No. In the landmark case New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General (1987), the Court of Appeal described the relationship between the Crown and Māori under the Treaty as being “akin to a partnership”.

This phrase has since been widely used in law and politics to justify co-governance and shared authority.

However, the Treaty of Waitangi itself does not use the word partnership, nor does it establish a governance structure based on shared sovereignty. In 1840, it was an agreement to cede sovereignty (kawanatanga) to the Crown while recognising ownership of the lands, homes, and treasured possessions of the tribes. The chiefs did not retain co-equal state authority.

Describing the Treaty as a partnership retrospectively imposes a modern legal concept that misrepresents the actual terms and intent of the Treaty. It conflates a political ideal (good faith and mutual respect) with constitutional status (power sharing), leading to confusion and contested claims of dual sovereignty.

Many legal scholars and historians argue this interpretation overreaches the Treaty’s original meaning and undermines the democratic principle of equal citizenship.

Reference

• New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641
  
  
• Joseph, Philip A. Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (5th ed.)