03 · Two Texts, One Country

On 6 February 1840 at Waitangi, Māori chiefs — rangatira — signed alongside William Hobson, Britain's representative, two documents that did not say the same thing. Both sides signed as though they did. The number who signed that day is recorded as a range, 43 to 46, not a single figure.

Article 1 of the English text states that the chiefs ceded to the Queen "all the rights and powers of sovereignty" over their land. Article 1 of the Māori text, known as te Tiriti, states that the chiefs ceded "te kawanatanga katoa" — the complete government. The whole of this chapter sits between those two lines.

Choosing the word kawanatanga was not carelessness. It was the word that actually existed that day. Kawanatanga is a transliteration of governance and governor, and Māori already knew the word kawana — from the translated Bible, and from the kawana of neighbouring New South Wales. Sovereignty, meanwhile, had no direct equivalent in Māori at the time. The translator was therefore not choosing between a right word and a wrong one. He chose the closest word the language had to offer.

Article 2 of the Māori text widens the gap further. There the chiefs were guaranteed "te tino rangatiratanga" over their lands, villages and treasures — the unqualified exercise of chieftainship. One text therefore says supreme authority has been handed over. The other says government has been handed over, then guarantees chiefly authority back in the very next article.

Read the English text to the end and what you have is sovereignty changing hands. Read the Māori text to the end and what you have is one governor, and chiefs who are still chiefs. Both readings are correct against the text each reader was reading.

Before the first signing there was real discussion. On the night of 5 February 1840, the missionary Henry Williams and the assembled chiefs discussed the Treaty's meaning through the night. The signing then went on for two further rounds: 10 February at Waimate, six chiefs; 12 February at Mangungu, in Hokianga, sixty-four more. Hobson signed in person on each occasion. The gap between the two texts survived the night of debate, and it survived two further signings.

New Zealand's own government agency puts this plainly. The official history site of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage states: "It is widely accepted that the use of the words 'kawanatanga' and 'tino rangatiratanga' ... contributed to later differences of view between the Crown and Māori over how much authority the chiefs would retain and how much the governor would have." That sentence accuses nobody. It identifies two words as the cause.

On 14 November 2014 the Waitangi Tribunal ruled on this in writing. The Tribunal is the standing New Zealand government body empowered to determine the Treaty's meaning, and the Stage 1 report of its Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry, in Northland, concluded: "The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain. That is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories."

The Tribunal also set out how the British side had explained the Treaty. Hobson and his agents explained it as granting Britain "the power to control British subjects and thereby to protect Māori", and never explained the full sovereignty claim standing in the English text. The finding that follows is that the Crown "did not acquire that sovereignty through an informed cession by the rangatira who signed te Tiriti".

That ruling does not say anyone lied. The word carrying the weight is informed. What failed to happen was a cession of sovereignty made in knowledge of what was being ceded — not a deception. The record this chapter works from states what the British side explained, and what it did not explain. It does not state whether the omission was deliberate, and this chapter does not supply that answer.

The interval is the part to read slowly. Between the signings of February 1840 and the ruling of 14 November 2014 lie 174 years. Throughout that span both documents existed side by side, both legible, and each side read its own text exactly as written. The gap was never hidden. It stayed open in plain view.

This case is the strongest in the book for one reason: a standing arm of government wrote a finding about a translation gap down on paper, with a date on it. The other cases here have to infer the consequence from what survives. This one does not. The record states it.

The strongest counter-reading concerns the scope of the ruling itself. It is a Stage 1 report from a single district inquiry, Te Paparahi o Te Raki, and it speaks about the chiefs who signed in February 1840. The record this chapter works from does not say how the New Zealand government responded, and does not record any consequence for today's constitutional position — so this chapter does not speak for it. What the ruling establishes is one thing: the gap between the two texts is real, and it mattered enough for the state to come down and decide it.

What failed to cross on 6 February 1840 was not a word. Words could be found: sovereignty had kawanatanga to stand in for it. What failed to cross was the obligation the source word imposed on its reader's conclusion. Both sets of signatories read their own document, drew the correct conclusion, and drew different ones.

What could not cross: Sovereignty in the sense that 1840 English obliged a reader to conclude — ceded once and ceded for good, both the power to make law and the power to enforce it over people and territory. Māori had no word that obliged that conclusion. The closest was kawanatanga, and kawanatanga obliges only that a governor has arrived.

Overturned if: A record from February 1840 shows that someone explained the English text's full sovereignty claim to the rangatira in Māori before they signed, or the Waitangi Tribunal issues a later finding reversing its conclusion of 14 November 2014. If the first appears, this chapter changes from a case of a gap nobody closed into a case of a gap someone spoke aloud but nobody wrote into the text.

Sources:

• New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, "Differences between the texts" — https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
• National Library of New Zealand, He Tohu, "Two languages, different meanings" — https://natlib.govt.nz/he-tohu/korero/two-languages-different-meanings
• "Kāwanatanga" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81wanatanga
• Waitangi Tribunal, "Report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry released", 14 November 2014 — https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/news/report-on-stage-1-of-the-te-paparahi-o-te-raki-inquiry-released