Editing Treaty of Waitangi (section)

==== Native Land Court ====
The [[Māori Land Court|Native Land Court]] (later renamed the Māori Land Court) was established under the [[Native Lands Act 1865]], which also finally abolished the Crown right to pre-emption. It was through this court that much Māori land was alienated, and the way in which it functioned is much criticised today.{{sfn|Walker|2004|p=143}} A single member of a tribal group could claim ownership of communal tribal land, which would trigger a court battle in which other tribal members were forced to participate, or else lose out.{{sfn|Walker|2004}} The accumulation of court fees, lawyers fees, survey costs, and the cost of travelling to attend court proceedings resulted in mounting debts that could only be paid by the eventual sale of the land.{{sfn|Walker|2004}} In effect, Māori were safe from the court only until a single tribal member broke ranks and triggered a case, which would invariably result in the sale of the land.{{sfn|Walker|2004}} By the end of the century, nearly all of the highest quality Māori land had been sold, with only two million hectares remaining in Māori possession.{{sfn|Walker|2004}}

Although the treaty had never been directly incorporated into New Zealand law,{{sfn|Palmer|2008|p=19}} its provisions were first incorporated into specific legislation as early as the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 and the Native Rights Act 1865.<ref>{{cite web|title=Native Rights Act 1865|date=1865|publisher=[[New Zealand Legal Information Institute]]|url=http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/nra186529v1865n11281/|access-date=27 September 2019|archive-date=1 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191201062645/http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/nra186529v1865n11281/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Jamieson|first=Nigel J.|date=2004|title=Talking Through the Treaty – Truly a Case of Pokarekare Ana or Troubled Waters|publisher=New Zealand Association for Comparative Law Yearbook 10}}</ref> However, in the 1877 ''[[Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington]]'' judgement, Judge Prendergast argued that the treaty was a "simple nullity" in terms of transferring sovereignty from Māori to the British Crown.<ref>[[Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington]] (1877) 3 NZ Jurist Reports (NS) Supreme Court, p72.</ref> This remained the legal orthodoxy until at least the 1970s.{{sfn|Robinson|2010|p=262}} Māori have since argued that Prendergast's decision, as well as laws later based on it were a politically convenient and deliberate ploy to legitimise the seizure of Māori land and other resources.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sdhBAAAAYAAJ |title=Healing the Breach: One Maori's Perspective on the Treaty of Waitangi |last=Tauroa |first=Hiwi |date=1989 |publisher=Collins New Zealand |isbn=9781869500078 |pages=26, 27, 28 |url-status=live |archive-date=23 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180123072248/https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=sdhBAAAAYAAJ&q=inauthor:%2522Hiwi+Tauroa%2522&dq=inauthor:%2522Hiwi+Tauroa%2522&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjeluD4zevYAhUIS7wKHYr5CikQ6AEIMjAC}}</ref>

Despite this, Māori frequently used the treaty to argue for a range of demands, including greater independence and return of confiscated and unfairly purchased land.<ref name="First Decades4" /> This was especially the case from the mid-19th century, when they lost numerical superiority and generally lost control of most of the country and had little representation in government or the councils where decisions that impacted their affairs were made.<ref name="First Decades4" />{{sfn|Walker|2004}} Simultaneously, Māori rights over fisheries (guaranteed in article 2 of the treaty) were similarly degraded by laws passed in the late 19th century.{{sfn|Walker|2004}}{{sfn|Orange|1987|p=220}}

Over the longer term, the land purchase aspect of the treaty declined in importance, while the clauses of the treaty which deal with sovereignty and Māori rights took on greater importance.{{sfn|Orange|1987|p=202}} In 1938, the judgement of the case ''Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board'' considered the treaty as valid in terms of the transfer of sovereignty, but the judge ruled that as it was not part of New Zealand law it was not binding on the Crown.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cooke |first=Robin |date=1994 |title=The Harkness Henry lecture: the challenge of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence |url=http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/research/waikato_law_review/pubs/volume_2_1994/2 |journal=Waikato Law Review |volume=2 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170720060441/http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/research/waikato_law_review/pubs/volume_2_1994/2 |archive-date=20 July 2017}}</ref>