titles are recognised: section 90 reads: "The Native Land Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate the title to customary land, and to determine the relative interests of the owners thereof." Section 91 is as follows: "Every title to and interest in customary land shall be determined according to the ancient custom and usage of the Maori people, so far as the same can be ascertained." Section 92 shows the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. Formerly there was something more required than an order of a Native Land Court to make an effective title. At one time His Excellency the Governor had to sign a Crown grant and at another time a certificate of title.

I am of opinion that the Native Land Act recognises that the Natives have a right to their customary titles. There are in my opinion only three things that can prevent the Native Land Court entering on an enquiry as to such customary title.

(1) A proclamation of the Governor under a statute, such as has been provided in many Acts, and is so provided in section 85 of the Native Land Act, 1909.

(2) A prohibition by the Governor under section 100 of the Native Land Act, 1909.

(3) Proof that the land has been ceded by the true owners or that a Crown grant has been issued.

I know of no statutory authority that the Attorney-General as Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General as Solicitor-General has to declare that the land is Crown land. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are both high officers of State. They are legal officers, and they can appear as solicitors or counsel for the Crown, but there their functions and powers end. Their statement as to what is Crown property unless made in accordance with some statutory power, is of no avail. If in an action they put in a plea to that effect, it would have to be proved like any other pleading of a party to the action. The Solicitor-General has failed to cite any authority that the mere statement of the legal adviser of the Crown, or the Crown's Attorney or Solicitor-General, was to be taken as a true averment without proof.

What the customary title to the bed of Lake Rotorua may be must be considered and determined by the only Court in New Zealand that has jurisdiction to deal with Native titles – the Native Land Court. At common law there may be an ownership of the bed of navigable rivers or lakes that are non-tidal. See Kent's Commentaries, vol. iii. p. 427, note (d). The case of Mueller v. Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd., 20 N.Z.L.R. 89, turned on the effect of a grant under the Land Acts.

I am of opinion that it is not necessary specifically to answer the questions put, but only to say that the plaintiff and his people have a right to go to the Native Land Court to have their title investigated, and that the Native Land Court can only be prevented from performing its statutory duty, first, under the Native Land Act, secondly, on proof in that Court that the lands are Crown Lands freed from the customary title of the Natives, or, thirdly that there is a Crown title to the bed of the lake.

WILLIAMS, J. – The contention of the Solicitor-General is that in all cases where land is claimed by natives to be held by them under their customs and usages, and they seek to have their titles ascertained by the Native Land Court, and a title in fee simple granted to them, the Solicitor-General, by virtue of the prerogative right of the Crown, and apart from any statutory authority, could at any time step in and prevent proceedings being taken or continued. The arguments in support of this contention are that when New Zealand was annexed to Great Britain all the land in New Zealand became vested in the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative; that the Treaty of Waitangi is binding only upon the honour of the Crown, and can be disregarded at the discretion of the Crown; and that, although there may be a statutory recognition of the Native title, there is no such statutory recognition as would operate as against the Crown. Even if these arguments were sound it by no means follows that the contention of the Solicitor-General can be supported… There is nothing in the Governor's commission or in the Royal instructions which expressly authorises him to interfere on behalf of the Crown to prevent the exercise of rights given to natives by the statute law of the Dominion. Has he then, by virtue of his commission, an implied power so to interfere?.. There is a special reason why the power now claimed should not be implied. The power now claimed is by an act of state to disregard rights given by statutes which have been passed to carry out treaty obligations binding upon the honour of the Crown. If the Crown has this power, it is exercised on the advice of the responsible Minister of the Crown. Whether it should be so exercised or not is a matter affecting the honour of the Crown, not merely as the Sovereign of this Dominion, but as the Sovereign of the British Empire. It was with the Sovereign of the British Empire that the Treaty of Waitangi was entered into. Whether Imperial obligations should or should not be observed is a matter of Imperial concern for the responsible advisers of the Crown in Great Britain to decide upon and not for the advisers of the Governor here, unless the power of deciding has been expressly delegated to the Governor. Even if the power had been so delegated the Court would properly require some evidence beyond the mere statement of the Attorney- or Solicitor-General that the authority of the Crown was being exercised… I agree with the conclusion arrived at by His Honour, that rights given to natives by statute to have their customary titles determined can only be divested in the manner prescribed by statute. The rights given to natives by sections 90 to 93 inclusive of "The Native Land Act, 1909," to have a legal estate in fee simple in possession vested in the persons found to be entitled are rights expressly given against the Crown. If these sections do not bind the Crown they are meaningless and inoperative. The Crown is a party to the statute. It is difficult to see how, when rights which expressly affect pre-existing rights of the Crown are created by statute, the Crown upon the passing of the statute can disregard the rights so created, and exercise its pre-existing rights as if the statute had not been passed.

EDWARDS, J. – In support of his contention that the bed of the lake cannot be the subject of a Native title under Maori customs and usages, the Solicitor-General relies upon the inherent improbability that there was any intention, either by the Treaty of Waitangi or by the statutes relating to native lands, to recognise any such right. To hold that there is such a right would be, the Solicitor-General contends, to destroy the right of navigation in all non-tidal waters to the great detriment of the public. Such considerations might well have induced those responsible for the Treaty of Waitangi to have so framed that document as to preclude any claim by natives to the exclusive possession of land covered by navigable non-tidal waters. It may even be suggested that the words of the treaty, which guarantee to the Maoris "the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties," were intended to reserve to the natives merely the right to fish in non-tidal waters, without recognising in them any property in the land covered by such waters. It is quite possible – indeed not improbable – that there never was any Maori custom or usage which recognised any greater right in land covered by navigable non-tidal waters than this. That is a question which neither the Supreme Court nor this Court can determine. If there never was any such custom or usage prior to the Treaty of Waitangi, then the Crown will get the advantage of that when that question has been determined by the Native Land Court, or in the last resort by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But if there was such a custom or usage, the treaty, so far as it is effective, is sufficient to preserve it. The treaty, like every other instrument, must be construed in accordance with the plain legal significance of the words used, and the Courts cannot speculate as to whether or not those words were used in another sense not apparent upon the face of the instrument, or necessarily to be inferred from the subject with reference to which they are used. A lake, in contemplation of the English law, is merely land covered by water, and will pass by the description of land. Bristow v. Cormican (3 A.C. 641); Johnston v. O'Neill (1911, A.C. 552). Whatever rights were conserved to the Maoris by the Treaty of Waitangi were fully recognised by "The Native Lands Act, 1862," which recited the treaty, and was enacted with the declared object of giving effect to it… In my opinion it is clear that if the Crown desires to set up its title, as a bar to the investigation by the Native Land Court in its ordinary jurisdiction of claims by natives, it must either be prepared to prove its title, or it must be able to rely upon a proclamation in accordance with the terms of the 85th section of "The Native Land Act, 1909."

COOPER, J. – I have had the advantage of reading and considering the judgment of His Honour, the Chief Justice, and, upon substantially the same grounds as are expressed by His Honour in that judgment, I have arrived at the same conclusion.

I have very little to add.

"The Land Act, 1908," contains the statutory provisions regulating the administration of Crown lands in New Zealand. In respect of Native lands, section 2 brings within the category of Crown lands only those "Native lands which have been ceded to His Majesty by the Natives on behalf of His Majesty, or otherwise acquired in freehold from the Natives on behalf of His Majesty, or have become vested in His Majesty by right of his prerogative."

Customary lands owned by natives, which have not been ceded to His Majesty or acquired from the native owners on behalf of His Majesty, cannot in my opinion be said to be land vested in His Majesty by right of his prerogative. It is true that, technically, the legal estate is in His Majesty, but this legal estate is held subject to the right of the natives, recognised by the Crown to the possession and ownership of the customary lands, which they have not ceded to the King, and which His Majesty has not acquired from them.