THE TREATY OF TRICKERY

THE GOVERNMENT USES THE WRONG TREATY

THE FINAL DRAFT IS FOUND

Compiled by H.R.Baker for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Price $5-00

A NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR

The views and opinions in this book are not necessary those of the author or the One New Zealand Foundation Inc., as they have been compiled from many sources. If you feel any of the facts in this book are incorrect, please notify the One New Zealand Foundation Inc with factual written evidence so that corrections can be made in the next edition.

I would like to thank Martin Doutré for the help and advice he gave me in writing this book.

Thank you,

Ross Baker

One New Zealand Foundation Inc.,

P.O.Box 1,

Awanui,

Northland,

New Zealand.

COVER

When the final draft of the Treaty was misplaced after it was read to the gathering at Waitangi on the 5^th and 6^th February 1840, someone hastily produced this English version from Busby’s rough and rejected draft notes. This Treaty version has been used as the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi ever since. It is not the final English draft, it is the “Treaty of Trickery”.

THE EVIDENCE

All references to substantiate the claims made in this book can be found on the following websites;

www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this book to all those historians who wrote history as it happened and not for their own personal gain.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.

To become a member of the One New Zealand Foundation Inc., please fill in the Membership Form on the last page of this book. Thank you.

INTRODUCTION

This is OUR county and many of our ancestors, both Maori and non-Maori made it what it is today, so please don't let a few greedy and selfish people destroy it by distorting its history. The Treaty of Waitangi, our founding document, was never intended to be a document to divide our people and our assets into Maori and non-Maori. It was a document agreed to by both parties to unite this beautiful country of OURS into one people - New Zealanders.

Over the last 164 years, many books have been written by various people about the Treaty and the history of New Zealand. Most of these books have been the writer's interpretation of the Treaty and its surrounding history and not a factual account, so that readers can make up their own mind as to a true and fair understanding of our founding document. It seems that the Treaty is too simple for many of our professional historians to understand. They want to make more out of it than it really is. It is what it is - so don't be fooled.

Claudia Orange's book, "The Treaty of Waitangi", is possibly the best complete reference book of many, but it must be remembered that the views in this book are her own views and, at times, very biased. It even states inside the front cover, "Claudia Orange offers new interpretations to the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand history from 1840 to the present day", but remember, they are her interpretations and were written before the final draft was found in 1989.

I have written this book, as the facts present themselves. It only relays total events instead of dwelling on one specific part of an event, as many writers have done in the past, in many cases for their own gain. If the writer dwells too long on a particular part of an event and does not give equal time to the whole event, the understanding becomes distorted and we cannot form an opinion or interpretation from the information given.

“Suppressio veri, Suggestio falsi - Suppression of the truth conveys a falsehood”

This is exactly what is happening with the history of our country today. We are only being told what the people, who are to gain most, want us to know. Governments over the years have been acting on these half-truths and one-sided interpretations and not studying the true facts and then acting on them accordingly. They are forcing us to become a divided nation.

Please read this book with an open mind, then, do your own research. Don't take my word for it, prove it to yourself. The Treaty made us all one people with one flag and one law for all. Please take the time to prove it to yourself.

FOREWORD

Since the signing of the Treaty at Waitangi successive Governments have been using the wrong English version of the Treaty of Waitangi in formulating their policies. This use of the wrong Treaty wording has been seriously exploited in the past thirty years by the Government, in collusion with the New Zealand National Archives, to trick the people of New Zealand out of their rights. For 12-years, at least, our National Archives have known about the final draft, but have deliberately kept that important knowledge suppressed. The English Treaty version that governments and historians have been using was, compiled by an unknown author from earlier drafts written by James Busby. Hobson had rejected these preliminary drafts, as they did not relay the instructions given to him by the Colonial Office before he left England.

Government and the National Archives have known that the final draft, written on the 4th February was misplaced soon after it was translated into the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi, then read with the Maori translation to the gathering at Waitangi on the 5th and 6th February 1840. Governments have continued to use this rejected English draft, which has allowed them to make separatist laws and create racist organisations ever since. The final draft and the Maori translation from it (Te Tiriti O Waitangi) was not a "partnership" with the Crown and it did not give Maori exclusive and undisturbed rights to their lands, estates, forests, or fisheries, etc. It gave "equal rights to all the people of New Zealand under one flag, one law".

How do we know this? Because the final draft has been found. In fact it was found in 1989, but the Government and the National Archives have kept it from the public for over 12 years, as they are afraid of what will happen if it becomes known. But it's a fact, as extensive research by Ross Baker and Martin Doutré confirms. Without doubt, it is the final draft from which Henry Williams made the Maori translation to become the "Treaty of Waitangi - Tiriti O Waitangi", which was signed by over 500 Chiefs. The Treaty being used by Government, based on the rejected earlier Busby draft dated the 3rd February 1840, must be substituted immediately for the true and authentic final draft, dated the 4th February 1840, if we are to honour the Treaty as intended.

The final English draft and the Maori translation from it, The Treaty of Waitangi-Te Tiriti O Waitangi, states, "The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes (Maori) and to all the people of New Zealand (non-Maori), the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”… as British Subjects, under one law, one flag. This is the reason for Hobson's famous statement to the chiefs as they signed the treaty, "He iwi tahi Tatou - We are now one people".

You’d better believe it! The Treaty does not lie unless the Government and the National Archives continue to use a Treaty based on Busby's rejected 3rd February rough draft to trick the people of New Zealand out of their rights. What they’re promoting is not the Treaty of Waitangi, but is, in fact, "THE TREATY OF TRICKERY".

THE GOVERNMENT SETS UP A PROPAGANDA WEBSITE

It is interesting to note that the Government, from an overall budget of $6.5 million allotted for their Treaty education programme, has just spent $80,000 of our money to produce a website. Part of their aim has been, we’re sure, to counteract true information publicly available on the ONZF website and its links, but, despite a glossy presentation, they still refuse to mention Busby’s final draft (now known as the Littlewood Treaty). Kim Bellingham, a Treaty of Waitangi Specialist from the Information Unit this website, wrote on the 1^st June 2004, “To the best of our knowledge, neither the final English nor Maori draft of the Treaty has been found”. Kim, this is untrue and you must know it!! All the propaganda in the world, even $6.5 million worth, will not destroy the truth. The authentic final draft, located by the Littlewood family of Pukekohe, Auckland in 1989, after being lost for 150-years, is not mentioned on the new website. As the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Don Brash stated, when referring to the Labour Government’s new website, "It is taxpayer funded propaganda".

MEDIA DENIES LITTLEWOOD TREATY

The Littlewood Treaty is never mentioned in the newspapers, radio or on TV. An article in the Tauranga edition of the New Zealand Herald, page A7 on the 18^th March 2004 did mention that the Rt. Hon. Winston Peters believed the Littlewood Treaty was the final draft and should be used as the “official” English version as it mentioned “all the people of New Zealand”, but all other Herald editions with the same article on the same page and on the same day made no mention of it. Had someone slipped up in Tauranga!!! Once again, the Littlewood Treaty has been denied to the people of New Zealand.

Ministers, you can fool half the people half the time, but not all the people all the time!!!!

NO BUSBY!! IT MUST SAY, “AND TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND”.

THE TREATY OF TRICKERY

DID THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES LIE TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND?

Until recently, we have not had a true translation of the final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, as the original draft, which was written in English by Busby under the supervision and instruction of William Hobson, was lost. This has allowed Governments to make laws and pass Acts by using the Treaty without first understanding its true meaning, intention or interpretation. It has also allowed many books to be written over the years and as time goes by, to further distort the intentions, interpretations and translations to benefit only one race of people, when its true intention was to make all New Zealanders equal under one law, one flag.

The English version of the Treaty the Government is using today, and that attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, is not the Treaty of Waitangi, it is the "TREATY OF TRICKERY".

Up until now it has been very difficult to show where these translations and interpretations have been distorted, as we did not have Hobson's final draft from which the Maori version, which was signed at Waitangi, was translated. Now that this document has been found, we can use it to understand the true intention and meaning of our founding document.

THE FINAL DRAFT IS FOUND

In 1989, senior members of the Littewood family, while sorting out the deceased estate of their mother, found an envelope headed, "Treaty of Waitangi" with a handwritten document inside. They immediately took it to National MP, the Hon Bill Birch, to inform him of the find, then to the Auckland Institute and Museum, where it was placed in the care of the historians. During the next few months, restoration work was carried out to remove old and brittle sellotape from the paper's frayed folds; probable applied in the 1920's or 30's. Although the document was returned to the Littlewoods in 1990, we can safely assume that copies were being circulated in closed professional circles as early as 1989. In early 1992, New Zealand's leading Treaty expert, Claudia Orange, took an interest in the document and made a background check on its pedigree. Frequently, thereafter, she met or spoke with the Littlewood’s and updated them on her findings. In July 1992, the Littlewood’s were advised by Claudia Orange and Kathryn Patterson, Head Archivist of the National Archives, Wellington, in separate phone calls, to get the document out of their house and into the safety of the National Archives, as it risked being forcibly removed from their home. They were advised that certain Maori groups were concerned about the general wording of the document, as there was no mention of forests and fisheries. Within two days of receiving these sobering phone calls, John and Barbara Littlewood drove to Wellington and personally deposited it into the care of the National Archives, receiving a promise in return, that it would be analysed by handwriting experts. After many months of waiting for a reply, one eventually came, The document, they concluded, was "just a copy of the Maori translation by an unknown author"...but, unfortunately, for the "politically aligned" Archives, the matter would not end there and their evasive, "fob-off" statements would come back to haunt them many years later. 

NATIONAL ARCHIVE WILL NOT SUPPLY A COPY

I wrote to National Archives requesting a copy of the Littlewood document in 1992, but was told, "It was too valuable and delicate to photocopy, as the process would damage it". This was a lie, as many copies were made for the professional historians, as well as the Littlewood family.

I found out in 2003 that the National Archives had asked Mr Littlewood in 1992, if he would give his permission for me to be sent a copy, “as I may be able to assist in identifying the document”. Mr Littlewood was agreeable to this request and answered positively. Despite this, the National Archives never complied to my request and I finally obtained a copy from a fellow member of the "One New Zealand Foundation" who had obtained it directly from Mr Littlewood. Under the very limited access system in place at the time, it is very unlikely that more than just a few copies, if any, were ever gained by members of the public. It was obvious that Archives did not want the public to know about this final draft.

After studying the poor quality copy I finally acquired, I found it had many similarities to earlier Treaty drafts, as well as being dated the 4th February 1840, the day the final draft was written. Having this very important date written on the document (no other drafts or copies have this date) made it very historically significant. As it was dated after Busby's 3rd of February draft and before the Maori translation on the 5th, it could only be the final draft.

I wrote on numerous occasions to National Archives in 1992 with the following findings, as well as publishing them in my book, "" He iwi tahi tatou - We are now one people", but the National Archives were not interested even after saying to Mr Littlewood that, "I may be able to assist them with identifying the document". They had no intention of giving me this opportunity.

My findings were,

1. It's a known fact, the final draft was misplaced after it was translated into Maori.

2. Henry Littlewood was a prominent lawyer in the 1840's, so it is very possible that the final draft could have come into his possession.

3. The document is written on paper with an "1833 W. Tucker" watermark, which predates the Treaty.

4. The document is dated the 4th February 1840, the day the final draft was written. All other Treaty documents and their copies and translations are dated the 6 February 1840, so it cannot be a copy of the Maori version.

5. I found this document was in Hobson's handwriting, the same as the previous drafts. (It was actually in Busby's handwriting). At the time I thought Hobson had written the previous drafts. The National Archives would have known Busby wrote the main body of the rough drafts, so I had given them the correct lead as to the true author.

6. It also had the letter "e" missing from the word sovereignty, as occurring, at least once, within the earlier Hobson-Freeman-Busby drafts; therefore, it could not be a translation of the Maori version as Archive’s stated. This was a very obvious clue to link it to the previous drafts and authors. Archives must have known that Freeman had left the letter "e" out of “Sovereignty” on one occasion and that Busby had been influenced by that mistake. If I could see this, then surely the highly skilled, highly paid and highly educated Professional historians could see it as well. I had even told them on numerous occasions. Even if they could not recognize the handwriting, the missing "e" was a definite clue that linked the Littlewood Treaty to the other rough draft documents. After 14 years the National Archives still have not publicly admitted that this is the final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, written by Busby under Hobson's instructions and supervision.

7. It back-translated virtually word perfect to the Maori version. Reverend Henry Williams and his son, Edward, who were assigned the task to translate the final English draft into Maori, knew how important it was to have an accurate translation. As Henry Williams had been in attendance at the final drafting of the Treaty, he would have had a full understanding of it and the changes made to the early drafts.

8. The English version being used today does not relay the instructions give to Hobson by the Colonial Office; to cede sovereignty; to form a legal government to make laws; to protect both Maori and non-Maori; to guarantee to both their lands, dwellings and all their property under one flag and one law together.

While I did not receive a reply to my submission of evidence, the National Archives saw fit to very discreetly publish in the newspapers that this document was, "Just another copy of the Maori translation by an unknown author". Although I raised strong arguments to show the authenticity of the Littlewood document as the final draft, not one of my letters were ever acknowledged by the National Archives. The authenticity of the Littlewood Treaty was within the National Archives’ means to be validated by forensic or scientific methods immediately it came into their possession. Why is it that I could conclude that it was the final draft, but the National Archives could not? With the information I had given them and the resources they had, they must have known this was the final draft! New Zealand’s leading historians either did not want to know, as it would destroy their life's work, or were told not to divulge the true status of this document. In consideration of the position adopted by the Government of the time, such a revelation would have caused unbelievable chaos within our political scene.

IRRITATION THAT IT WAS MADE PUBLIC

On the 11th September 1992 an article appeared in the New Zealand Herald about the discovery of the Littlewood Treaty document. In it the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Lee said, "Because this has the omission of fisheries and forests it certainly becomes a little more significant, but the document does not rewrite history". He goes on to say, " There are a number of questions yet to be answered before Archives will be able to establish the document's significance". He would not have known it would not re-write history, as the Archive had not yet established the document's significance. Wishful thinking perhaps Mr. Lee?????

Mr. Ian Wards, a former chief historian for the Internal Affairs Department (National Archives) stated, “Whatever it is, it is interesting because of its date, its authentic paper, its authentic hand writing and what it says. There was considerable speculation that it could be the draft, or a copy of it that was taken by Governor Hobson to the missionary Henry Williams on February 4th for translation”.

Mrs. Rothwell of the Descendents of the English Signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi (DESTOW) also wondered if the draft was the missing one that Hobson had taken to Henry Williams at 4-00 pm on February 4, 1840.

Mrs Vanya Rothwell, Mr. Ian Wards (formally of Archives) and myself all thought it was the final draft, but the National Archives, after fourteen years, have still not established what its significance is or supplied the public with a full scientific and forensic analysis. I do not believe this!!!

I believe the only reason for Mr. Graham Lee's Internal Affairs Department/National Archives to express irritation about the document being made public, was because Government just wanted to hide it from the public, hoping it would go away, so they could continue to deceive the people of New Zealand with their "Official Treaty of Trickery".

WHO WROTE IT?

Insomuch as this document was a treaty draft, Archive’s very first port of call in an investigation of the document's significance should have been to ascertain, if either Hobson, Freeman or Busby penned it. That elementary factor becomes patently obvious when investigating the authenticity of a handwritten document and the missing “e”. Inasmuch as the largest contributor to the Treaty draft notes was Busby, he should have been the first individual to be investigated. To say the document was by an unknown author, I believe, was a very deliberate lie to deceive the public. Any New Zealand historian who had experience in viewing original documents in relation to our "Treaty" or "Colonial" history would have known, at a glance, that Busby had written this document. If I knew and could prove this in 1992, then why couldn't the National Archives very quickly draw this same very obvious conclusion with their unlimited resources?

If this fraud on their part is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then the Archive’s staff must not get away with what they did. Their gross and deliberate deception to the people of New Zealand, for selfish political purposes, cost us twelve years of huge payouts and racial disorder. We the public, pay these professional to work for us and in return we expect them to tell the truth.

As I wrote in my book in 1992, the only reason I can see for them lying to us is;

1. It will show how distorted the modern translations have become, which Governments are using to make our laws.

2. It will destroy most of the Professionals historian’s life's work

3. It will show how wrong the, "Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi" and the Waitangi Tribunal have become.

4. It will show how distorted the treaty interpretation has become by the Maori activists and the "professional" historians for their own gain.

5. It will show how Queen Victoria did NOT confirm and guarantee to Maori their exclusive and undisturbed possession of the lands, estates, forests, fisheries etc., but will show how Queen Victoria confirmed and guaranteed to the chiefs and tribes (Maori) and to “all the people of New Zealand” (non-Maori) the possession of their lands, dwellings and property. No treasures, no airwaves, no resources etc., just their lands, buildings and property to all the people of New Zealand.

6. It will eliminate any privilege to any race over another. It will give equality to all the people of New Zealand under one law and one flag, thus abolishing the Five Principles, the Waitangi Tribunal and all racially based laws and organisations.

In other words:

"IT WILL REWRITE HISTORY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL NEW ZELANDERS"

It may be that extreme pressure was put on the National Archives by Government between 1989-92 to down-play the importance of this document. The Labour Government had just made dramatic racial changes to our laws and introduced the "Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi". Even if this strong, career threatening, "coercion from above" is true, it still does not give the National Archives’ executives or historians an excuse to lie to the people of New Zealand.

When this document is recognised for what it truly is, "The final draft", it will make these racist laws, the Five Principles and the Waitangi Tribunal obsolete.

THE PROFESSIONALS HIDE THE TRUTH

For 164 years, legislators, or more recently, highly paid Professional Historians, should have realised that something was drastically wrong when they compared the wording of the Maori version to the English version. They knew that the final draft had been misplaced shortly after it was translated into Maori and read to the gathering at Waitangi, but they never looked into this problem seriously. If only they had looked at Clendon's copies of the document; those either dispatched to the Secretary of State in the USA or retained amidst his papers in New Zealand. All such duplicate copies were on record at the National Archives, which also had the instructions given to Hobson by the Colonial Office for further comparative analysis.

THE FINAL DRAFT

Since 1989, the professional historians have had no excuse, as they have had Hobson's final draft, but have still done nothing. Instead, in typical professional historian fashion, they just went with the flow for another 14 years, but this laziness or incompetence has cost the country billions of dollars and the resulting racial disharmony will never be repaired.

On the 1st March 2004, I wrote to Claudia Orange to ask if she was going to further research the Littlewood Treaty. Her reply was “I have not had the time nor do I at present to research this". She has had 15 years to do it, but she still continues to push the English version based on Busby's rejected draft.

These professional historians, the National Archives and the Government must be held accountable for keeping the final draft from the public. The National Archives and the Government cannot say they did not know that this was the final draft. I wrote to National Archives on numerous occasions in 1992 explaining the similarities to them and also published 7000 copies of my book, which was sent to all the politicians and Government institutions, so they should have checked this out before stating, "It was just another translation of the Maori text by an unknown author". This was a lie.

I will not allow this document to be hidden from its rightful place in our history, as it is the Final Draft of the Treaty of Waitangi. The truth must be known and to do this a Royal Commission must be held and if found guilty, the people responsible for this gross deception made accountable for their dishonest actions against their fellow New Zealanders. While I believe the Ministers genuinely believe it is best for us not to know the truth, they are not our guardians. They are elected representatives and must tell the truth and let us decide on what is right and what is wrong and how we, the people, want to handle it.

THE FINAL DRAFT RESURFACES WITH AVENGENCE

This document was not heard of again until late in 2003 when Martin Doutré, researcher extraordinary, picked up on what I had written in my book in 1992 and continued with further research. While I had found this was the final draft through observation, Martin has proved it with indisputable evidence. He found, without doubt, as I had found in 1992, this is the final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi. A brief of Martin's research follows, which confirms what I found in 1990-92 was correct. "It is the final draft"!!!

For more explicit details, see www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

THE SALIENT POINTS MARTIN DOUTRÉ DISCOVERED ARE;

1. The Littlewood document is written on W Tucker 1833 paper, which shows that the paper predates the Treaty, but was very contemporary to the time of 1840.

2. The pedigree of the document, down through the Littlewood family, is impeccable, as their forebear, Henry Littlewood, was a prominent solicitor in New Zealand during the 1840's. Dr Phil Parkinson of the National Library says; "He appears to have been at the Bay of Islands in 1838. The situation in which he came to prominence was as defence council for Maketu during his trial for murder in 1842. (Hoder to Littlewood, 14 September, 1842 in the Littlewood file at Archives New Zealand 4/1/189). Dr Parkinson is arguably New Zealand's leading handwriting expert for early New Zealand historical documents. He has positively identified the handwriting on the Littlewood document as that of James Busby, British Resident. Dr Parkinson wrote in 24/03/03; "For several years I have been investigating the provenance and handwriting of official documents relating to the period 1830 to 1845, as well as missionary correspondence of that period…. When I was shown it (The Littlewood Treaty), in September 2000, it was at once evident to me (as I told Christel McClare of Archive New Zealand at the time) that the Littlewood document was in the hand writing of James Busby"

3. Of the 12 surviving "rough draft" notes leading to the final English draft for the Treaty and written between 1st and 4th of February 1840, the majority of developed text is in the hand of Busby. He was acting as Hobson's secretary in the drafting of the Treaty and worked at his residence ashore while Hobson recuperated from illness aboard HMS Herald. Busby took his developing draft to Hobson on the 3 February 1840 and during the 3rd and 4th February, the "final draft" was penned by Busby under Hobson's instructions. The final draft became known as the "missing draft". Historian Claudia Orange states on her website, "The original draft in English, on which Henry Williams based the Maori translation, has not been found".

4. An interesting idiosyncrasy of James Busby's writing is found in the way he had alternate spelling for the word sovereignty/sovreignty. This uncertainty, as to the correct spelling is found in the 12 pages of "rough notes", where Freeman spells it without the “e” on one occasion. Busby, obviously influenced by Freeman’s mistake, leaves out the “e” each time he spells the word in the final draft.

5. It is very obvious, by close scrutiny of the 12 surviving pages of the "rough" notes held in the National Archives that there is not one body of text, sufficiently complete, to be called a "final draft". Head Wesleyan Missionary, Reverend Henry Williams and his son Edward Marsh Williams, were not the "legislators" of the Treaty, only the "translators". It was the responsibility of the legislators to provide a final, and finished draft, stating in clear paragraphs of organized text, their treaty proposal. As Williams had been in attendance at the final drafting of the Treaty, he would have had a full understanding of it. For a founding document of this importance the legislators owed that much to the translators. Although the 3rd February rough draft "Articles" are "fleshed out" there are, clearly, no chosen and finalized "Preamble" or "Consent and signing" sections attached. There are only several varying choices of what the Preamble and Consent can be and these are full of confusing deletions. It is very evident that a further, final draft would need to have been provided for the translations. Photo originals of each of the 12 "rough drafts" pages can be viewed at: www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

6. Lieutenant Governor, William Hobson went to Rev Henry Williams on the 4th of February 1840 and personally handed him the final draft at 4 pm, asking him to have it translated into the Maori language before the meeting with the chiefs on the following day. (See the Treaty of Waitangi by T L Buick, pg. 113). The Littlewood Treaty document is dated the 4th of February 1840. It accordingly, cannot be a "back translation" of the Maori text, as it existed before the Maori version was created. It is the mother document of the Maori version.

7. The Littlewood document is by far, the closest matching text to the Maori version of the Treaty. There is excellent word weight, sentence by sentence between these two texts. The order of statements is also excellent and, with exception to the expected nuance in language or peculiarities of sentence construction, in which parts of speech are correctly assembled for each language, each clause mirrors its companion clause perfectly in meaning within the other language. The 3^rd of February 1840 English "rough draft" is, by comparison, a radical departure from the Maori text in the choice of words or the order in which sentences appear. The 3rd of February English text has very translatable words like; Ireland, Australia, Forests, Fisheries, etc., in it, which do not appear in the Maori text. It also omits to mention, " and all the people of New Zealand….. ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirana, which is a very important legal statement in the Maori text.

8. Rev Henry Williams was the Head of the Church Missionary Society (Wesleyan) Mission. He had been in New Zealand for 17 years when he and his son Edward undertook to translate the Treaty. Edward Marsh Williams, who had been raised amongst the Maoris, was considered to be a scholar, par excellence, in the Nga-Puhi dialect. (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by T. L. Buick, pg. 113). It would be impossible that such adept linguists could have created the Treaty of Waitangi Maori text from the 3rd of February draft, as the two versions, in alternative languages, are so dissimilar in meaning or sentence weight and construction. Added to that, is the already mentioned problem relating to which English Preamble or Consent, from the several and varied "rough draft" choices, was the correct one to be used.

9. Although the Littlewood Treaty, in Busby's handwriting, was missing until 1989, we have, in fact, had access to at least two and possibly three further copies of this exact version since February 1840. This same text was copied out by James Reddy Clendon and placed into a diplomatic pouch on the 20 February 1840. Thereafter, it was dispatched, along with a Maori copy of the Treaty of Waitangi (printed on the Paihia Mission Press, 17/2/1840), along with a copy of the Proclamation read to the settlers at Kororareka Church, to the Secretary of State in Washington D C. (Dispatch No 6). It seems probable, from a New Zealand Archives’ article’s wording that yet another copy was sent to the U.S. with Commodore Charles Wilkes in April 1840. James Reddy Clendon also wrote up another copy of the text for himself and retained this copy amongst his papers at Clendon House in Rawene. Government Historian, Ian Wards, stated that James R Clendon was one of the participants in the final drafting of the Treaty of Waitangi:

"A Treaty, soon to be known as the Treaty of Waitangi, was prepared with the co-operation of Busby, J R Clendon and two missionaries, H Williams and A Brown". (See, Shadow of the Land by Ian Wards, 1968, pg 42). Government Historian, Ian Wards lists one of his sources as, J Rutherford, "The Treaty of Waitangi".

10. This being the case, Clendon would have, without doubt, known the exact wording of the final English draft on the 4th February 1840 and, as Acting U.S. Consul, could have taken a copy, on the 4th of February, for future dispatch to the Secretary of State. The participation of James R Clendon in the Treaty drafting process makes a great deal of sense when one considers that he aided James Busby and Rev Henry Williams in the finalisation of the 1835 Declaration of Independence for the Confederation of United Chiefs. The 1835 document bears his signature.

11. Historian Phil Parkinson expressed the point of view that it was the Littlewood Treaty document that was read out, by William Hobson, to the assembled crowd at Waitangi on the 5th February 1840. Inasmuch as the same procedure occurred again on the 6th, the Littlewood treaty text was heard by the crowd on two consecutive days. Dr Parkinson writes, "So where does the Littlewood Treaty fit into this? We know from Colenso's account of the proceedings at Waitangi, on the 5th Hobson read out a text of the Treaty in English and that was translated phrase by phrase by Williams. Some of the bystanders objected that William's translation did not fairly represent what Hobson had said. Although nothing can be proved, I think that what Hobson had read out was not the "Her most gracious Majesty" text (which was a rather stiff and formal preamble), but rather the simpler and less formal Littlewood one, "Her Majesty Victoria", which in tone addresses the British listeners, rather than the Maori. Hence the Littlewood text says. "Seeing that many of Her Majesty's Subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, and that it is desirable for their protection as well as protection of the natives, to establish a form of government amongst them". Some people have made much of the absence of the words, lands and estates, forests and Fisheries and other properties" in the Littlewood document. However, the expression it uses, "The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property", is just as effective, only it is more wordy than that in the "official" English text. The point being, this property is confirmed,, of what ever kind, so it is not necessary to go into detail about forests, fisheries, mineral rights or anything else. (Letter to Martin Doutré, 24/12/03)

THERE IS A SIMPLE EXPLANATION

What happened at Waitangi; is explained by Claudia Orange in her book, "The Treaty of Waitangi" or in the “on the spot” account by Reverend William Colenso. Reverend Henry Williams, acting as the translator for Hobson's explanation of the Treaty after both versions had been read, was accused by three of the European traders, Johnson, Jones and another third unidentified person, of not conveying an adequate translation to what Hobson was saying. This dispute arose much later in the proceedings, during the general debate. When it came to the actual "treaty texts" in English and Maori, these were read word-for-word to the crowd from two prepared documents, with Hobson reading a sentence or paragraph of the final draft and then Williams reading its equivalent from the Maori translation. The Treaty reading was early in the proceedings and there was no dispute from any member of the public concerning one text not conveying the exact meaning of the other. Proof that the final draft and the Maori translation were the same in context and wording.

Our professional historians, unfortunately, find themselves in the very difficult position of trying to salvage whatever credibility they can, given their past public comments regarding interpretations of the Treaty. I personally feel Dr Parkinson, by his above commentary, is placing himself in a safe middle ground or netherworld between understandings of the past 30 years and what is emerging as the real truth now. Others like Claudia Orange, Paul Moon or Kerry Howe don't seem to know what to do, so refrain from addressing the Littlewood Treaty issue altogether. Although they are getting plenty of media attention, they are utterly silent about the Littlewood Treaty and refuse to be drawn into this debate.

Activist and the grievance industry uses what is known as, the Waikato Heads-Manukau Treaty as justification for accepting the 3rd February draft as the "official" English version of the Treaty. They refer to it as "The English version as signed".

THE "ENGLISH VERSION AS SIGNED" IS NOT THE OFFICIAL TREATY

What the Government and the professional historians fail to mention is that it was the full, "official" Maori text that was presented to the chiefs at Manukau and Port Waikato. Reverend Robert Maunsell, a senior missionary and subordinate only to Rev Henry Williams, was obliged to proceed with his meeting before 1500 Maoris on the 11th of April 1840 without access to the "officially" issued document pre-signed by Hobson. The document he was supposed to use did not arrive with deputy Surveyor, William C. Symonds until 3 days after Maunsell's meeting. For this meeting on the 11th, Maunsell had to come up with his own documents at very short notice. He had, on hand, one of William Colenso's printed, Te Tiriti O Waitangi texts (made on the Paihia Press on the 17th February 1840). He also had a wrongly transcribed copy of the Treaty in English, based upon Busby's "rough notes" of the 3rd February. Apparently the final draft had disappeared already and some clerk had referred to Busby's rough notes and made an English version. How and where Rev. Maunsell acquired this document, we presently do not know.

WHO WROTE THE ENGLISH VERSION?

The English version of the Treaty used by Maunsell and now recognized as the "official English version" and attached to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was not written by Hobson or Busby. It was written by an unknown person, erroneously using Busby's rough notes of the 3^rd of February 1840 instead of the finished draft of the 4^th of February, as it had been already misplaced. Busby's notes were not complete enough to allow them to be used as the "official English Treaty version". This rough draft of Busby’s was not the "final draft" that was translated into the Tiriti O Waitangi, the Maori version.

CORRECT TEXT ON THE DAY

Rev. Robert Maunsell presented the correct Maori text on the day, and this printed Maori copy he read from was later signed until there was no room left on the page to receive further signatures. Thereafter, the signatures overflowed onto the "clerk's unofficial English copy". We know these were not "officially" issued government documents, only “make-do” documents in lieu of the “official” one (always in Maori and pre-signed by Hobson without exception) that had not arrived in time.

Hobson later signed off Maunsell's "make do" document (two sheets used as one) in May, when they arrived at Paihia and acknowledged the wishes of the Port Waikato and some Manukau chiefs to cede their Sovereignty to the Queen. Hobson knew that the meetings, where these "make-do" documents were used, had been fully conducted in Maori, using the authorised Maori text. By the time Hobson signed this set of documents off, he had suffered a stroke and his signature shows that he was severely impaired. All "official" Treaty documents (always written in Maori), that Hobson had pre-signed in February for taking around the country to be signed by the chiefs, were in a steady hand, before his paralytic stroke in Auckland on 1st March 1840. While this document had been “signed-off” by Hobson after the chiefs had signed it, its English text would never have been heard or discussed, as the chiefs would never have understood it. While Hobson signed this document, it was never intended to be used, as the “official” English version. It was only used to accommodate the extra signatures of the “official” Maori Tiriti O Waitangi. This document was never read or discussed with the chiefs as they would not have understood it. It also only relates to the 26 chiefs who signed it.

Further information on what happened at Port Waikato and Manukau can be found on Martin's website: www.celticnz.co.nz or www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE TREATY DOCUMENT

There is only one Treaty compact or contract and that is the document in the Maori text. The final draft dated the 4th February 1840 created the Treaty of Waitangi – Tiriti O Waitangi and it locks the Maori text to specific meanings. Hobson was astute enough to realize that it was unreasonable to expect the chiefs to sign a document in a foreign language, so no English texts of the pre-signed Treaty were ever made or sent out by him for signing by the chiefs. Most Maoris at the time could not read Maori, let alone English. Proposals were conveyed by oratory and the signatory chiefs were being called upon to put their signatures or marks of agreement in support of the proposals they had heard and understood in their own language. They were called upon to agree to “sign-off” the same written words as they had heard in an oral delivery. Here are some quotes on this:

Sir James Henare, the last surviving member of the Council of the Chiefs of Nga-Puhi on the Treaty of Waitangi, recounted, in 1987, the oral history about the Waitangi proceedings and later hui discussion: "Captain Hobson arrived on the 5th February at the Treaty grounds and read the clauses of the Treaty or the articles of the Treaty and suggested to the chiefs that they could have ample time, a week, to consider". (See Hobson, Governor of New Zealand 1840 - 1842, by Paul Moon, pg 104 -105).

"The instruction of William Hobson was not to allow anyone to sign the Treaty till he fully understood it, to which instruction I did most strictly attend. I explained the Treaty clause by clause at the signing of the same, and again to all the Natives in this part of the island previously to the destruction of Koroareka, on May the 11, 1845; I maintained the faith of the Treaty and the integrity of the British Government, and that the word of Her Majesty was sacred and could not be violated.

The Natives to whom I explained the Treaty understood the nature of the same, there can be no doubt" (Volume II of, The life of Henry Williams, Archdeacon of Waimate, by Hugh Carleton, published 1877 by Wilson and Horton, Auckland).

After Hobson had read and then discussed the Treaty with the chiefs for 5 hours, the chiefs retired to the Te Tii marae to discuss it further amongst themselves and the missionaries. Henry Williams recollects, "We gave them but one version, explained to them clause by clause, showing them the advantages to them being taken under the fostering care of the British Government, by which act they would become one people with the British, in suppression of wars, and of every lawless act; under one Sovereignty and one law, human and divine". (See "The Treaty of Waitangi", by Claudia Orange, page 51)

Hobson later wrote these word to Governor Gipps of N S W, Australia, on the 25 April 1840, "The Treaty, which forms the basis of my proceedings, was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the Confederation and formed the majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence [1835]. This instrument I consider to be de facto the Treaty and all the signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document". (See The Treaty of Waitangi by T. L. Buick, pg 162)

RANGATIRATANGA AND TAONGA

Whatever the words, tino Rangitiratanga and taonga etc., can be construed to mean, by modern exploitative interpretations, they each refer to, "all the people of New Zealand". The Treaty of Waitangi in either Maori or English speaks of everyone’s customary rights. There is no "partnership" being offered. Everybody becomes a British subject, subservient to British laws or the recipient of British civilisation benefits, and all ceded territories became British soil under the jurisdiction of Queen Victoria.

TWO VERSIONS SO DIFFERENT ARE A MYSTERY

In the year 2000, shortly before paramount Nga-Puhi Maori Chief, Sir Graham Rankin passed away he had a series of discussions concerning Northern New Zealand with Allan Titford. One point that Sir Graham made was that the official English text of the Treaty of Waitangi is radically different from the Maori in both wording and meaning. When Allan showed him a hand written copy of the Littlewood Treaty, Hobson's final draft, in English, Sir Graham commented that its wording was exactly the same as the Maori text wording and meaning.

It has always been a mystery to our treaty scholars that the two versions, Maori and the "official" English version, are so different, especially in the view of the fact that the translators, Henry Williams and his son Edward, were such expert linguists in the Maori language. Henry Williams had been a hard working missionary in New Zealand for 17 years when he undertook the translation. His son Edward, who had been virtually raised in a full Maori community, was considered to be a, "scholar par excellence in the Nga Puhi dialect" (See T. L. Buick, 1914, "The Treaty of Waitangi", pg. 113). If the professional historians had taken into account the final draft had been missing, a fact known by all, then it should have been realised, this could not be the final draft from which the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi was translated.

Todays "official" English version has words like Ireland, Australia, Dominion, Forest, fisheries in it, which are conspicuous by their absence in the Maori version. It also makes no provision for any one other than Maori and the rights of the tribe of Queen Victoria (Ngati Wikitoria), go unmentioned.

The Maori version, by consequence, provided for the rights of, "the chiefs and the tribes and all the people of New Zealand" ……"ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu - ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani", (Article 2). Back translations of the Maori text since 1840 have always included, "and for all the people of New Zealand".

New Zealand Treaty scholars have been in very general agreement that the original draft wording, from which the Maori version of the Treaty was created, went missing. Dr Claudia Orange, amongst many others, writes on her website, "The original draft in English, on which Henry Williams bases the Maori translation has not been found".

CREATING THE FINAL DRAFT

The newly arrived Captain Hobson fell ill shortly after delivering his "proclamation" speech at Kororareka church on January 30th 1840. Although he was committed to having a treaty ready for presentation to the chiefs, who had already been sent invitations to assemble at British Resident, James Busby's Waitangi house on the 5th February, Hobson became too unwell to complete the Treaty document.

The scribe for the developing Treaty draft, from about the 2nd to the 4th February 1840, was James Busby and many of the surviving draft notes, held by the National Archives, are in his handwriting. The final officially approved draft, was handed to the Rev Henry Williams by Hobson at 4 pm on the 4th of February for translation into the Maori language. That very historically important final draft went missing for about 150 years, until found by the Littlewood family in 1989. One of the family’s forbears had been Henry Littlewood, a prominent 1840's solicitor, who had been in New Zealand from as early as 1838 and who had practiced law in both the Bay of Islands and Auckland.

Unfortunately, after Hobson's final draft of the 4th February 1840 went missing, Government clerks and functionaries lazily reverted to using Busby's rough notes of the 3rd February 1840 in order to have an English wording for the Treaty of Waitangi. This raw wording was only a preliminary, developing draft, superseded by the final draft of the following day. It had been changed at the insistence of Acting Lieutenant Governor Hobson, such that it complied with the written guidelines and instructions of Lord Normanby of the Colonial Office. Hobson had the 4200 word brief from Normanby in his possession when the Treaty of Waitangi was written and finalised.

FINAL DRAFT COPIES TO U.S.A. SECRETARY OF STATE

The final draft dated the 4th February 1840 matches, word-for-word, a copy of the Treaty in English sent to the Secretary of State in the United States. This dispatch had been prepared by James R Clendon, Acting US Consul, on the 20th February 1840. Although National Archives literature is a little unclear on this point, a statement by them suggests that Clendon sent yet another copy with Antarctic explorer, Commodore Charles Wilkes, in April 1840. This being the case, there were up to four copies of the final draft wording in February-April 1840. Clendon also retained a copy amongst his papers. The Archive’s statement says:

“Mr Parkinson believes that Busby provided his draft to Clendon and this resulted in that text being sent to the USA in Clendon's despatch [no 6, 20/2/1840] and in the copy Commodore Charles Wilkes, an American naval officer, also despatched in April 1840, with Clendon retaining the draft.”

THE LITTLEWOOD’S GAIN POSSESSION OF THE FINAL DRAFT

Mr Henry Littlewood at one time, was James Clendon’s lawyer, so it is more than likely James Clendon gave Mr Henry Littlewood Busby’s final draft, after he had made copies from it, for safe keeping. This final draft, then remained in the Littlewood’s possession until found by Mr John Littlewood and his sister in 1989. (See http://www.celticnz.co.nz/ and http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/)

WHY AMERICA BECAME INVOLVED

James R Clendon was a participant in the Treaty drafting process as well as a signatory and would have been fully conversant with the final wording. In fact, it has been found that the final draft was written on paper supplied by Clendon. All Clendon’s letters etc. were written on paper with a 1833 W Tucker watermark at this time. As Acting U.S. Consul, he would have been involved in the Treaty drafting to make sure that the American residents would have legal rights to remain and trade in New Zealand when New Zealand was ceded to Britain. Most of the 28 known onshore whaling stations, at the time, were owned by American companies and the American Government had recently spent a large sum of money exploring whaling and sealing in the Southern Oceans. Clendon’s involvement was to make sure the American’s rights to remain in New Zealand and the protection of their investments were fully covered. This was taken care of by including, "all the people of New Zealand" (non-Maori), in the final draft. He would have asked for a copy of this final draft to guarantee it was not removed or altered when it was translated into Maori. He would also need it to show his superiors that he had done a very good deal with the British in safe guarding American interests. He dated his transcribed document for dispatch the 6th February 1840 to indicate the date when the Confederation of United Chiefs and the Independent Chiefs had signed the Treaty of Waitangi. As stated, James Reddy Clendon also kept a copy of this document for himself, which is held in the National Archives. James Clendon was also involved in the making of and was a signatory to the 1835 Declaration of Independence. As American Consul, he was very involved in the politics of New Zealand at the time to safeguard America’s interests, investments and residents. James Clendon was also the next-door neighbour of James Busby and were good friends.

THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

The final draft (Littlewood Treaty) found in 1989 in private papers by John Littlewood and his sister Beryl Needham. Note the word Sovereignty is misspelled.

THE FINAL DRAFT (The Littelwood Treaty)

Her Majesty, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration of the Chiefs and the people of New Zealand, and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been please to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands adjacent, to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty's Subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, and it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives, to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint Mr. William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor in such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the Chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Article One.

The Chiefs of the Confederation of United tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

Article second.

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their land, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article third

In return for cession of their Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of the British Subjects will be granted to them.

Signed, William Hobson, Consul and lieut. Governor.

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all. In witness thereof, our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February 1840.

BACK TRANSLATION FROM THE ORIGINAL MAORI TREATY BY MR. T. E. YOUNG, NATIVE DEPARTMENT, 1865.

Victoria, Queen of England, in Her kind thoughtfulness of the chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and Her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their lands, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, She has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maoris of New Zealand - that the Maori of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither. Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil will not come to the Maori or the Europeans who are living without law.

Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all parts of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; and he give forth to the Chief of the assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other chiefs the laws spoken here.

The First

The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England forever all the Government of their lands.

The Second

The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be Her purchaser.

The Third

This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as Her doings to the people of England.

William Hobson, Consul and Lieutenant - Governor.

Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We, also the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words; they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are attached our names and marks.

This done at Waitangi, on the six day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of our Lord.

LITTLEWOOD DOCUMENT IS THE FINAL DRAFT

There is absolutely no doubt, that the Littlewood Treaty document, penned by James Busby on the 4th February 1840 under William Hobson's instruction and supervision, is the final missing English draft from which the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi was created. The Littlewood Treaty is not a back-translation of the Maori version. The Littlewood Treaty document existed before there was a Maori translation or copy of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi signing ceremony took place on the 6th February 1840 and the Maori translation is dated the 6th February 1840. The final draft, the Littlewood Treaty, is dated the 4th February 1840.

For further information on the authenticity of the final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi.

See, www.celticnz.co.nz/The%20Littlewood%20Treaty.htm

Or: www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz

PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS SHOULD HAVE REALISED

If the "professional historians" were really professional, then they should have realised years ago the English Treaty document they were using could not possibly be the final draft. Like most professionals, they were brainwashed by their University professors and never questioned them or look outside the square. They just went with the flow for 150 years.

While it was probably a bit much to expect the professional historians to work this out for themselves prior to 1989, there was absolutely no excuse after 1989 when the final draft was located and they had examined it. There can only be three reasons for this:

1. If the professional historians admitted this was the final draft, it would have destroyed their life's work.

2. The Government put pressure on them to reject it as they had just made radical changes to our laws based on Busby's rejected 3rd February 1840 rough draft.

3. As the Government had given in to Maoridom's demands for 150 years, they were afraid of the consequences if they now accepted Hobson's final draft dated the 4th February 1840.

If Government knew of this final draft in 1989 and the evidence seems to prove they did, and did nothing about it, then it was evil, it was corrupt, it was treason of the worst possible kind against their fellow New Zealanders. Instead of using the Treaty of Waitangi, they have been using a “Treaty of Trickery” to deceive the people. All those involved must now be held responsible for the billions of dollars it has cost the country and the un-repairable racial disharmony it has caused over the last twenty years.

“IF THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC, HEADS MUST ROLL”.

THE TREATY OF TRICKERY

There is absolutely no evidence that the English version of the Treaty being used by the Government, the National Archives, the professional historians and attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, is the final draft or the draft from which the Maori version was translated. All the evidence shows that this was, compiled by an unknown author from an early draft written by James Busby on the 3rd February 1840 and rejected by William Hobson, as it did not relay the instructions give to him by the Colonial Office. Hobson had no intention of making an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. There was only one Treaty document and that was the Tiriti O Waitangi that was signed at Waitangi on the 6^th February 1840. Today’s “official” English version, is a “Treaty of Trickery” to deceive the people of New Zealand of their Treaty rights. It must be discarded and replaced by the Final Draft, known as the Littlewood Treaty.

There is no “official” English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. Only the Tiriti O Waitangi and the Final Draft. Anything else is a fraud.

IRRITATION THAT THE DOCUMENT HAD BEEN MADE PUBLIC!!

The article published by the New Zealand Herald on the 11th September 1992 stating, "Mr Lee, the Minister of Internal Affairs/National Archives, expressed his department's irritation that news of the find (Littlewood Treaty) had been made public". This admits that the Government did not want the public of New Zealand to know about the Littlewood Treaty. Government then played down the significance of the document saying, "It was just another copy of the Maori version by an unknown author".

Mr Ian Wards, a former chief historian for the Internal Affairs Department, Mrs. Vanya Rothwell, of the English Descendents of the English Signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi (DESTOW) and myself told National Archives in 1992, with evidence, we thought it was the final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi that Hobson gave to Williams to translate into Maori, but they took absolutely no notice. This can only mean one thing, they knew it was the final draft, but did not want the public to know.

With the evidence Martin and I have now uncovered, it would be evil and corrupt if the Government and its Ministers did not recognise the Littlewood Treaty as the Final English Draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and use it accordingly.

The "Treaty of Trickery" they are using now, as attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, must be replaced by the true Treaty wording immediately and those who have engineered this deliberate deception, put on trial for treason.

The final word from Sir Apirana Ngata from his book, "The Treaty of Waitangi - An explanation":

"Let me issue a word of warning to those who are in the habit of bandying the name of the Treaty around, to be very careful lest it be made the means of incurring certain liabilities under the law, which we do not know now and which are being borne only by the Pakeha".

PALMER AND LANGE ABOUT FACE

In the period 1984 to1990, the Labour Government brought in a number of measures in response to its Maori policy. Most of this legislation was drawn up and introduced by Geoffrey Palmer and David Lange. It seems, from what we know now; Palmer and Lange based this legislation on Busby's draft of the 3rd February 1840 that had been rejected by Hobson, as it did not relay the true instructions given to him by the Colonial Office in Britain. Normanby’s brief of 4200 words made it clear that Hobson’s mission was to have the chiefs, “cede Sovereignty of New Zealand without force and to treat all the people of New Zealand as equals under one law, one flag". What made Palmer and Lange change their minds so dramatically in 1990 on ABC's "Fours Corners" TV Program, “Trick or Treaty”, that was banned in New Zealand? I believe they had just learnt of the Littlewood Treaty and discovered they had made a terrible mistake.

BEFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY

Extracts from his book, "New Zealand Constitution in Crisis", Geoffrey Palmer writes.

"I went to law school in the United States where I studied case law on American Civil Rights. I also went to law school with Chief Judge Eddie Durie (Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal since its beginning). It was on this background of American Civil Rights that I drew, with adaptations, the basis for legislation to advance the interests of the Maori minority in New Zealand. I announced my Maori Policy as Acting Leader when Prime Minister David Lange was away in Europe, on February 2, 1984".

THE FIVE FRAUDULENT PRINCIPLES APPEAR

"I got together with Koro Wetere and put together a cabinet paper, which required Government Departments to take Treaty considerations into account. One of the most important by-products of the policy was the inclusion in various statutes of reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. I put forward a cabinet paper seeking permission for a group of officials to prepare a paper setting out the principles upon which the Government proposed to act on Treaty issues. They were designed to guide the actions of one Treaty partner, the Crown, in its dealings in good faith with the Maori partner. I was satisfied that I had achieved this with the statement of the Principles".

(Comment; The Principles make no mention or reference to the Preamble of the Treaty. Without the Preamble the Articles are meaningless. There are two extra Principles not mentioned in the Treaty. There is also no mention of a Partnership in the Treaty).

Prime Minster, David Lange then became involved and introduced the Five Principles to the public in 1989 in a book called, "Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi", three years after their introduction into law.

(Comment; there was no public debate on the principles and they do not relay the true understanding or meaning of the Treaty).

OUR BIGGEST INJUSTICE

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and its Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi, are the biggest injustice ever created by any Government on the people of New Zealand. It allows one group of New Zealand citizens, by race alone, the privilege of a Government funded Tribunal to claim against their fellow New Zealand citizens without input from them or the right to cross-examine or an appeal. Especially when in most cases, this one groups major ancestry is now from the same bloodline as the people they claim created the injustices they are claiming against today.

Palmer continues, "I also drafted an amendment to the SOE Bill, stating: "Treaty of Waitangi - Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi".

"In the case of the Maori Council v Attorney General 1987, the Court of appeal held that the principles of the Treaty over-rode everything else in the Act. The judgments contained broad declarations of principle of a type never before made by a New Zealand Court. This was constitutional litigation of a novel and exciting nature. This case established Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence (science or philosophy of law) so firmly and dramatically in the Courts of New Zealand that they can now play something of the role of the American courts. After much heavy negotiation and a lot of legal work the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprise Act) was passed. I thought this a rather elegant legal solution myself and it was endorsed by the Courts of appeal"

(Comment; The words of a man who I believe has achieved his goal/agenda at the expense of his fellow New Zealanders)

THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL NOW CONTROLS NEW ZEALAND

Palmer continues, "The work of Parliament, the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, have all combined to enhance the status of the Treaty to the extent that it can now be regarded as part of the fabric of our constitution. From a practical point, the Treaty of Waitangi cannot now be removed from New Zealand law. The balance of power has tilted against the Government of the day towards the courts and the Tribunal. I attempted to entrench the Treaty of Waitangi as part of New Zealand's supreme law in an entrenched Bill of Rights. I still think that the Treaty of Waitangi should be entrenched in a New Zealand Bill of Rights. It would be good to tidy up the constitutional position further by giving the unambiguous status to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi".

(Comment, unbelievable!!!).

As the Littlewood Treaty had not been discovered prior to late 1989, Palmer would, I believe, have drawn up his Maori-only legislation after studying, understanding, then using the "official" English version of the Treaty (based on Busby's 3rd February rejected draft), which gives Maori exclusive rights over their fellow New Zealanders. He also believed at this stage, that Maori were in partnership with the Crown. I believe he based all his legislation on the "official" English version of the Treaty as attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act.

THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY IS FOUND

In 1989, the final draft, (the Littlewood Treaty) was discovered giving a completely different understanding to the Treaty. Hobson's final draft and its Maori translation, showed that the Treaty referred to, "all the people of New Zealand" and not just Maori and I believe, from his comments and legislation, Palmer had understood prior to the Littlewood Treaty being found.

PALMER AND LANGE ABOUT FACE

A few months after the discovery of the Littlewood Treaty (late 1989), Geoffrey Palmer, as Prime Minister and David Lange, as Attorney General, had a complete about face on the understanding of the Treaty and its intentions.

(Comment; while they never mentioned the Littlewood Treaty, what else could have change their views so radically in just a few months).

While the National Archives told the public the Littlewood Treaty was just another translation of the Maori text, I believe they knew it was the final draft and had informed Palmer and Lange. I believe Palmer and Lange realised they had made a terrible mistake, but felt it was too late to change what they had done. (Comment, I disputed that it was just another translation in 1992, but no one wanted to know. I feel at the time, the people did not believe the Government would lie to them).

GOVERNOR GENERAL AND GOVERNMENT DIFFER OVER TREATY

In an Australian Broadcasting Commission's Four Corners Current Affairs TV program in February 1990, called, “Trick or Treaty”, which was banned from showing in New Zealand, turned into a slinging match between the Governor General, Rev. Sir Paul Reeves and the Government. The New Zealand Herald reported on the 6^th March 1990, "The clashing views of the Governor General, the Most Rev. Sir Paul Reeves and the New Zealand Government on the Treaty of Waitangi were aired on Australian Television on Monday night".

(Comment; this is just a few months after the discovery of the Littlewood Treaty and the introduction of the Five Principles).

TOO LATE, A PRECEDENT HAD BEEN SET

Palmer stated on this program, "The meaning of the Treaty in terms of operational consequences now, is far from clear. In fact, it's a document that is so vague that that is the problem. The idea that somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are going to change hands in a short period of time is, I'm afraid, idle. Such expectations were unreasonable and would not be met. In any case, I do not know of any authoritative adjudication anywhere that suggests it ought to happen". Both Palmer and Lange ruled out yielding to major financial and economic claims by Maori under the Treaty.

(Comment; unfortunately, they were too late to make amends; it had already started; a precedent had been set).

Now that the Government had change its views and understanding on the Treaty, the Governor General of Maori descent, the Rev. Sir Paul Reeves decided to join his Maori leader mates in hinting that failure to address Maori grievances would lead to violence. Not the sort of comment you would expect from our Governor General, the Queen’s representative. He said he compared the Treaty to, " the covenant made between God and Abraham or God and Noah; it was a binding document". From this statement, he also believed, or wanted to believe, the Treaty only referred to the Crown (God) and Maori (Abraham or Noah). Not to, "all the people of New Zealand" as Busby’s final draft (the Littlewood Treaty) and the Maori translation state.

NO PARTNERSHIP

Mr. Lange went on to say, "Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of thumb prints and 500 people. Queen Victoria was not that sort of person. That does not detract from the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi. It can become the Magna Carta of New Zealand society, but it is not going to become that from Dead Sea scroll eschatology examination".

(Comment; Only a few months earlier, Prime Minister David Lange had introduced the booklet, "Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi", which stated the Treaty of Waitangi was a "Partnership" between Maori and the Crown!!!)

QUICK EXIT BY PALMER AND LANGE

Not long after this program, both Palmer and Lange disappeared from politics along with the Littlewood Treaty. Mike Moore took over as Prime Minster, but lost the elections some months later to National. Whether National knew at the time about the Littlewood Treaty would be interesting. It would have made the Government and the Professional Historians look stupid if they were to accept the Littlewood Treaty after all their years of recognising a Treaty by an unknown author based on Busby's rejected draft as the "official" English version of the Treaty. They may have kept quiet and let National carry on unaware. It may only be due to the resurfacing of the Littlewood Treaty by Ross Baker, Martin Doutré and Ian Wishart (Investigate Magazine, December, 2003), that National’s Dr Don Brash and NZ First, Winston Peters is taking such an interest today.

COINCIDENCE OR NOT!!!!

The Government must be held accountable if they knew about the Littlewood Treaty and its significance while it was in the collection of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and later the National Archives. It would be too much of a co-incidence for both Lange and Palmer to change their minds so dramatically in such a short space of time without knowing of the Littlewood Treaty. I believe they knew about it, but realised they had made a terrible mistake and felt it was too late to do anything to rectify the appalling situation, especially when the legislation was in place. Finally, I believe a threat of violence by the Governor General, Sir Paul Reeves and the Maori leaders frightened the hell out of Government, forcing Palmer and Lange to disappeared from politics, along with the Littlewood Treaty. Both Lange and Palmer where in the forefront of politics in the early 80's, but rapidly disappeared in the early 90’s just after the Littlewood Treaty was discovered. (Comment, Coincidence or not???)

DID THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY CHANGE THEIR VIEWS?

Now that it has been proved without doubt, (See www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz) that the Littlewood Treaty is the final draft for the Maori translation of the Treaty of Waitangi, I believe both Palmer and Lange should put the record straight. It is too much of a coincidence for it not to have been the Littlewood Treaty. If they did know, and I am sure they did, then they should have informed the public. The Treaty gave all New Zealanders, both Maori and non-Maori equality under the law, as the 500 plus chief who signed it in 1840 intended, with a hand shake from Hobson and the words.

"HE IWI TAHI TATOU - WE ARE NOW ONE PEOPLE"

EXTREME PRESSURE

I believe Palmer and Lange knew they had made a terrible mistake and were trying to make amends but had extreme pressure put on them by Government to say nothing. They, therefore, had no option than to quit politics but this does not excuse them from their loyalty and responsibility to the people of New Zealand. I feel if they knew, then they should have brought it to the publics attention. It was their duty and responsibility as Prime Minister and Attorney General.

With thanks to Denis Hampton, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Geoffrey Palmer who supplied this information.

WHO HOLDS THE POWER TODAY?

MAORI SOVEREIGNTY

After Cook’s discovery of New Zealand, people from many lands began to visit as well as settle in New Zealand. These people traded with the Maori, who in most cases demanded the musket as payment. The bloody inter-tribal fighting, which had been part of Maori life for hundreds of years, erupted out of control throughout the country to settle old scores between the tribes now they had the musket. Instead of just a few being killed with previous hand held weapons, the musket killed thousands.

In 1831, thirteen Northern chiefs wrote to the King inviting him to be their guardian and protector and to stop the intertribal fighting that they and the British were afraid would destroy the Maori race if it were allowed to continue. These chiefs were also very worried about a French takeover of New Zealand and sought British help. Britain responded in 1832 by appointing James Busby as Resident to New Zealand to bring law, order and protection to all the people of New Zealand, but without forces this was virtually impossible. He was known amongst the Maoris as, "the man of war without guns".

Busby did, however, introduce a national flag to New Zealand in 1835 to give recognition of her Sovereignty and Independent status. He also had 35 Northern Chiefs sign a Declaration of Independence, with the King using his influence internationally and giving his assurance that he would protect the Maoris and their land as long as it was consistent with the just rights of others and the interests of the British settlers. The signatories to this Declaration pledged to meet annually and to form a government for the promotion of peace, justice and trade, but the ever present intertribal tension and fighting took precedence over political co-operation, as always, and it was abandoned the following year. It finally became evident that the Maoris could never form a united government to bring law, order and protection to all the people of New Zealand. The Maoris knew what Sovereignty meant in 1835 when they selected a national flag and signed the Declaration of Independence.

In 1837, another serious outbreak of intertribal fighting began in many parts of New Zealand and, again, the chiefs and the settlers asked Britain to intervene. For two years the Colonial Office in Britain debated the best way to become involved in New Zealand. It was decided, with extreme reluctance, to send William Hobson to negotiate a cession of Sovereignty from the Maoris. This would allow Britain to set up a legal government to bring law, order and protection and to investigate and settle land sales, claims and disputes. By this time, up to two thirds (60-80,000) of Maori had been killed, enslaved or adversely affected by the intertribal fighting. There were also 28 known onshore whaling stations plus, many business, farms and timber mills and over 2000 non-Maori living and working in New Zealand, which had to be protected. Maoris held the legal power/Sovereignty in New Zealand prior to 1840.

William Hobson arrived in New Zealand on the 29th January 1840 with fully detailed instructions from the Colonial Office to negotiate a Treaty, if possible, for cession of Sovereignty from the Maoris, but without force. They must willingly understand, agree and consent to the treaty or the British could not become involved.

BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereignty was ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Waitangi on the 6th February 1840. Hobson claimed British Sovereignty on the 21st May 1840 over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by discovery. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on the 2nd October 1840.

From this day on, New Zealand became British soil under British rule and law. While all British subjects "inherited" all the rights as if in Britain, all rights were extinguished from the Maori by the signing of the Treaty. They ceded their Sovereignty to Britain, therefore gave up all their Independent Sovereign rights within New Zealand forever.

This was acknowledged by Maori leader and first Maori MP, Sir Apirana Ngata, when he quoted in 1922, "If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong".

THE TREATY OF WAITANGI - AN EXPLANATION

The Preamble of the Treaty explained why New Zealand's Sovereignty must be ceded to Britain if a legal Government was to be set up to bring law, order and protection to all the people of New Zealand. The Preamble ceded Sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain. The Preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi has been omitted from most Government publications since about 1986. Without the Preamble, we don't really know what the Articles are trying to legally state, which is very convenient in allowing the Treaty to be distorted for the benefit of one group of people. The Preamble is a vital part of the Treaty as it ceded Sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain and without it, the Article are therefore, meaningless.

Article one explained to Maori that they must give up their government now that they had given up their

Sovereignty in the Preamble.

Article two and three guaranteed to both Maori and all the people of New Zealand" (all races living in New Zealand), the same right as the British Subjects had "inherited" to their lands, dwelling and all their property. The Treaty gave no exclusive or undisturbed rights to Maori. It gave, "all the people of New Zealand, including Maori, equal rights under one law, one flag. This is the reason for Hobson's famous quote, "He iwi tahi tatou - We are now one people".

The Consent confirmed that the chiefs understood the meaning of the Treaty and accepted it and agreed to it all by signing their names or marks. Over the next few months, over 500 chiefs signed their names to the Treaty of Waitangi.

WHO HELD THE POWER NOW?

From 1840, New Zealand was controlled by the British Crown. On the 30 June 1852, New Zealand's Crown Colony ended and was replaced by; a National General Assembly of an Elected House of Representatives, an appointed Legislative Council and the Governor who held "supreme authority". The General Assembly soon found that the real power still lay with the Legislative Council, which was only answerable to the Governor.

The official designation, "Colonial" disappeared on the 26h September1907 and was replaced with "Dominion of New Zealand". Governor became Governor General in 1917.

Full and final autonomy/ self Government and Sovereignty occurred on the 25th November 1947. As Sovereignty/power was held by the British Crown until 1947, the government could not make laws or pass Acts without their authority.

In 1947, New Zealand became it own Sovereign State owned by all the people of New Zealand, who became New Zealand Citizens. Governments were then elected, by the people for the people.

THE CROWN

After 1947, the definition of the term "Crown" became very vague. No one really knew who or what it was. I have written to many Ministers over the years asking them who or what is the "Crown today", but they never replied. I wrote to Dr Don Brash on many occasions during February/March 2004, asking him to clearly define who was the "Crown" that the Government had vested the foreshore and seabeds into, but no reply. As the "Crown" is referred to on so many occasions in Government, why are they so reluctant to tell the people who or what it is? Could it be a mythical identity that Government hides behind, not really knowing who or what it is but giving them power to do with it what they like.

Prior to 1947, the "Crown" was the British Monarchy. The King was the Head of State and we, His Subjects, but in 1947 this all changed when we adopted the Statute of Westminster. While the King or Queen remained our Head of State, we became New Zealand Citizens with our own Sovereignty. At this stage the "Crown" within Government, became very vague and has remained so ever since.

The Government must come clean and tell the people who the “Crown” really is. We have a right to know. At your next meeting with your Member of Parliament, make sure you ask him, “Who is the Crown”?

PARLIAMENTARIANS FOR GLOBAL ACTION (PGA)

There are 43 present Members of Parliament who are committed members of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), formally known as Parliamentarians for World Order. Twenty nine from Labour, seven from National, four from the Greens, two from the Progressive Coalition and one from Act. These PGA M.P’s. hold key leadership positions in each of their respective parties. Ask your Member of Parliament if he is a member of the P G A and if he is, then ask him why?

All members signing up for any role within this organisation renounce all oaths and bonds to their own nation, their own countries national interests and sovereignty. They swear an oath of allegiance to the United Nations; to U N principles and laws; to U N World Sovereignty rights over any national rights and interests of their own country and its peoples. In other words, any New Zealand Politician’s oath or expression of promise of allegiance to New Zealand, is made null and void from the moment that same politician swears their allegiance to the U N.

These 43 New Zealand P G A politicians, have already signed and committed the people of New Zealand to over 4000 U N Charters, Resolutions, Conventions, Acts and Agreements etc, most of which are deliberately kept secret and hidden from us, the people of New Zealand. New Zealand has already committed her national Sovereignty and Identity to the United Nations but no politician is informing the people of New Zealand. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be signed later this year.

All the people of New Zealand must reject the PGA/U N control of our country. We must demand and permit ourselves to freely pursue our own chosen interests and destiny.

These 43 PGA Politicians want Maori and non-Maori to be divided by pushing the “Treaty of Trickery”. It is much easier to give our country away while we fight amongst ourselves. Maori and non-Maori must join forces as the Treaty intended, to fight these corrupt and evil politicians. This is our country, the Treaty made it so, so don’t let these traitors give it away while we fight amongst ourselves.

For further information, see http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/

WHO SIGNED THE TREATY?

It's a fact, William Hobson signed the Treaty of Waitangi on behalf of Queen Victoria, but who was the other party referred to, "as the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand"?

They are NOT Tangata Whenua or Indigenous. They were a race of people who had arrived in New Zealand about 300 years before Captain Cook. They were the people who had forced the Waitaha and Moriori from their lands. They were the people who had signed the Declaration of Independence with the King in 1835. They were the people who Hobson was "authorized to deal with". They were the people who had the authority, and had ceded their Sovereignty to Queen Victoria in 1840. They were the Natives of New Zealand who the Minister of Maori Affairs stated, "Were a distinct race, who at the time of colonisation were easily identifiable". So who are the Maori today?

WHO ARE THE MAORI TODAY?

The Maoris today are a new race of people created by Governments in Acts of Parliament over the years. The first being the Native Land Act of 1865. It became apparent by 1865 that many of the Native People in New Zealand had inter-married with races from other lands and therefore could no longer be classed as a "Natives of New Zealand". Since this time the Maoris have continued to inter-marry and the Native ancestry has become further and further diluted, forcing Government to amend the Acts many times. The reason to create this new race of people cannot be blamed on the Government or the non-Maori, but on the Natives themselves, who chose to inter-marry of their own free will.

Today, most Maori are so far removed from the "Native Race of New Zealand", that it would be impossible, except through the Acts, to say they where the people who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The Minister of Justice stated, "The need for the Acts arose from the inter-marriage between the Natives and the Pakeha. In fact, the various enactments of the 1865 Native Land Act clearly provided for such inter-marriage by including a definition of the people who were specifically affected by the Act, a recognition of the descendent of any Native, could identify themselves as Maori".

Our past Race Relations Conciliator, Mr John Clark wrote, "Maori today are a race of people with Maori ancestry as one sees in legislation". Ian Peters, MP for Tongariro stated at a One New Zealand Foundation AGM, "It is only common sense that we should have a person with less than 50% Native blood, expecting all the rights and privileges, that were promised or guaranteed in the Treaty of Waitangi, over his fellow New Zealanders". All these prominent people know that Maori are not indigenous and are not the people who signed the Treaty, so why can't the Government.

Up until 1956, the Electoral Act stated, "A Maori, other than a half caste, shall not be qualified to be registered as an elector of any European electoral district". Thus we have over 100 years of legal precedent declaring that "Maori" means a person of 50% Native ancestry or above. This is the only legal way of defining, "Who is a Maori"? Anything else is a sham, but Government continues to enforce these unrealistic definitions on the people of New Zealand who cannot claim some minute trace of Maori ancestry. Today, anyone can become a Maori under the law if they so wish

TREATY PARTIES NO LONGER EXIST

The Treaty of Waitangi was a contract and for a contract to remain valid, both parties to the contract must continue to exist. Therefore the Treaty of Waitangi is only valid for those Maori who have 50% Native ancestry or more. The fact that there are relatively few, if any, of these people will never change that fact. The Maoris have bred themselves out of being a party to the Treaty of their own free will and no one can change that now.

With this historic definition of Maori so pre-determined, any re-definition of Maori is a moving of the “goal posts”. The Maori party to the Treaty must be 50% Native ancestry or more. There can be no resurrection for one of the Treaty parties. Our Governments and the Maori activists have made and are continuing to make, all sorts of attempts to re-define "Maori", but the fact remains, they have bred themselves out of being a party to the Treaty of their own free will and no one can change that now!

In a Census in the 1990's, while filling in my Census form, I decided to ring the help desk as I am a sixth generation New Zealander and was concerned I might have some Maori ancestry and whether I should fill it in as a Maori or "other". The gentleman told me, "If I felt like a Maori then I should fill in the form as a Maori". From this it has got to such a stage that "Feeling like a Maori" makes you a Maori, but this is a sham, it is corrupt and it must be stopped. It is wrong for one party to the Treaty can continually change the rules while "the others" are forced to pay the bills. A contract is a contract and both parties to it must remain the same "identities", otherwise it becomes null and void.

OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT

The Treaty of Waitangi was our founding document, but it should have ceased to play any part in New Zealand affairs after 1947, as by that time, both party's no longer existed in New Zealand. The Treaty allowed the British Crown to cede Sovereignty and to form a legal Government to bring law and order and protection to New Zealand and made the chiefs, tribes and all the people of New Zealand British Subjects, but in1947 the British Crown granted New Zealand autonomy and Sovereignty and all the people, including Maori, became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law. By rights, the Treaty was our founding document, but after 1947 it became obsolete in New Zealand's affairs. It had served its purpose.

MAORI ARE NOT INDIGENOUS

Maori are not Indigenous to New Zealand for the following reasons;

1. They were not the first people to settle in New Zealand, something Government is too afraid to explore, but it's true. See www.celticnz.co.nz

2. They have inter-married with people from other lands until today their ancestry has become so diluted they can no longer be classed as a Native of New Zealand. This has been confirmed by the many Acts of Parliament to define a Maori as their ancestry became further and further diluted.

3. They signed the Treaty of Waitangi; which ceded their Sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain. They then became British Subjects until 1947, when they became New Zealand Citizens with the same rights as, "all the people of New Zealand".

Minister Derek Quigley stated, "Maori Indigenous - what nonsense. Maori are not the indigenous people, nor does the Treaty of Waitangi purport to say that they are. Some New Zealanders, who happen to be Maori, arrived early, some came later and some are yet to come. We have too many cultures living in this country not to have one law applying to everyone".

THE U.N. DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

The United Nation's "Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" is to be signed this year by Government. This is to recognise the rights of Indigenous People by those countries willing to sign. How can our Government sign this Declaration when they have had to continually pass Acts (8 in total) to allow "Maori" to be recognized as "The Native people of New Zealand" as their ancestry became further and further diluted with people from other lands? Maori are not indigenous and never were, as other people inhabited New Zealand long before them. Today, they are New Zealand Citizens with some minute trace of Maori ancestry. They are not the people William Hobson was authorised to deal with or the people who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Today they are New Zealand Citizens.

THE U.N. DEFINITION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

There is no International agreed definition of Indigenous Peoples. In practice at the International level, the term includes a very wide variety of human societies including the “native” and “indigenous” peoples of the South Pacific. The so called Indigenous people themselves insist on the principle of self-identification and see efforts to impose definitions on them as an affront to their right to self-determination. (I bet they do!!) The principle of self-identification has been accepted by the International Labour Organisation (Convention 169, Article 1 (2)) and by the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (Comment; Even the U.N. does not have a definition of Indigenous People)

Maori today, as our Race Relations Conciliator stated, "Are a race of people, with Maori ancestry, as one sees in legislation". They are not Indigenous.

EXTRA COPIES OF THIS BOOK CAN BE OBTAINED FROM;

ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.

P.O.BOX 1,

AWANUI,

NORTHLAND,

NEW ZEALAND.

PRICE $5-00 each or $4-00 each for 5 or more.

MEMBERSHIP FORM

FOR THE ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.

To become a member of the One New Zealand Foundation Inc., please complete the following details and return to:

One New Zealand Foundation Inc.,

P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand.

Please print clearly.

Mr/Mrs/Ms

Surname___________________ First Name_______________

Address_____________________________________________

Subscriptions: Single $35-00. Double $50-00. Seniors $25-00

Annual Subscription $____________Donation $____________

Please make cheques to: One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Receipt required Yes/No

Your financial and moral support are essential for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. to achieve its aims.