Analyzing the Treaty of Waitangi: Texts and Interpretations

This essay provides a detailed analysis of the Treaty of Waitangi, focusing on the differences between the English and Maori versions. It explores the historical context of the treaty's creation, including the roles of key figures like Lieut. Governor William Hobson and the missionaries involved in translation. The essay examines the contrasting interpretations of key concepts such as sovereignty, represented by the terms 'kawanatanga' and 'tino rangatiratanga,' and how these differences have led to debates and legal challenges. It highlights the significance of oral discussions and the explanations provided at the time of signing. The essay also discusses the articles of the treaty, including the preamble and the rights and protections promised to the Maori people. The analysis concludes by acknowledging the legal status of the treaty and the role of the Waitangi Tribunal in interpreting its meaning. References to relevant literature are also included.

Treaty of Waitangi
There are two texts of The Treaty of Waitangi. However, the Maori version of the treaty cannot
be described as exact translation from the English version. As a result, much debate has been
going on regarding the differences, how they appeared and what is the meaning of these
differences. It is argued by some persons that there are two treaties, 'Te Tiriti' which is the the
Maori version and The Treaty that is the English version (McHugh, 1991). However, it is not
clear that how much notice was taken of the precise wording when the treaty was signed.
There are certain persons who claim that the treaty has been prepared hastily and by amateurs.
Therefore by intention or otherwise, they had used the language which conveyed a particular
meaning in Maori. On the other hand, there are certain others who claim that the instructions that
were received from the British by Lieut. Governor William Hobson were clear, particularly
regarding land (Palmer, 2008). Therefore, Hobson and his advisers were exactly aware of what
they were doing when the English text of the Treaty was drafted. At the same time, they were
also guided by the previous treaties.
The Maori text of the treaty had been translated quickly, but it was done by the persons who
knew the language well. The missionary Maori, used by them was known to the Chiefs. It also
conveyed the key words and their meaning. Most of the night of February 5 had been spent by
Henry Williams and chiefs discussing the treaty and its meanings (Butler, 2000). It was not
suggested by Williams that any changes should be made to the text of the treaty. Therefore,
many persons believe that he did not consider the Maori text of the treaty to be seriously
misleading. Probably, he selected certain words for the purpose of gaining Maori agreement,
although they may appear to be ambiguous when translated from English concepts (Renwick

(ed) 1991). As was the case with many others, he also believed that the welfare of the Maori can
be served in a better way to the British.
Now there are many persons who focus on the differences that exist between the English and the
Maori text of the treaty, particularly regarding the significant issue of sovereignty. On the other
hand, at that time the oral discussions and the explanations given by Williams would have
mattered more than the differences present in the written texts.
Regarding the preamble, it has been mentioned in the English version of the treaty that the
British intention was to protect the Maori interests from being encroached by British settlement,
to provide for British settlement and to establish a government having the responsibility to
maintain peace and order. In the Maori text, it has a suggested that the main promises made to
the Maori by the green button provided movement that secures tribal rangatiratanga (mainly
autonomy of authority on their own area) and land ownership by Maori as long as they want to
retain it (Knight, 2011).
Regarding the first article of the treaty, it hasn't mentioned in the English text that all rights and
powers of sovereignty over their land have been given by the Maori leaders to the Queen. On the
other hand, according to the Maori text, the Queen has been given 'te kawanatanga katoa' or in
other words, 'complete government' over their land by the Maori leaders. In the Maori language,
there is no direct translation of the word sovereignty (Whakaaro, Whakaumu MōAotearoa,
2016). Chiefs enjoy authority over their own areas, but there was a lack of a central ruler.
Therefore in the translation of English version, the Maori word 'kawanatanga' has been used,
which is a transliteration of the term "governance' that was in use at those times. The Maori came

to know regarding the term from the Bible and from 'Kawana' or the governor of New South
Wales. It was believed by the knowledge that they had retained their authority to manage their
own affairs and only ceded a right of governance to the Queen and in return, protection has been
promised to them.
It is also widely believed that the terms 'kawanatanga' and 'tino rangatiratanga' have been used in
article 2 and as a result, they had contributed in the differences of view that arose later on
between the Crown and the Maori. This difference was regarding the extent to which the
authority would be retained by the chiefs and how much would be ceded to the governor.
However there is very little doubt regarding the fact that the chiefs who had signed the Treaty
were under the impression that they were going to enter into a partnership and going to share
power under the new system (Bird-Rose, 1991).
In case of the second article of the treaty, it was provided in the English text that the Maori
leaders and the people, both collectively as well as individually, have confirmed and guaranteed
undisturbed and exclusive possession of their lands and estates, fisheries, forests and other
properties. The Maori has also provided an exclusive right to the Crown to purchase their land.
But later on, it was stated by some Maori (and British also) that they were under the impression
that the Crown had the first option instead of having the exclusive right to buy the property of the
Maori (Bond and Gillian, 1994).
On the other hand, 'te tino rangatiratanga' was guaranteed to the Maori, which was the
unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over the lands, villages as well as other property and
treasures (Durie and Te Mana Te Kawanatanga, 1998). It was also agreed by the Maori that they
were going to provide a ride to the ground by their man in case they wanted to sell it. However, it

was not certain if the exclusive purchase of the land by the Crown had been clearly conveyed in
the Maori text (Frankenberg, (ed) 1997).
Regarding the third article of the Treaty, an assurance had been given by the Crown in the Maori
text that the Maori will have the protection provided by the green as well as all the other rights
(tikanga) that are provided to the British subjects. This is a fair translation of the English text.
The protection provided by the Queen has been emphasized here as was done in the preamble of
the Treaty.
Therefore, in the end, it can be said that legally, there was only one treaty, although some
difference will present between the two texts of the treaty. The exclusive authority to decide the
meaning of the treaty in the two texts has been provided to the Waitangi Tribunal and at the same
time, it was also going to decide the issues that were raised as a result of differences present
between them (Graham, 1997). The references to the Treaty in law make an attempt to bridge
these differences by referring to the principles on which the treaty is based or in other words, the
spirit or the core concepts that are present in both the texts of the Treaty.

References
Bird-Rose, D., (1991) Hidden Histories Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press
Bond, G. C. and Gillian, A., (1994) “Introduction” in Social Construction of the Past George
Clement Bond and Angela Gillian, (eds) (London: Routledge, 1994)
Butler A.S. (2000) “Taking the Treaty Seriously: New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-
General (1987)” in E O’Dell Leading Cases of the Twentieth Century (Round Hall Press, Dublin,
2000).
Durie, M., Te Mana Te Kawanatanga, (1998) The Politics of Maori Self-Determination
Auckland: Oxford University Press
Frankenberg, R., (ed) (1997) Displacing Whiteness Durham: Duke University Press
Graham, D., (1997) Trick or Treaty Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies
He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu MōAotearoa (2016) The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa, The
Independent Working Group on Constitutional Tr a n s f o r m a t i o n
Knight D., (2011) “Patriating Our Head of State: A Simpler Path?” in Caroline Morris, Jonathan
Boston and Petra Butler (eds) Reconstituting the Constitution (Springer, Berlin, 2011) 107
McHugh P (1991) The Māori Magna Carta: New Zealand Law and the Treaty of Waitangi
(Oxford University Press, Auckland
Palmer M., (2008) The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s Law and Constitution (Victoria
University Press, Wellington
Renwick W (ed) (1991) Sovereignty and Indigenous Rights: The Treaty of Waitangi in
International Contexts Victoria University Press, Wellington