‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of its subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.


The Crown has a fiduciary obligation to all citizens (not just maori) but that does not make the citizens partners (one cannot be a subject and a partner of the Queen

Even in the big 1987 case, the Court of Appeal used the word 'partners' interchangeably with the word 'parties', & spoke also of a relationship ‘akin to’ a 'partnership'. 

The words "partnership" and "fiduciary nature" do not appear (or is implied) in the treaty or in any of the debate held at Waitangi on February 5, 1840, the same goes for the chiefs speeches at Kohimarama 20 years later. 

To reveal the separatists fraud of 'treaty partnership' ~ in a partnership, the partners share the risks, expenses, burdens (where have maori done this?), as well as the benefits. 

What a preposterous fraud this separatist cry of ‘treaty partnership’ is when all it means is that one party has to pay for everything, the other party simply sits back and takes, and takes." 


The partnership myth entered the public square through an erroneous decision of the Court of Appeal in a 1987 case involving the New Zealand Maori Council. It is founded upon what researcher, Alan Everton describes as: “nothing more than the opinion of five judges, who combined a lamentable ignorance of New Zealand history with a willingness to ignore the constitutional principle that they were appointed to apply the law, not make it.” 


  1. Treaties have parties, not partners.
  2. Only blinkered left-wing revisionists like Geoffrey Palmer and Claudia Orange misrepresent the Treaty of Waitangi as a partnership. For those in 1840, it was a sovereignty-for-protection deal.
  3. Even if it had been a partnership, any shareholder knows that the word 'partnership' does not imply 50/50. The Queen of the greatest empire on Earth was hardly going to share sovereignty with a group of tribal chiefs. (John Ansell)

If the Treaty of Waitangi was indeed about partnership then Pakeha should and must be permitted to participate in the Tribunal process. They are not. (By Stephen Maire)