On the other side, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has committed his party to introducing binding Citizens’ Initiated Referenda if NZ First is part of the next government.

Now throw into the already volatile mix a long-lost version of the Treaty of Waitangi that changes the entire meaning of the politically-correct version currently being used by the Government, and you’re effectively throwing gasoline on the fire.

More on the lost Treaty in a moment, but first some background: back in February 2000, Investigate published a series of articles indicating that our current Parliamentary system and Government are illegal. Without re-litigating the issue in depth, the argument essentially runs that up until 1986 the New Zealand Parliament’s constitutional right to govern only flowed from the authority of the British Government, in London. That’s because when the 1852 Constitution Act set up the NZ parliamentary system, it was establishing a colonial settler government acting under the aegis and authority of Mother England. While the settlers could elect their own government, that government had to operate within certains rules and regulations and a Parliamentary system imposed upon it by law from Britain. That 1852 Act remained in force until 1986.

In 1986 the Lange Labour Government forced through a new Constitution Act, effectively declaring New Zealand’s independence from Britain overnight.

As a principle of constitutional law, and ordinary logic, the New Zealand Parliament had just sawn off the tree branch it was sitting on - by declaring independence, its own authority to govern ceased to exist, because its real authority didn’t actually rest on the popular vote from election day - which merely changed the governing party - but on Parliament’s right to exist.

A good analogy can be found on the roads: you might have a current driver’s licence (the Government elected every three years) but you still can’t drive if your car no longer has a valid registration (Parliament’s constitutional registration cancelled).

Because Lange did not recall Parliament and seek a fresh voter mandate by way of referendum for the now-foundationless parliamentary system itself (he failed to re-register his vehicle), the New Zealand Parliament has been illegal since 1986.

Cut back to 2003, and only two options remain open: either give the people of New Zealand direct control over the political process through binding referenda - the NZ First position - or attempt to base parliamentary legitimacy squarely on the "partnership" principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Which is where Labour’s current obsession with Te Tiriti o Waitangi comes in.

The NZ First position is one of "popular sovereignty", in that it effectively places the citizens above their Parliament by making that institution ultimately accountable.

The Labour position is one of Crown sovereignty, in that it places the Crown and Maoridom (the treaty "partner") as rulers above the citizens, with no facility for the public to rein them in.

In fact, as this particular agenda becomes more entrenched, Labour will progressively move towards powersharing with unelected Maori representatives, as we’re already seeing in the legislation that appoints Maori to special unelected positions on local authorities and in government agencies.

As commentator Chris Trotter reflected in Sep-tember, our current At-torney-General Margaret Wilson has long had an ambition to make Te Tiriti the governing document for New Zealand. In 1998 while Dean of Waikato University’s Law School, Wilson presented a paper to the Ministry of Justice entitled "The Treaty of Waitangi, An Instrument For Constitutional Reform", where she wrote: "It is accepted that it is only a question of time before some form of constitutional recognition is given to the Treaty of Waitangi".

"Accepted by whom?" Trotter responded.

But by 1999, such policies were being echoed by Labour leader Helen Clark.

"Labour accepts the Treaty of Waitangi as New Zealand’s founding document and as the basis of constitutional government in this country."

Clark was also well aware that by pitching itself as a "Treaty partner", Labour could enjoy joint-rule over New Zealand if it played its cards right.

"By signing that Treaty," said Clark, "the Crown guaranteed the rights of hapü and undertook to protect them. The Crown also recognised Mäori as co-signatories under the Articles of the Treaty. Labour is committed to fulfilling its obligations as a Treaty partner to support self determination for whänau, hapü, and iwi.

"As Labour Leader I am personally committed to leading a nation where members of whänau, hapü and iwi have the opportunity to control their own development and achieve their own objectives and where the Treaty of Waitangi is well understood by all."

By August 2002, Margaret Wilson’s cunning plan was being mouthed by her good friend Sylvia Cartwright, now appointed as Governor-General.

"The basis of constitutional government in this country," Cartwright said in her speech from the throne, "is to be found in its founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi."

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.

Up until recently - that is.

In 1989, while sorting through the detritus of their late mother’s estate, brother and sister John Littlewood and Beryl Needham discovered an envelope marked "Treaty of Waitangi" securely stashed inside an old linen drawer.

Gingerly opening the envelope, they discovered inside what appeared to be a final draft of the Treaty, written in English and dated February 4th, 1840.

The main text is crystal clear on the issue of "sovereignty":

"Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint Mr. William Hobson, a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty 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 first

"The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] 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 lands, 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 the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

"Signed, William Hobson

"Consul and Lieut. Governor.

Yet in the modern translations, only the guarantee to the chiefs and tribes remains, the phrase "all the people of New Zealand" has been written out.

Thirdly, New Zealand’s Treaty grievance industry traces its own roots to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act. For reasons that no one has so far confessed to, the drafters of that Act referred back to a rough draft of the Treaty written by the senior British resident at Waitangi, James Busby, and dated 3rd February 1840. Keep a note of that date - the chronology is crucial.

Busby’s 3 February draft raises the contentious "forests and fisheries" issue that haunts Treaty settlements today. But significantly, the newly discovered February 4th draft has dropped that reference. Have successive New Zealand Governments been using an out of date Treaty draft for the past 29 years? It appears so.

Here’s how the original Treaty sequence went. The British proposed a Treaty, which initially was plotted out in English. Once both sides had finished haggling over basic principles and were prepared to get down to business, a final draft of the agreement was to have been written in English, from which an equivalent Maori version would then be drawn up for signing by the chiefs.

Because the final English draft has been missing for 150 years, the nearest English version that the Maori could have been translated from was Busby’s February 3 document.

"At the present time in this country," explains historian Martin Doutré, "the most sought-after historical document is William Hobson’s original English draft copy from which the (Maori) Treaty of Waitangi document was made. The loss from historical scrutiny of this all important draft has allowed conniving individuals to assign heretofore unheard of "interpretations" to the Maori text of the Treaty. Although the true, intended meanings within the Maori text are preserved in "back translations" into English completed in the mid-1800’s, modern Treaty "revisionists" still maintain that, without Hobson’s original draft, they’re allowed to read into the Maori text all manner of nuances of meaning.

"Thus far, such "reinterpretations" have cost New Zealanders up to $8 billion and now, it seems, activist political factions in Maoridom and their "big business" helpers will not be content until they’ve wrestled full and final "Sovereignty" into their personal possession. The general mood in New Zealand is deteriorating very rapidly and the days when we lived in genuine mutual harmony are long gone."

Which is why Doutré has just put that cat among the pigeons by posting the latest Treaty on his website, celticnz.co.nz.

Key to his claims about the new Treaty, however, is its authenticity. Is it, could it really be, the final draft of the Treaty - the English version that the signed Maori text is based on?

To answer that question we return to the Littlewood family in Auckland, and the circumstances of their discovery.

His precise arrival date in New Zealand remains shrouded in the mists of history, but he was certainly well enough known here by June 1840 to rate a mention in the Colonial Gazette. There is a possibility he may even have assisted with the Treaty preparations.

The document found by his great-grandchildren, John Littlewood and Beryl Needham in 1989 has become known officially as "The Littlewood Treaty".

Again, after this length of time we can only speculate about how the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, upon which the Maori version is based, came to be in Henry Littlewood’s possession.

"In 1992," recalls Doutré, "a furore began to build when the public got wind of a new Treaty document having been discovered. From former, initial indifference shown toward the remarkable find, the very private and unassuming Littlewood family were suddenly thrust into the spotlight, with news media people ringing to arrange interviews or interest groups converging to access information. Some frantic calls came in to the Littlewood’s from the National Archives, with requests to virtually "jump on a plane immediately" and get the document down to their premises in Wellington. The Archives were, seemingly, very concerned by the document’s content.

"Beryl Needham, sister of John Littlewood and the first to locate the document in a drawer, did a small television appearance at the time the story broke and recounted some details of the find. Later, John received a phone call from a trusted confidante, very much ‘in the know’, to get the document out of the house and safely deposited with the National Archives, as there was a very good chance it would be forcibly taken from their home.

"John was informed that Maori groups who had read its copied content were very concerned that it didn’t mention anything about "forests or fisheries". Two days after that disquieting phone call, John and Barbara Littlewood drove to Wellington and officially deposited the valuable document into the safety of the National Archives. They were promised that it would be cared for, the handwriting tested for identification by a handwriting expert, that any needed restoration to the paper would be carried out and that it would go on full public display in the Archive’s "Constitution Room".

Initially, however, the response from archivists was said to be "lacklustre". If this was the Treaty’s "missing link", the doucment that could overturn all the modern interpretations of Te Tiriti, then National Archives certainly wasn’t getting overly excited about it.

Cheif archivist Kathryn Patterson wrote to John Littlewood advising him that at first glance the document only appeared to be a translation of the Maori version back into English, not the original English version translated into Maori. As such, it couldn’t be the "missing link".

Significantly, Patterson added:

"The identity of the person who wrote the document is not Henry Littlewood nor a person well known to historians and may never be established."

And there the matter might have remained. Doutré likened the Archives’ decision to file the Littlewood Treaty away to the final scene in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Ark of the Covenant is filed on a government shelf somewhere deep in a secret location next to the alien body from Roswell and above the body of the three metre tall giant.

But neither Doutré nor John Littlewood reckoned on the curiousity of a researcher nearly eight years later.

"Recently," reports the National Archives website, "Phil Parkinson of the National Library has examined both the document and related Archives file. He has come to the conclusion that the copy of the Treaty is in the handwriting of James Busby, the British Resident and Hobson’s secretary."

The historical importance of this should be immediately apparent, and will be expanded on shortly, but Archives still have a problem with the 4 February date. If that date is correct, then it means the Littlewood document, rather than Busby’s notes from 3 February, would have been used as the basis for the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act if it had been available.

Naturally, such an admission would cause chaos to the Treaty grievance industry, a factor Doutré also picks up on.

"Well, obviously the establishment are disturbed by the implications and threats posed by having the document dated the "4th of February"," he notes on his website.

"It’s normal practice to date a letter or document in accordance with the date it’s written. We know from other documents that the official draft for the Treaty of Waitangi was written on the 4th of February and finished before 4pm on that day. It was then handed to missionary, Henry Williams at 4pm on the 4th of February for translation into the Maori text. Translation proceeded through the night and the final "Maori version of the document was ready before 10am the following morning.

"The English language draft copy was an "official document" and the precursor to the Treaty of Waitangi. For reasons of historical clarity the date added to the document had to convey the date of its creation.

"There is no substance to the assumption that the document bears the wrong date. Evidence clearly shows that the Maori version document had the date left off it until it was positively known when or if the signing would take place. That date would only be added as the signing ceremony got underway.

"The Treaty of Waitangi presentation to the chiefs and assembled crowd got underway at midday on the 5th of February. The document was not initially anticipated to be signed by the chiefs until the 7th (at the earliest), after a very extended "hui" discussion through consecutive nights. The fact that the chiefs had already decided by dawn of the 6th and wished to sign their approval on the 6th of February came as a surprise to Hobson.

"It’s absolutely obvious that all dates were left off the Maori version of the document until the moment of signing was agreed upon. The intense hui discussion could have gone on for many days and it would have been a grave insult to "tell them to hurry up". These were very weighty matters, dealing with the very "Sovereignty" of the country. The chiefs had never before been called upon to make such far reaching, irrevocable decisions on behalf of their people or themselves.

"Sir James Henare, the last surviving member of the Council of the Chiefs of Ngapuhi of the Treaty of Waitangi stated in 1987: ‘Captain Hobson arrived on the 5th 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 the Treaty and it was the Maori version that was given to them to consider. So that they retired to the Marae, the Waitangi Marae, and there that night they debated as to whether they should sign the Treaty. So in the early hours of the morning on the 6th they finally arrived at a consensus - they would sign the Treaty’ (see Hobson...Governor of New Zealand 1840-1842, by Paul Moon, pp 104-105)," writes Doutré.

1. "If, therefore, you have a number of identical "ENGLISH" copies of the Treaty of Waitangi, written up within the same month as the original was written in English and conveying the exact same meanings for each sentence, then why are we now (since 1975) using an utterly distorted and radically different version from the original, with completely different meanings?

"The version being used to create the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act is "James Busby’s rejected draft". Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson scrutinised this draft on the 3rd of February 1840 and insisted on it being changed to comply with stringent wording requirements of the Colonial Office. Article two was supposed to read: ‘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 lands, dwellings and all their property’.

2. "Why did all non-Maoris get "written out of the Treaty" in 1975 when you had the Clendon version in your possession, dated 20th February 1840 (two weeks after the Treaty was signed)? Why didn’t you use the Clendon version or other near identical versions, which had been sent in diplomatic pouches to overseas countries, when writing the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act?

"Other February 1840 copies for reference included: An English-language copy in Hobson to Gipps (N.S.W.), 5-6 February 1840, CO 209/6, 46-54 and an English-language copy in Hobson to Gipps (N.S.W.), 16 February 1840, CO 209/7, 13-15. James Busby’s raw draft notes of the 2nd and 3rd of February 1840 are historically recognised as having been changed and reorganised by Hobson into yet another final document (which went missing). Historians have long-since commented on the remarkable difference in meaning between the Maori text and the ad hoc, reconstructed English text, based upon Busby’s rough notes of the 2nd & 3rd of February, 1840. A significant part of this problem relates to the fact that the Maori version back-translates perfectly to include, "all the people of New Zealand", whereas the defective English version does not.

3. "The original agreement, presented at Waitangi on the 5th of February 1840 and accepted by the Chiefs on the following day, said nothing about Forests and Fisheries (Busby’s preliminary and rejected draft of the 3rd of February 1840, which was fully changed in his final draft of the 4th, the Littlewood Treaty), nor was it referring exclusively to Maori rights only.

"The 1975 Waitangi Act uses this - now shown to be false - translation: ‘Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession’;

"Whereas, the true text actually said (1840): ‘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 lands, dwellings and all their property’. This understanding is reaffirmed by back-translations of the Maori text in the 1860’s, such as:

"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 (Translated From the Original Maori by, Mr. T. E. Young, Native Department).

Or in another case:

"The Queen of England acknowledges and guarantees to the chiefs, the tribes, and all the people of New Zealand, the entire supremacy of their lands, of their settlements and all of their personal property (Text from J Noble Coleman, A Memoir of the Rev. Richard Davis, London 1865 pp. 455-56).

"Knowing how fluent in Maori language Reverend Henry Williams was, and more especially his son Edward (a linguist in the Nga-Puhi dialect, par excellence), it has always been a huge mystery that the Maori and English versions of the Treaty are so radically different in their wording. One historian writes: ‘...it is impossible to regard the Maori version [of the Treaty] as quite complete, although it carries the highest authority, nor the English ones as authoritative, although they are far more explicit. Like many dramatic texts, each has been born, here maimed and deformed, on the pressures of context’ (see Hobson... Governor of New Zealand 1840-1842, by Paul Moon, pg. 109; quote by D.F. McKenzie).

"The facts of the matter," argues Doutré, "are considerably more simple: Because Hobson’s and Busby’s final, completed draft of February 4th 1840 was lost from public view for about 150 years, historians reverted to using Busby’s rough notes of February 3rd 1840 when attempting to reconstruct an English version.

"This exercise was doomed from the beginning, as Busby’s rough notes (held in the Archives) offered a wide variety of choices for differing clauses and ideas, several of which never even came close to being incorporated into the final English or Maori documents. The finished and carefully worded English version, handed to Reverend Henry Williams on the 4th of February 1840 for translation into the Maori text, was the "Littlewood Treaty". This document, penned by Busby on the 4th of February, parallels the later Maori version clause by clause. The totality of meaning found in one is mirrored by the other in perfect balance and eloquence.

"Twenty three years after the event, when discussing the mental attitude of Maori towards the treaty, the Rev. John Warren, one of the Wesleyan missionaries, wrote:

"I was present at the great meeting at Waitangi when the celebrated treaty was signed, and also at a meeting which took place subsequently on the same subject at Hokianga. There was a great deal of talk by the natives, principally on the subject of securing their proprietary right in the land, and their personal liberty. Everything else they were only too happy to yield to the Queen, as they said repeatedly, because they knew they could only be saved from the rule of other nations by sitting under the shadow of the Queen of England. In my hearing they frequently remarked, "Let us be one people. We had the gospel from England, let us have the law from England."

"My impression at the time was that the natives perfectly understood that by signing the treaty they became British subjects, and though I lived amongst them more than fifteen years after that event, and often conversed with them on the subject, I never saw the slightest reason to change my opinion. The natives were at the time in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when they placed the British lion between themselves and the French eagle...’ (see, The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick pp. 281-282).

"The situation in 1840," says Doutré, "is not difficult to understand. A British colony was being created, which would be equally beneficial to all New Zealanders, newly arrived settlers and long-term Maori residents alike. All would become British subjects together. Maori would retain the lands that they occupied, as well as their physical possessions. All the people of New Zealand would be protected by British law, based upon the principles of Magna Carta. Maori had the option to sell whatever lands they wished to dispose of to the Colonial Government, which would then on-sell it to incoming settlers."

According to Maori historian and Treaty researcher, Jean Jackson, Maori were "lining up to sell unwanted parcels of land." Missionary, Henry Williams, who translated Hobson’s final English Treaty document (the Littlewood Treaty) into Maori and who also wrote a Maori Dictionary, which is still used authoritatively today, defined the Maori term "taonga" as "property and goods". The meaning, as written into the Treaty, was in the simple context of land that one occupied and physical possessions that one owned. It did not mean "spiritual treasures", although Maori, along with anyone else in New Zealand, could maintain whatever religious beliefs they wished...as long as such beliefs didn’t encroach upon the rights of others.

Doutré again: "All parties in 1840, on both sides, understood the clear meaning of the simple "contract" being entered into and embraced it quite happily and without much reservation, as the best option for the future of the country.

"It is only "modern" exploiters who have selfishly tried to redefine the meaning of the Treaty for the purpose of public asset plundering and, in so doing, have been obliged to throw away the whole Treaty agreement and replace it with "Five Legal Principles". If ever these greedy exploiters refer to the Treaty, it’s only Busby’s raw "English draft" of the 3rd of February 1840 that gets any honourable mention. The literal Maori text, which parallels the Littlewood Treaty text in English is always pushed far into the background. No plundering of New Zealand is possible if the Maori version, based upon 1840’s understandings and meanings, is literally and religiously adhered to.

"It is well known that Busby’s draft was a very preliminary document, rejected by Lieutenant-Governor Hobson and subjected to changes in the final version written on the 4th of February 1840 (the Littlewood Treaty document). This English document, coupled with the Maori version that was translated directly from it, constituted the only true and legally binding "Treaty contract"... addressing the needs of ALL New Zealanders equally. Anything less than this protection of the rights of everyone concerned would have been abhorrent to, and rejected out of hand by, the Colonial Office. Their objective was to set up a British Colony composed of British subjects, subservient to Queen Victoria and British law.

"As former Prime Minister, David Lange, told Sir Paul Reeves on Australian Four Corners TV..."Did Queen Victoria, for a moment, think of forming a partnership with a number of signatures, a number of thumb prints and five hundred people? Queen Victoria was not that sort of person."

"One wonders," argues Doutré, "how the American people would react if their government "scrapped" all but one (recently modified) sentence of their founding document, The American Constitution, then replaced it with "Five Legal Principles". Yet this is exactly what successive governments, since 1975, in collusion with "big business interests" and Maori militants, have done to defraud ALL New Zealanders...a planned process of divide and rule! What unbelievable audacity and arrogance on the part of the government, coupled with equally unbelievable apathy and mediocrity on the part of the people (sheeple) of New Zealand!"

Strip away the polemic of Doutré’s position, and you still can’t escape a cold hard reality:

The Maori version, if translated literally, promises equal rights to all New Zealanders under one law. But the Maori version underwent progressive ‘re-translation’ over the past 163 years to make it fit with the political and economic aspirations of a significant chunk of Maori Labour voters.

Treaty "scholars" justified their re-translation on the grounds that there was no English draft left in existence to show their interpretations were wrong.

Well, now there is.

Now that the Littlewood Treaty is out in public the Treaty grievance industry is at serious risk of being booed off the stage as more New Zealanders become aware of the existence and contents of it.

The irony is - if the Littlewood document was to be officially acknowledged by Labour as the genuine Treaty, rather than Busby’s rough notes from the day before, then few could argue that the Littlewood document and the Treaty would deserve some respect as a worthy constitutional statement.

But Labour may not get the chance to do that. The party’s left wing, its Maori wing and the Greens will bitterly fight any effort to accept the Littlewood Treaty.

Which leaves the way open for New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, riding the Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda white horse, to come charging in at the next election and take a substantial chunk of power away from the Left, thanks to voters who’ve had enough of the whole Treaty debate.

Watch this space.