Anne Salmond explains the meaning of te reo Māori text of the Treaty that rangatira signed in 1840.

In 1992, during the Muriwhenua Land Claim, the Waitangi Tribunal asked me to give evidence on Māori understandings of Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it was signed in 1840. Not wanting to tackle this task on my own, I worked closely with Merimeri Penfold and Cleve Barlow, friends and colleagues in Māori Studies at the University of Auckland. Working through the text of Te Tiriti, word by word, one of the first things we noticed was the use of the term “tuku” — to give or release — throughout the text of Te Tiriti, a term used in chiefly gift exchange.

In the debates over Te Tiriti, each rangatira (chief) spoke for their own hapū (kinship group), weighing up the risks and benefits of forging a closer relationship with Queen Victoria, Governor Hobson and the British. Some drew on direct experience of visits by themselves or their predecessors to Britain or British colonies, where they’d met governors or monarchs. Others had studied the Bible and learned about governors in that context.

Intention of the Queen

For the Queen’s part, Te Tiriti begins with a statement of care. In her mahara atawhai (caring concern) for the rangatira and hapū of New Zealand, it says, the Queen has decided to tuku or give a rangatira as a kai-whakarite or mediator, literally “one who makes things equivalent,” to preserve their rangatiratanga (right to exercise authority) and their land, to bring peace and tranquil living, and to avoid the evils arising from indigenous persons and settlers living without law.

Life in 1840 was changing at a furious pace and for the rangatira, leadership was increasingly fraught.

Their speeches show they were not sure about what signing Te Tiriti might mean. Eventually, however, almost all were persuaded by the missionaries, Hobson and various fellow rangatira to put their trust in the Queen’s promises that they and Hobson would be equals, that their mana, lands and tikanga (customary system of values and practices) would be protected, and that it was in their best interests to sign Te Tiriti.

Kāwanatanga and Tino Rangatiratanga

Pivotal to these debates was the balance between “kawanatanga” in Ture (tenet) 1 of Te Tiriti, and “tino rangatiratanga” in Ture 2.

After a forensic analysis of these terms in many early texts in Māori, including the Bible and He Whakapūtanga (the Declaration of Independence), like many scholars before us, we concluded that in Ture 1, the rangatira tuku gave Queen Victoria absolutely and forever the right to have a governor in New Zealand, and to govern.

This was a substantive gift, but less than the cession of sovereignty (in the sense of an indivisible, overarching power) claimed in the English draft of the Treaty.

Henry Williams, the British missionary who translated the English draft into te reo, had translated He Whakapūtanga into Māori five years earlier. In He Whakapūtanga he used the words “kingitanga” (kingship) and “mana” to translate “sovereign power and authority”, while “kawanatanga” was used to translate “a function of government”; a lesser power that the rangatira might delegate to a person of their own choosing. The word “rangatiratanga” was used as a translation equivalent for “independence”.

Williams, who had lived in the north for 17 years, knew it was pointless to ask local rangatira to cede their rangatiratanga. He had just returned from Port Nicholson (Wellington), where New Zealand Company representatives, who had just arrived on the Tory, were buying up large areas of land. Williams was fearful about what that might mean for local kin groups.

For that reason, I think, he softened his translation of the English draft of the Treaty to make it acceptable to the rangatira. Instead of using “mana” and “kingitanga” to translate “sovereignty" as he had done in He Whakapūtanga, he used “kawanatanga” or governance instead — a lesser power.

Rangatira Did Not Cede Sovereignty

In 1992, when we gave evidence to the Tribunal that in Te Tiriti o Waitangi that the rangatira and hapū did not cede sovereignty to the British, the timing was awkward, and our report was quietly shelved.

It was not until 2009, in Te Paparahi o te Raki claim (Northland), that the Tribunal finally tackled the issue of sovereignty and its relationship with tino rangatiratanga in Te Tiriti head on. I was asked to revisit that earlier 1992 submission.

With guidance from close colleagues including Hōne Sadler, Manuka Henare and Patu Hohepa, I carried out further research that upheld those earlier findings.

This time, too, evidence given by hapū experts greatly enriched our understandings of the text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the context in which it was signed.

In its Stage One report, the Tribunal itself concluded that when they signed Te Tiriti, the rangatira did not cede sovereignty to the Queen. They did give her absolutely and forever the right to govern in all their lands, however.

Ngā Meaning Many Māori Hapūū

In both the 1992 and 2009 hearings, not much attention was paid to Ture 3 of Te Tiriti, which was assumed to be a fairly accurate translation of the English draft: “Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.”

On closer inspection, however, Ture 3 puts it differently. Here, in exchange for their agreement to kāwanatanga, the Queen promises to care for “nga tangata maori o Nu Tirani” — the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand, and tuku, or gives to them, “nga tikanga rite tahi” — tikanga exactly equivalent (not the same) — to her subjects, the inhabitants of England. This was her return gift to the rangatira.

There are several other things to note about Ture 3. While in English, there is only one definite article — “the", in te reo, there are two: “te” singular and “ngā" plural. Thus, when the Queen promised to give “nga tangata maori o Nu Tirani,” the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand tikanga (right ways of doing things) exactly equal to her subjects the inhabitants of England, that gift was made to them as persons in the plural. Although the phrase “nga tangata māori” has often been read as “the Māori people,” or in the “Lands” case judgement in 1987, as “the Māori race” in the singular, this is a translation error.

Te Tiriti Not a Binary Relationship

This insensible slip from plural to singular has contributed to the interpretation of Te Tiriti as a binary “partnership between races,” or between “the Māori race and the Crown,” or “Māori and pākehā.” A small grammatical difference between te reo and English has contributed to constitutional confusion.

Throughout the text of Te Tiriti, from the first line of the preamble onwards, its parties are named as Victoria, the Queen of England; the Kāwana or Governor; the rangatira; the hapū; and ngā tāngata in the plural. There is no mention of “te iwi Māori” or anything that could be translated as “the Māori people” or “the Māori race” in the singular. Hapū are the largest collectivities mentioned.

In Ture 3, furthermore, when the Queen gives "ngā tangata maori o Nu Tirani" (the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand) as persons "nga tikanga rite tahi" (tikanga absolutely equivalent to those of her subjects), "nga tangata o Ingarani", (the inhabitants of England), this is a relationship of equivalence, not identity; with the Governor sent as a kai-whakarite, one who creates order and balance.

The word “rite” in Ture 3 means equivalent not the same — equality in difference. As Tāmati Wāka Nene said in one of the last speeches at Waitangi in 1840, speaking in favour of the Governor: “You must be our father! You must not allow us to become slaves! You must preserve our customs, and never permit our lands to be wrested from us!”

When Nene’s elder brother Patuone spoke at Waitangi, the last of the manuhiri to address the gathering, Bishop Pompallier reported that "he spoke at length in favour of Mr Hobson, and explained, by bringing his two index fingers side by side, that they would be perfectly equal, and that each chief would be similarly equal with Mr Hobson."

Tui Motu Magazine. Issue 293 June 2024: 18-19