Entitled ''Changing Perceptions of the Treaty, 1840-2040'', the talk was given at the Dunedin Public Art Gallery and was well attended.
Dr Paterson, of the University of Otago's Te Tumu School of Maori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies, said the interpretation of the Treaty was now filtered by legal arguments and processes, which created winners and losers, and rights and wrongs.
Originally, the document was about exerting political control over Maori, which became more explicit after the chaos and acrimony of the 1860s land wars.
He rejected the view the earlier intent of the Crown was anything other than domination and control, albeit with humanitarian intent from some who represented the Crown.
An important juncture was Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast declaring the Treaty a ''simple nullity'' in 1877 during a land case, setting the tone of the courts for many decades to come, he said.
Public perception began to change in the 1970s, largely because a new class of educated urban Maori agitated for change.
Older Maori did not necessarily approve of the actions of young Maori, and it was important to note that among Maori interpretations of the Treaty itself always differed.
Another turning point was 1985, when the Waitangi Tribunal's power was extended to investigate historic claims, rather than be limited to contemporary claims.
Non-Maori now largely accepted the Treaty, which was a significant shift.
The Treaty would continue to be relevant to New Zealand's social and political issues in the coming decades, he said.
