Essay on hse research

Submitted By ningningdang
Words: 1205
Pages: 5

Differing opinions

Some people argue that the Treaty was prepared hastily and by amateurs who, intentionally or otherwise, used language that conveyed a particular meaning in Māori. Others say that the instructions that Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson received from the British were careful, especially concerning land; Hobson and his advisors knew exactly what they were doing when they drafted the English text of the Treaty, and they had previous treaties to guide them.

The Māori text was translated quickly but by men who were familiar with the language. The missionary Māori they used was known to the chiefs, and it conveyed key words and meanings. Henry Williams and the chiefs had spent much of the night of 5 February talking about the Treaty and its meanings. Williams did not suggest any changes to the text, so some people see this as a sign that he did not think the Māori text was seriously misleading. Perhaps he chose certain words to gain Māori agreement, however ambiguous they might appear as a translation of English concepts. Like many others, he believed that Māori welfare would be best served under the British.

Many people now focus on the differences between the English and Māori texts, especially with regard to the crucial question of sovereignty. At the time, the oral discussion and Williams's explanation may have mattered more than differences between the written texts.


The English version states the British intentions were to protect Māori interests from the encroaching British settlement, provide for British settlement and establish a government to maintain peace and order.

The Māori text suggests that the Queen's main promises to Māori were to provide a government while securing tribal rangatiratanga (chiefly autonomy or authority over their own area) and Māori land ownership for as long as they wished to retain it.

First article

In the English text, Māori leaders gave the Queen 'all the rights and powers of sovereignty' over their land. In the Māori text, Māori leaders gave the Queen 'te kawanatanga katoa' or the complete government over their land.

The word 'sovereignty' had no direct translation in Māori. Chiefs had authority over their own areas, but there was no central ruler over the country. The translators of the English text used the Māori word 'kawanatanga', a transliteration of the word 'governance', which was in current use. Māori knew this word from the Bible and from the 'kawana' or governor of New South Wales. Māori believe that they kept their authority to manage their own affairs and ceded a right of governance to the Queen in return for the promise of protection.

It is widely accepted that the use of the words 'kawanatanga' and 'tino rangatiratanga' (in Article 2) 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. There can be little doubt that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to enter into some kind of partnership and power sharing in the new system.

Second article

In the English text, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed 'exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties'. Māori also agreed to the Crown's exclusive right to purchase their land. Some Māori (and British) later stated that they understood the Crown to have a first option rather than an exclusive right to buy. In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed 'te tino rangatiratanga' or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it. It is not certain if the Maori text clearly conveyed the