We hear claims of "Treaty rights" but no one really knows which version of the Treaty is being referred to, or which translation or interpretation applies.
Official versions of the Treaty
The various versions of the Treaty are here:
https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/versions-of-treaty.html
There are two official versions of the Treaty, the Maori version and the English version. The Treaty is defined in section 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 as "the Treaty of Waitangi as set out in English and in Maori in Schedule 1".
See: https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/treaty-of-waitangi-acts-fundamental-flaw.html
Which version and which interpretation?
The reality is that like all treaties of the time, the Treaty of Waitangi was a simple transitional agreement whereby a colonial power was to acquire sovereignty over the new nation of New Zealand. Cooke P summed it up perfectly in the celebrated Lands case when he said:
In brief the basic terms of the bargain were that the Queen was to govern and the Maoris were to be her subjects; in return their chieftainships and possessions were to be protected, but sales of land to the Crown could be negotiated.
If we look at the structure of the Treaty that is exactly what it states. The Preamble expresses the desire of the Crown to establish the Queen’s government over the country to maintain peace and good order for the benefit of both Maori and settlers.
In article 1 the chiefs agree to cede sovereignty to the Queen.
In article 2 the Queen agrees to protect the property rights of the chiefs, the tribes and all the people of New Zealand.
In article 3 the Queen agrees to grant all the people of New Zealand the same rights as British subjects.
That in fact is how the process proceeded, with sovereignty being asserted in 1840, and the machinery of government of the new nation being set up in 1841.
Sadly, the simplicity and fundamental fairness of the Treaty for both parties has been distorted by the reinvention of the Treaty as a document that founded a country based on racial discrimination and inequality.
We need to ignore the “noise’ that has been created in recent years about the meaning of the Treaty and look afresh at the form of the Treaty, its original words, and their meaning in the context of 1840.
Which version?
The official Maori version would be the most popular choice as the sole official version. It was understood by Maori and it was signed by Maori. It is also the only Maori version.
The official English version is different to the Maori version in several respects. It is longer and uses “flowery" language that is absent from the Maori version. It is general accepted to be a “back translation” – a subsequent translation from the official Maori version. Therefore, though it is the official version, it does not appear to be the original English version on which the original Maori version was based.
Other English versions of the official Maori version
The English versions create difficulties. They all conflict in their translation of crucial wording and in several cases certain Maori words are translated in a way that makes a fundamental difference. Such words are kawanatanga, tino rangatiratanga and taonga.
The Littlewood English version - lost for over a century - is believed by many to be the original English draft from which the official Maori version was taken. However it has not been formally recognised as such.
Sir Hugh Kawharu’s translation of the official Maori version into English was accepted by the Court of Appeal in the Lands case. Unfortunately, that version interprets taonga as "treasure", which has resulted in an extreme and unjustified interpretation of that word by the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts.
Sir Apirana Ngata’s translation from the official Maori version is a popular translation. It translates kawanatanga as government in article 1 but it is clear that the the Queen's powers are those of a sovereign.
Caveat
The opinions of the the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts are referred to extensively in the following analysis. It needs to be noted that the Waitangi Tribunal is a commission of inquiry not a court of law. Its findings are not based on the Treaty but on the "principles of the Treaty". They are only recommendations to the government in Treaty claims and have no precedential authority in our law.
The opinions of the courts are also based on the their views of the "principles of the Treaty" and have a very limited application in law, and only in reference to the obligations of the Crown.
https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/7-principles-of-treaty-and-waitangi.html
Which translation?
The problem with the various English versions of the Treaty is that the analysis of their meanings by the Waitangi Tribunal, the courts, activists and commentators has been based on each article in isolation, sometimes on individual clauses, or even on individual words such as kawanatanga, rangatiratanga and taonga. There has been failure to look at the document as a whole, its structure, and the consistent theme that runs through the preamble and each article. The result is a jumble of rights and obligations that do not align with each other.
Preamble
The Kawharu translation of the preamble:
Victoria, the Queen of England, in her concern to protect the chiefs and subtribes of New Zealand and in her desire to preserve their chieftainship and their lands to them and to maintain peace and good order considers it just to appoint an administrator one who will negotiate with the people of New Zealand to the end that their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands and also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come.
So the Queen desires to establish a government so that no evil will come to Maori and European living in a state of lawlessness.
Below is a summary and comparison of the first few lines of the preamble as interpreted by the four English versions of the Treaty.
The versions of the Treaty can be viewed and compared here: https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/versions-of-treaty.html
First purpose of the TreatyIn respect of the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand …….
Littlewood: to preserve to them their Land and to maintain peace and order amongst them
Official English Version: to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of peace and Good Order
Kawharu: to preserve their chieftainship and their lands to them and to maintain peace and good order.Ngata: to retain for them their Chieftainships and also that peace may reign and they live happily.
Second purpose of the Treaty
Littlewood: Because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come.
Official English version: in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty’s Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress
Kawharu: also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come.
Ngata: so many members of Her race were living in this land, and many more were coming.
Queen's desire:
Littlewood: so the Queen desires to establish a government so that no evil will come to Maori and European living in a state of lawlessness.
Official English Version: Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects.
Kawharu: So the Queen desires to establish a government so that no evil will come to Maori and European living in a state of lawlessness.
Ngata: (Omitted)
Action
Littlewood: to treat with them for the cession of the sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen
Official English Version: to the end that their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands
Kawharu: to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands
Ngata: to agree to the Government of the Queen having access to all parts of the land including the islands.
Process
Littlewood: Her majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty
Kawharu: So the Queen has appointed me, William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor for all parts of New Zealand (both those) shortly to be received by the Queen and (those) to be received hereafter
Ngata: the Queen has thought it good to send me, William Hobson, a Captain of the Royal Navy to be Governor for all parts of New Zealand, to be ceded now and for ever to the Queen
Summary of the preamble
The following is a summary of the agreed parts of the preamble.
- The Queen wishes to protect the rights of the chiefs and hapu to their land and maintain peace and order amongst them.
- The Queen notes that many of the Queen’s subjects are already living on this land and there will be others yet to come.
- As a result the Queen desires to establish a government so that no evil will come to Maori and her own people living in a state of lawlessness.
- And Captain Hobson has been appointed to be governor of such parts of New Zealand and its islands as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty.
There can be no doubt the Treaty’s clear intention was that the chiefs agree to ceding power to the Queen, with Captain Hobson being the governor (kawana) of the land. The Queen’s power was described in Maori as kawanatanga (governorship) but logically that meant sovereignty for which there was no Maori word. The powers of the Queen were to maintain to protect property rights, maintain peace and good order, to establish a government so that there would be not evil or a state of lawlessness. They equate to the powers of a sovereign.
The most important point is that the new government would have control over the actual chiefs and the tribes and the settlers (the Queen’s people) as well. This is very important in considering article 2.
It needs to be realised that in constitutional terms the governor acted on behalf of the Crown in London. However in real terms the Crown was invisible in New Zealand and the actual visible power of the government in New Zealand would be wielded by the Governor.
Article 1The chiefs agreed to cede kawanatanga to the Crown. Some versions translate that as government. Others translate it as sovereignty.
The Waitangi Tribunal in the Te Raki Stage 1 report of 2014 took the view that article 1 vested government - but not sovereignty - in the Crown, but only over the settlers.
https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/the-sovereignty-solution.html
There is not the slightest justification in the wording of article 1 for this bizarre view. The Maori wording is te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua - "total kawanatanga over their land". That is the whole of New Zealand.
There is no wording that suggests that the ceding of kawanatanga to the Crown is limited to the settlers. (In fact did the chiefs have kawanatanga over the settlers?)
In interpreting such provision it is appropriate to consider the purpose behind the Treaty as stated in the preamble. Note that section 10 of the of the Legislation Act 2019 states the meaning of legislation must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose and its context, and that the text can include a preamble. This applies to legislation but could also be applied to interpreting a treaty.
As shown above, the preamble makes it clear that the purpose of the Treaty was to bring peace and good order to the country, that it applied to chiefs and the tribes and to the settlers, and that it would be achieved by the chiefs and the tribes ceding sovereignty of the land and its islands to the Queen.
Kawanatanga clearly embraces the power of a sovereign. The Crown would need the powers conferred by sovereignty to enable it to carry out the proposals set out in the preamble. Likewise, only a sovereign would have the power to give the property guarantee in article 2 and to grant citizenship in article 3.
The ceding of sovereignty also aligns with the fact that sovereignty was in fact asserted by the Crown, in reliance on the Treaty, just a few months after the Treaty was signed.
Logic, common sense, and context suggest that kawanatanga means full sovereignty.
Article 2
The various translations of the first sentence have caused most of the misunderstandings about the real meaning of this article. The first sentence states:
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.
Waitangi Tribunal's interpretation
The Waitangi Tribunal in the Stage 1 Te Paki report considered that this article gave the chiefs absolute chieftainship over their land, villages/dwellings and taonga and suggested that the chiefs retained their tino rangatiratanga over Maori in a type of separate, apartheid-type government. See:
https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/the-sovereignty-solution.html
Again, there is no justification for this view in either in the wording or in the context. The fundament flaw in that interpretation is that the Queen’s undertaking or promise is made to all the rangatira AND to all the hapu (sub-tribes) AND to all the people of New Zealand. They were all recipients of the same promise. There is no possibility that the Queen could assure all the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand of their chiefly authority or sovereignty over their land, villages and taonga. That would be completely inappropriate.
Another relevant factor is the fact that the expression “all the people of New Zealand” (nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) includes the settlers as well as Maori.
As stated above, the preamble makes it absolutely clear that the articles that followed applied to settlers as well as Maori.
Looked at objectively, article 2 simply relates to the Crown’s assurances in respect of land, property and possessions of the chiefs, the hapu and all New Zealanders. The first sentence gives assurances to those affected by the ceding of sovereignty that their existing property rights are to be protected under the new arrangement. The second sentence in the Kawharu translations states:
But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
Finally, it is inconceivable that the first sentence in article 2 could be interpreted as transferring absolute chieftainship or sovereignty to the rangatira, and then the second sentence would require them to sell their land to the Queen.
A new interpretation
I have no knowledge of te reo but I have translated the first sentence of article 2 using dictionaries.
Ko to Kuini Ingarani / ka wakarite ka wakaae ki /
The Queen of England / arranges and agrees (that) /
nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani /the Rangatira and the hapu and all the people of New Zealand
te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.
(will have) te tino rangatiratanga (over) all of their land, their villages/dwellings and their taonga
Existing property rights
As considered in 2. What is a treaty? treaties are concerned with transitional provisions. The reference in article 2 is to the property rights that existed at the time of the Treaty. It was an assurance that existing property rights would be protected.
Unfortunately, the Waitangi and Tribunal and the courts have read into the article that it applies to special treasures - for Maori alone - stretching far into the future. That means centuries after the Treaty was signed.
The absurdity of such a notion is obvious. Fortunately, those views are based not on the Treaty rights themselves but on the "principles of the Treaty". As caveated above, the views of the Tribunal have no validity in law and the views of the courts have a very limited application, and in respect of the Crown only.
Rangatiratanga
The Waitangi Tribunal considered the wording of article 2 in many of the claims that came before it. It was persuaded by experts to favour the view that in that article the rangatira were granted authority (tino rangatiratanga) over all Maori. That is despite the fact that the wording, the syntax and the whole structure of the Treaty suggest that the article was a simple guarantee by the Crown of property rights, and that rangatiratanga simply meant “possession”. That is how the word was translated in the official English version, the Littlewood version and Sir Apirana Ngata's version.
In its considerations the Tribunal acknowledged that in the English version of the Treaty Henry Williams translated rangatiratanga as "possession". That view was supported by one expert that the Tribunal referred to:
There have, however, been voices raised in support of the accuracy of Williams’s translation. Head, for example, argued that rangatiratanga was a coined word that did not have the meaning of political power given to it by many modern commentators. She wrote that ‘the Maori language of the Treaty is now routinely referenced to a world in which it did not exist’. As she put it:
It strains belief that, having transferred sovereignty to the Crown in the first article, Williams would posit a principle of omni-applicable Maori authority in the second, yet recent analysis is dependent on this being the case. The British did, of course, care about securing the colony’s land base. This is logically why confirmation of tino rangatiratanga is paired with advice on how to go about selling the land. The logic, and the crudeness of the pairing, point to tino rangatiratanga’s referring not to culture in the sense of Maoriness itself, but specifically to land and resource ownership. In other words, in Head’s eyes, rangatiratanga largely equated to the guarantee of possession in the English text.
Tino rangatiratanga
“Rangatira” in 1840 did not have the same political overtones that it has today.
The Te Aka dictionary defines rangatira as: (noun) chief (male or female), chieftain, chieftainess, master, mistress, boss, supervisor, employer, landlord, owner, proprietor.
Word Hippo defines rangatira as: leader, boss, master, owner.
Rangatiratanga was a neologism coined by Europeans. It meant the authority of the rangatira. On a more simple level, if rangatira means owner then rangatiratanga means ownership. Tino is a modifier meaning very or absolute. So, tino rangatiratanga in this context means absolute ownership or possession.
Taonga
The mistranslation of the word taonga has been responsible for much of the misunderstanding about the Treaty. Since 1975, when claims for breaches of the principles of the Treaty became possible, the meaning of taonga in article 2 was stretched exponentially by the Waitangi Tribunal to refer to treasures unknown in 1840 and extending centuries into the future.
Taonga in 2023 has a very different meaning to what it had in 1840. Te reo had limited words and Maori tended to use the same word to describe many different items. In 1840 the meaning of taonga was limited by the paucity of possessions available to Maori.
Even today Maori dictionaries emphasise the basic meaning of the word. Here are some examples:
Taonga: 1. Property 2. Anything treasured or highly prized
Word hippo: In 2023 this web dictionary lists the following translations:
What does taonga mean in Maori? (wordhippo.com) The English word for taonga is: property
More meanings for taonga (in this order): acquisition, belongings, instrument, possession, treasure, utensil.
The English word for nga taonga is: the goods
The English word for taonga iti is: small goods
How to say goods in Maori (wordhippo.com)
The Maori word for property: taonga
The Maori word for possessions: taonga
The Maori word for belongings: taonga
The Maori word for goods: kai taonga, take taonga
How to say treasure in Maori (wordhippo.com)
The Maori word for treasure: taonga
Te Aka 2023:Te Aka Māori Dictionary (maoridictionary.co.nz)
Taonga:
1. (Noun) property, goods, possession, effects, object.
2. (Noun) treasure
Waitangi Tribunal’s translation of taonga
Given the basic life of Maori in 1840 it is almost certain that in the proposal for the new nation of New Zealand Maori would have sought a guarantee for the protection of their land, their dwellings, and their basic possessions. When even basic possessions were limited it is highly unlikely that protecting “treasures” was at the forefront of their concerns.
The Waitangi Tribunal played a leading role in enhancing the meaning of taonga from simple “possessions” to “prized possessions or treasures”. But it went even further. Instead of having regard to the treasures in 1840, it extended the meaning of treasures to mean any treasure that could be linked to Maori in some way, far into the future. This included information collecting and the census, local government, health services, education and training etc. This mindset is illustrated by the following reports. They are included at length just to show how such an extreme view was arrived at.
10.2 In the Maori text there is no specific reference to forests (ngaherehere) or fisheries (taunga ika) but rather to "o ratou wenua" (their lands), "o ratou kainga" (their habitations), "me o ratou taonga katoa" (and all their treasured things).
The Te Atiawa people gave us examples of their use of the word "taonga" and illustrated for us that to them, the general word "taonga" embraces all things treasured by their ancestors, and includes specifically the treasures of the forests and fisheries. We accept that approach. We note that tribal fishing grounds, like specific areas that were renowned as sources of food, were regarded as part and parcel of tribal treasure troves, and were often the cause of tribal conflict. Tamaki isthmus for example, which was renowned for its rich fowl and fish resources, was referred to as "Tamaki, sought as a bride by a thousand lovers".
A remarkable feature of the English language is its facility to use words of precision so as to define arguments and delineate the differences that may exist. The Maori language is generally metaphorical and idiomatic. It is remarkable for the tendency to use words capable of more than one meaning in order to establish the areas of common ground, and for its use of words to avoid an emphasis on differences in order to achieve a degree of consensus or at least a continuing dialogue and debate. The use of the word "taonga" in a metaphorical sense to cover a variety of possibilities rather than itemised specifics is consistent with the Maori use of language. It would be entirely inappropriate to apply English canons of construction to the translation of a Maori text and so to argue that the failure to make specific reference to "fishing grounds" in the Maori text indicated that fishing grounds were not within the purview of the Treaty. Applying also the canons of construction in the interpretation of bilingual treaties as submitted by the Department of Maori Affairs, we conclude that in this respect the difference between the English and Maori texts is not as substantial as may at first be thought. We consider that the Treaty envisaged protection for Maori fishing grounds because the English text specifically provided for that while the Maori text implied it.
11.5.20 We also considered ‘taonga’ in the Te Atiawa and Manukau reports. William’s Dictionary renders it as ‘property, anything highly prized’. (1985:381) We emphasise here, as described in our earlier reports, that ‘taonga’ is not limited to property and possessions. Ancient sayings include the haka (posture dance) as a ‘taonga’ presented to visitors. ‘Taonga’ may even include thoughts. We have found it includes fisheries (Te Atiawa Report 1983) and language (Te Reo Maori Report 1986)
4.2.3 The claimants called Professor Hirini Moko Mead of Victoria University of Wellington who produced for us a carefully prepared submission on the meaning of Article II and Article III of the Treaty. The general thrust of his view of the treaty so far as Article II is concerned is that the phrase “O ratou taonga katoa” covers both tangible and intangible things and can best be translated by the expression “all their valued customs and possessions.” This is in accordance with the conclusion we have already reached in the Kaituna River Finding (para. 4.7) where we accepted the phrase to mean “all things highly prized”, and the Motunui Finding to the same effect. In the Manukau Harbour case we reached the conclusion that “taonga” in the context of the Treaty means more than objects of tangible value (para 8.3 sub para 3)
4.2.4 When the question for decision is whether te reo Maori is a “taonga” which the Crown is obliged to recognise we conclude that there can be only one answer. It is plain that the language is an essential part of the culture and must be regarded as “a valued possession”. The claim itself illustrates that fact, and the wide representation from all corners of Maoridom in support of it underlines and emphasises the point.
4.2.5 We have pointed out in other Findings we have made that it is not possible to interpret the Treaty faithfully by looking at the English version only, nor the Maori version only. Those who read Article II of the Treaty in the English version could be led to believe that the Royal guarantee given in that Article relates only to “. . . exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties . . .” thereby mistakenly concluding that the assurance was in respect of the specified interests and things of similar kind. But we have made it clear that the Maori version is broader than the English phrase used in this connection, and that we must, under our statute, “have regard to the two texts of the Treaty” set out in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The statute then goes on to require us “to decide issues raised by the differences between them” (s5 (2)).
Allocation of Radio Frequencies 1990.pdf (justice.govt.nz)
8.3. Taonga
“Taonga” are things valued or treasured. They may include those things which give sustenance and those things which support taonga. Generally speaking the classification of taonga is determined by the use to which they are put and/or their significance as possessions. They are imbued with tapu (an aura of protection) to protect them from wrongful use, theft or desecration.
Taonga may be the possession of he tangata (an individual), he whanau (a family), he hapu (a sub-tribe), or he iwi (a tribe). There are many kinds of taonga in various categories and in a wide range of classifications.
CLAIMANT GENERIC CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ON CULTURAL TAONGA Dated: 12 October 2020
Definition of Taonga
65. The term ‘taonga’ can be defined and interpreted in many ways. Recognised definitions of the term ‘taonga’ provide some guidance. The Tribunal in The Petroleum Report stated:129
Though the term has a number of other more mundane meanings, successive carefully reasoned reports of the Tribunal over many years now have come to treat ‘taonga’ as used in Te Tiriti, as a tangible or intangible item or matter of special cultural significance.
The Manukau Harbour Report concluded that taonga meant more than objects of tangible value and recognised that not only could a river be a taonga as a valuable resource but also its ‘mauri’ or ‘life-force’ is another taonga.
The role of the courts
Taonga
The Waitangi Tribunal’s creativeness in respect of the word taonga was embraced wholeheartedly by the New Zealand courts. In https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/new-zealand-courts-have-totally.html I set out the excesses of the courts in defining the various treasures that they considered were encapsulated in the simple Maori word for possessions.
The President of the Court of Appeal Cooke set the tone in the Lands case in 1987 at page 75:
The differences between the texts and the shades of meaning do not matter for the purposes of this case. What matters is the spirit. This approach accords with the oral nature of Mäori tradition and culture. It is necessary also because the relatively sophisticated society for whose needs the State-Owned Enterprises Act has been devised could not possible have been foreseen by those who participated in the making of the 1840 Treaty.
The fact that the Treaty, like all treaties, was based on the situation at the time that it was signed seems to have been missed by the court.
The Treaty was given a ‘spirit” that transcended time. Justice Casey, also in the Lands case in 1987, elevated an historic Treaty with three simple provisions into “a positive force in the life of the nation and so in the government of the country”. (Page 80) He also added that “because of the nature of the compact” it had “a continuing application in the life of New Zealand”.
The courts extended the meaning of taonga to include Crown land, hydroelectricity, whale-watching, airwaves and many other matters that were unknown in 1840. As an example, in a High Court decision concerning the Crown’s handling of the 1994 Mäori Electoral Option, Taiaroa and Others v Attorney-General, Justice McGechan took the opportunity to offer some observations about the possibility of a Crown Treaty duty to protect the Mäori Parliamentary seats, if Mäori wished to retain them:
The seats became a Treaty icon. Equally there is no doubt Treaty principles impose a positive obligation on the Crown, within constraints of the reasonable, to protect the position of Mäori under the Treaty and the expression from time to time of that position ... Mäori representation – Mäori seats – have become such an expression. Adding this together, for my own part I consider the Crown was and is under a Treaty obligation to protect and facilitate Mäori representation.
In summary, the Tribunal, the courts, and successive governments went down the wrong track in respect of the first sentence of article 2. We should now adopt the translation of Sir Apirana Ngata:
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes and all their possessions.
That accords with the official English version, and the Littlewood version.
Fortunately there is not so much debate about the meaning of article 3. The Sir Apirana Ngata version states:
In consideration thereof, 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.
There is little difference with the Littlewood version:
In return for the cession of the sovereignty to the Queen, the People of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England, and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
Or the official English version:
In consideration thereof 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.
Or the Kawharu version:
For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.
How do we define the contents of the Treaty in 2023?
With the change of government it seems appropriate that the Maori version of the Treaty is adopted in legislation as the sole official version of the Treaty, and that a summary of the articles in English is adopted as the official translation of the Maori version.
A suggested draft summary might be:
Article 1: The chiefs agree to cede the sovereignty of New Zealand to the British Queen.
Article 2: The British Queen agrees to protect the existing property rights of the chiefs, the tribes, and all the people of New Zealand.
Article 3: The British Queen agrees to grant all the people of New Zealand the same rights of citizenship as British subjects.
_______
Next: 4. Implementation of the Treaty:
https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/implementation-of-treaty.html
