Graeme Spencer: Kawanatanga, Rangatiratanga and the Treaty

Maori radicals pin much of their argument on Hugh Kawharu’s modern reinterpretation of “tino rangatiratanga”, claiming it means self-determination or retained sovereignty — and that Māori in 1840 did not understand what they were agreeing to.

Over the past few days, with the help of AI, I [Graeme Spencer] have been examining contemporary Māori-language articles written (by Māori?) for Māori in the 1840s–1870s.

These are not Crown explanations or missionary glosses, but everyday Māori discourse: obituaries, sermons, political commentary, economic advice, and Treaty explanations.

Every single article examined uses "rangatiratanga" and "kāwanatanga" consistently and coherently — and in a way that fully aligns with the original Treaty translation by Henry Williams.

Not one article supports the modern claim that "tino rangatiratanga" meant independent self-government or parallel sovereignty.

This particular article is especially significant because it directly explains the Treaty of Waitangi to Māori readers, explicitly stating:

• Māori *did* understand the Treaty

• *Kāwanatanga* was knowingly ceded to the Queen

• *Rangatiratanga* was retained as chiefly authority over lands, villages, and taonga — **NOT governance of the state**

It even states plainly that the Māori translation was **not wrong**, and that while not every English word was translated, the **essential principles were translated correctly**.

This is not a modern opinion.

This is Māori explaining the Treaty to Māori in the 19th century.

Source: *Waka Māori*, Volume I, Issue 26, 29 March 1879, Page 364
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAKAM18790329.2.20

AI Translation of the Maori text and analysis.......

A request has been made to us that the **Treaty of Waitangi** be published, and we have agreed, because we are concerned that many Māori of this day do not properly understand the principles of that Treaty.

If we consider carefully the purpose of the Treaty, it is clear that it was intended so that the Māori tribes of this land might understand it; for through it grew the great movement of faith by the Māori tribes in the **Government (Kāwanatanga)** of the Queen in this colony. Let no person think that we mean by this that there was a word for “authority of the people” other than that of Christ alone — for Christ alone possesses full authority and governance.

 Let our Maori friends see that the meaning of that treaty is not something that will harm them;  rather, it is something that enables them to **stand firm as rangatira**, and to live in prosperity, along with all the peoples of this world.

We do not dispute the Māori translation of the Treaty. It was not wrong. Not all of the words of the European text were translated, but the **essential principles were translated correctly**, as follows:

> **“Victoria, the Queen of England, in her gracious concern for the Chiefs and the Tribes of New Zealand, and in her desire that they should be confirmed in their rangatiratanga and in their lands, and that peace and orderly living should be maintained among them, has thought it right to send a Chief as a mediator for the Māori people of New Zealand. The Māori Chiefs are to accept the Queen’s Kāwanatanga over all places of this land and the islands. And because many of her people have settled in this land and will continue to come, the Queen desires to establish Kāwanatanga so that wrongs between Māori and Europeans who live without law may be prevented. Therefore the Queen has appointed William Hobson, Captain in the Royal Navy, as Governor over all places of New Zealand, acting on behalf of the Queen. He is to speak to the Chiefs assembled and to all Chiefs of New Zealand, and this law is now declared.”**

Article One
> **The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other Chiefs who were not present at that Assembly, fully give over to the Queen of England the Kāwanatanga over all their lands.**

Article Two
> **The Queen of England agrees and confirms to the Chiefs, to the Tribes, and to all the people of New Zealand, the full rangatiratanga of their lands, their villages, and all their treasures. However, the Chiefs of the Assembly and all other Chiefs give to the Queen the exclusive right of purchasing land, at such prices as may be agreed upon by the owners of the land and by the Queen, who is to be the buyer.**

**Focused Analysis: Rangatiratanga vs Kāwanatanga**

This passage is **devastating** to the modern radical claim, because it is not commentary *about* the Treaty — it is a **Māori-language explanation of the Treaty’s meaning**, written for Māori readers.

1. Māori Understanding Is Explicitly Asserted

The text says plainly:

• Māori **DID** understand the Treaty

• misunderstanding is a **later problem**

• the Treaty was intended to be understood by Māori

• faith in Kāwanatanga followed from that understanding

This directly contradicts the claim that Māori “didn’t know what they were agreeing to.”

2. Kāwanatanga Is Unambiguously Defined

From this text:

• Kāwanatanga belongs to the **Queen**

• It applies to **all places and islands**

• It exists to prevent disorder and lawlessness

• It is exercised by an appointed **Governor**

That is **full governing authority** — not a shared, delegated, or symbolic power.

3. Rangatiratanga Is Protected, Not Expanded

Rangatiratanga is described as:

• something Māori already possess

• something to be **confirmed and protected**

• something compatible with acceptance of Kāwanatanga

• something that enables Māori to “stand as rangatira” within society

It is **NOT** described as:

• sovereignty

• self-government

• legislative authority

• a competing jurisdiction

The text treats rangatiratanga as **social and proprietary authority**, not political rule.

4. The Relationship Is Explicit And Hierarchical

This passage **lays the structure bare**:

• Māori **cede Kāwanatanga**

• Māori **retain rangatiratanga**

• These are **NOT the same thing**

• They are **NOT equal**

• They are **NOT overlapping**

This is exactly the structure that modern reinterpretations deny.

5. Article One And Two Are Explained Consistently

Article One:

> *“…give over to the Queen … the Kāwanatanga over all their lands.”*

Article Two:

> *“…the Queen confirms … the rangatiratanga of their lands, villages, and treasures.”*

The language is deliberate:

• Kāwanatanga = something you **give**

• Rangatiratanga = something you **keep**

You cannot “keep” sovereignty after you have “given” governing authority.

** Bottom Line **

This text is **contemporary Māori proof** that:

• Māori understood **kāwanatanga** as governing authority

• Māori understood **rangatiratanga** as retained chiefly authority over land and taonga

• Māori did **NOT** understand rangatiratanga as self-government

• The Treaty was understood as a **real transfer of governance**, not a partnership

This article rebuts the modern radical claim in the strongest possible way.

Graeme Spencer is a staunch New Zealander who believes in racial equality and one law for all.