The meaning of the treaty

Introduction

The Treaty of Waitangi has two texts, one Maori and one English. The English text that has been taken as the official version differs from the Maori text. Because the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, the meaning and intent of the treaty would be quite clear in the final English draft. That draft was lost, and what has been taken as the official English version was created by Hobson’s secretary James Stuart Freeman, who cobbled together pieces of discarded earlier versions. Despite the problems caused by the different versions and the missing final draft, all the treaty says is that the Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including possession of property. Since then, the Queen and her successors have exercised sovereignty for over 173 years.

Preamble

The preamble says the Queen of England, who considerately wishes to maintain peace among Maori and preserve their land, has sent Hobson to negotiate cession of sovereignty and set up a government to protect both settlers and Maori.

The Waitangi Tribunal asserts that there is a difference of meaning between the English and Maori versions, -- the Maori version promised to “secure tribal rangatiratanga” and “secure Maori land ownership”.

The Waitangi Tribunal fails to say that the word “rangatiratanga” translates the word “possession” and the word “kawanatanga” translates “sovereignty”. Failing to clarify the meanings of these words, the tribunal asserts there is a fundamental difference in meaning between the two texts when, apart from differences in phrasing, extra words, and a pompous style, no fundamental difference actually exists.

Article 1

Article 1 simply says that the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes, a group of 34 Far North chiefs set up in 1835 by British Resident James Busby, and other chiefs, cede sovereignty to the Queen of England.

The Waitangi Tribunal continues with its semantic argument by asserting that by using the word “kawanatanga” in the Maori text to translate “sovereignty” chiefs must have believed that they only “ceded to the Queen a right of governance in return for the promise of protection, while retaining the authority they always had to manage their own affairs.”

This interpretation is incorrect because an eyewitness account by missionary printer William Colenso, who was at the February 5, 1840, discussion at Waitangi, as well as the February 6 signing, recorded several chiefs disagreeing with the idea that they would become subject to the Queen of England, a position they accepted the very next day.

Article 2

Article 2 says the Queen confirms to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property, while the chiefs grant to the Queen the exclusive right of buying such lands as the proprietors may want to sell at agreed prices.

The word “possession” in the original English draft of the treaty was translated as “rangatiratanga” and the word “property” was translated as “taonga”.

But the Waitangi Tribunal says “rangatiratanga” does not mean “possession”. It says it means as “promising to uphold the authority that tribes had always had over their lands and taonga”.

The tribunal goes on to conclude that by reading Article 2 together with a part of Normanby’s instructions to Hobson that advises against purchasing any territory the retention of which by them would be essential, article 2 was to ensure that “each tribe retained sufficient land”.

The tribunal thus creates the fiction that chiefs were wrongly denied the right to carry on with self-governance. In its National Overview, the tribunal asserts that the “loss of rangatiratanga”, which includes the loss of resources, and the exclusion of Maori from the decision-making institutions, is the No. 1 grievance.

Similarly, the tribunal’s assertion about “sufficient land” provides an all-encompassing treaty justification for grievance No. 2, that is purchases under the Native Lands Act, and grievance No. 3, Crown purchases from 1840 to 1865.

Article 3

Article 3 says that in return for the cession of sovereignty, the Queen shall protect the people of New Zealand who will have the rights and privileges of British subjects.

The Waitangi Tribunal says that this text emphasises equality. Few would have any problem with this until “equality” is transmogrified into race-based affirmative action.

The Epilogue

In the epilogue, the chiefs affirm that they have understood the meaning of the articles, accept them, and agree to them all, and sign their names.

The Waitangi Tribunal does its final bit of treaty twisting by citing a phrase that only appears in the cobbled-together Freeman English language version of the treaty, which says the chiefs “enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof”, to assert “these words are important, for it is the treaty’s principles, rather than the meaning of its strict terms, that the Waitangi Tribunal must determine today”. In this way, the tribunal imports a series of principles that were created in 1987.. A further justification for the use of the 1980s “principles” is to make the variations between the two texts less problematic.