IT MIGHT SURPRISE YOU
to know, since so much hangs upon it, that the Treaty's term 'tino rangatiratanga' is 'a missionary neologism'—one of many. [1] Its root word is ‘rangatira,’ which was of course an original te reo word meaning ‘chief.’ This new word coined by Williams then stresses the power, authority, and agency of the chief.
Article Two of Te Tiriti promises to preserve
tino rangatiratanga; courts have interpreted this in various ways to mean that chiefs (Rangatira) retain
some kind of chiefly power. But Te Tiriti itself fails to fully clarify of what that power consists. [2] Lawyers since have taken advantage of this imprecision by arguing that it means some kind of chiefly sovereignty (although not over the whole country, since each iwi only extended so far). Ned Fletcher and others have argued since that the English text agrees with this idea, saying that the sovereignty ceded by the Treaty was “compatible with ongoing tribal self-government,” suggesting then that “tino rangatiratanga” means Māori self-government.
His view is both an expansion and a clarification of the mainstream view of what “tino rangatiratanga” might mean.
Context is important. Like most law, Te Tiriti is hierarchical. Article One focusses on sovereignty; Article Two has a focus on land and resources. There was a logical progression from one Article to another, with the first Article, logically and in law, taking precedence. Sovereignty first, then clarifying what that sovereignty is
for.
So with this context then, what is chieftainship
about? Answer: It is primarily about
ownership — about ownership of that land and those resources. But it is ownership in a "chiefly" sense, analogising the control of a chief over a tribe's land and resources to that of a property right. In his book
One Sun in the Sky, author Ewen McQueen explains why Williams's translation reverts to the collective to offer this guarantees:
It is true that in translation Henry Williams has taken an approach that better aligns with the more [collectivist] Māori world-view, rather than the more individualistic European outlook. As such the Māori version does not refer to individuals holding exclusive possession of property. Instead we find chiefs exercising “chieftainship over the lands, villages and all their treasures. [3]
In seeking to find a te reo word to describe the unfamiliar concept of property rights, Williams has unfortunately conflated a legitimate recognition of an individual right to property with a non-existent claim to a collective right. "But the expression '
collective rights' is a contradiction in terms.” [4]
This then
makes for a disastrous confusion. Confusion, because the intent of Article Two is to impart property rights, an
individual right. But the reference to chieftainship is about
collective tribal rights over land. Disastrous because Te Tiriti should have treated all Maori as individuals instead of as members of a tribe. But it
really does nothing of the sort except by implication.
Instead, as written, it cemented in and buttressed the tribal leadership and communal structures that already existed here —encouraging the survival of this wreck of a system until morphing, as it has today, into this mongrelised sub-group of pseudo-aristocracy: of
Neotribal Cronyism.
Nonetheless, as [former Chief Justice] William Martin wrote in 1860,
"This tribal right is clearly a right of property… To themselves they retained what they understood full well, the ‘tino Rangatiratanga,’ ‘full Chiefship,’ in respect of all their lands…’” [5]
This is not trivial. This is
why sovereignty, was ceded.
“EVEN THE 'TINO' OF the Māori version is better understood in this context,” argues McQueen. “It does not mean that the chiefs’ authority is unqualified in a government sense. Rather it is Henry Williams’s translation of how the chiefs would retain possession of the lands, forests and fisheries. The English version emphasised such possession would continue ‘full exclusive and undisturbed.’ Williams has rendered this concept as ‘tino’ rangatiratanga. It is about Māori retaining full agency over their land and resources. It is not a statement about unqualified political sovereignty.” [Emphasis mine.]
So “rangatiratanga” relates to ownership. “Tino” gives force to this relationship, giving it the force of a property right.
NOTES:
[1] Paul Moon, The Path to the Treaty of Waitangi, David Ling Publishing, (2002) p. 147
[2] Hugh Kawharu back-translates te tino rangatiratanga as 'the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship,' which doesn't quite clarify things, although the next phrase tries, the Queen guaranteeing "to protect the Chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures ..."
In Ned Fletcher's reconstructed English text, the corresponding phrase is "full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests Fisheries and other properties ... "
[3] Ewen McQueen, One Sun in the Sky, Galatas Press (2020), p. 42-43.
[4] Ayn Rand, ‘Collectivized Rights,’ in The Virtue of Selfishness, New York, Signet, June 1963
[5] William Martin, The Taranaki Question, The Melanesian Press(1860), p. 9.
