SO, WHERE DID THIS "TREATY-PROPAGANDA" SIDE-SHOW IDEA SPRING FROM ANYWAY?

In Dr. Michael Cullen's budget speech of Thursday, 15 May 2003, he announced how $6.5 million dollars of taxpayer's money was to be allocated for, 'a programme of public information on the Treaty of Waitangi. This should assist both Pakeha and Mâori in arriving at a better understanding of the Treaty and its relevance to contemporary issues'. This money was to be used over a three year period and was a "follow-on" from yet another $6.5 million allocation in the 1999 budget, specifically for Maori Education. In both 1999 & 2003 it appears that large portions of the funds were handed over to The Ministry of Maori Development (Te Puni Kokiri).

'Labour promised a treaty education campaign in 1999, but dragged its heels on the issue, worried about being accused of pushing an ideological agenda'. (see article by political reporter, Ruth Berry, 20/10/2003).

With the 2003 allocation of $6.5 million, it's a little unclear how the huge wad was finally divvied-up, but a Treaty of Waitangi Education Programme in-the-making was announced, to deal with the treaty's 'relevance to contemporary issues'.

So, the main thrust of the exercise was to demonstrate how the Treaty of Waitangi content impacted upon modern government decision making, based upon how the Treaty of Waitangi was being interpreted, by some, within contemporary New Zealand society.

Some initial moves were made to launch the programme and, in late 2003, a huge billboard appeared on the side of a Wellington building, portraying the Maori treaty wording sitting alongside the "official" English text. The prevailing, although uncertain, idea at the time seems to have been to hold a series of treaty lectures at maraes and other venues around the country and to establish a Government run Treaty of Waitangi website.

In October 2003, because of mounting criticism, it was found necessary to remove Margaret Wilson and Parakura Horomia from fronting the Treaty Information Unit (a latter development of the Treaty Education Programme) and replacing them with Trevor Mallard. Political Reporter, Ruth Berry wrote:

'The shift from an "education" to "information" programme was to head off potential criticism'.

The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, had already considered how politically dangerous an "education" programme of this nature was and how it might be construed by the public and other political parties as promoting a particular "ideological agenda", which is a nice way of saying "propaganda"or "indoctrination" .

THE ROCKY ROAD AHEAD

For about 30-years prior to The State Services Commission hatching a Treaty Information Unit, our treaty history, along with our entire colonial history, had been subjected to continuous radical revision by social engineers. Over a period of 3-decades, our treaty had been utterly reinterpreted and new buzzwords like "Partnership" or "Special Customary Rights" became "tag-ons" in the new treaty jargon of interpretation. For most New Zealanders, the treaty represented an ever-increasing yoke of bondage and source of vexation. Because of dabbling and interference from individuals like Geoffrey Palmer, David Lange Sir Hugh Kawhura and many others, our treaty became so utterly smothered in legalese that any hope of understanding its original intent became impossible. Older people could still remember when the Treaty of Waitangi was a benign and friendly document, which had provided the basis for a unified, progressive nation and carried us for about 135-years.

The success of the new Treaty Information Unit depended upon there arising no serious challenge to the treaty revisionism or reinterpretation that social-engineers wished to use in their brainwashing campaign against New Zealanders, but "the best laid plans of mice and men can go astray".

A couple of things happened in December 2003 and January 2004, which effectively hobbled the Treaty Information Unit's planned programme of ideological indoctrination. Investigate Magazine published an article, with ongoing commentary in subsequent issues, which challenged the very foundation upon which modern interpretations of the treaty were built. A long-standing, unresolved issue concerning the treaty's true intended wording was jettisoned back into the public arena. From that moment on planned government programme of educating the public about the treaty's true meaning and intent would first require addressing this outstanding issue.

Lingering questions about the status of a new-found treaty draft document in English, which the authorities promised the public would be forensically answered in 1992, had remained unanswered. The document found by the Littlewood family of Pukekohe, South Auckland in 1989 and handed over to the National Archives in 1992, showed all of the attributes of Hobson's "final English draft of the treaty", which our historians freely admitted had been "lost" in February 1840. In 1992 several leading historians speculated that the "Littlewood Treaty" was the much sought-after document that had eluded detection for over 150-years. Like the Maori language version Tiriti O Waitangi, this draft, dated the 4th of February 1840 guaranteed "equal rights" for all the people of New Zealand.

The December 2003 article by Ian Wishart, showing documented evidence that the treaty was all about "equality" appears to have provided Dr. Don Brash with a solid platform from which to launch his now famous "Orewa Speech" of January 2004. Like all the rest of us, Dr. Brash is bound by the laws that exist on the books and if Article II of the treaty gave Maori special customary rights, then Dr. Brash was required to acknowledge that fact. The discovery of Hobson's final draft in 1989 destroyed the myth that Maori are any different than anyone else under the Treaty of Waitangi. Both Te Tiriti O Waitangi and the English draft from which it was derived on the 4th & 5th of February 1840, guarantee EQUAL RIGHTS for all the people of New Zealand.

Investigate Magazine's article, containing pictures and text of the "Littlewood Treaty" document (William Hobson's final English draft) should have put the Treaty Information Unit on notice that no treaty education programme could be initiated without the status of the "Littlewood" document having been fully resolved through forensic scientific analysis.

In 1992 about the only thing that needed to be known, in order for the document found by the Littlewood family to qualify as Hobson's"lost" final English draft of the treaty, was to ascertain whether or not the author was British Resident, James Busby. In all other respects (paper age, based upon an 1833 W. Tucker watermark, layout and text, as well as written date at the bottom) the document was perfect. The government withheld knowledge of the true author from the public, but a minor leak occurred due to an in-house National Archives newsletter. In the year 2000, Dr. Phil Parkinson positively identified the author as James Busby, who was acting secretary to Hobson when the final drafting of the treaty occurred between the 3rd & 4th of February 1840.

After Dr. Don Brash gave his Orewa speech, there was a massive public outpouring of pent-up rage over what the Treaty Grievance Industry had done to the country. Dr. Brash's speech seemed to act as a catalyst and the feelings of the population of New Zealand could no longer be contained. Parliamentarians joined the fray and the debate of the House concentrated on this theme for the two months that followed. Prime Minister, Helen Clark initially tried the tactic of calling Dr. Brash a racist. To her great chagrin, however, she found that around 80% of New Zealanders polled were fully in support of Brash. She had to finally concede that the feelings of resentment running through the country were far deeper and more serious than she'd concluded and that she would have to take the polls very seriously. The fortunes of the National Party soared and they emerged from political obscurity to constitute a serious threat to the Labour-led government.

Because of the public response to Brash's speech, the governments new "treaty website" had to be aborted only 10-days after its launch in February 2004. The Marxist social historians and grievance-industry activists who wrote the content, obviously realised that the public weren't going to wear that degree of propaganda and everything would need to be toned down and moderated.

Officials now say it could be months before the website is operating, while material prepared by historian Claudia Orange is checked for historical accuracy and "reworked" for a general audience (article by Tracy Watkins, Dominion Post, 20th February 2004).

The emerging new information did not escape the attention of the Hon. Winston Peters who weighed the evidence in the balance and decided that we were definitely using the wrong English treaty wording in all of our legislation.

On the 18th of March 2004, New Zealand First Leader, Winston Peters, was quoted in the New Zealand Herald as supporting a move to recognise the "Littlewood Treaty" as the "official" English wording of the Treaty of Waitangi. He stated his belief that it was the "last English version" (final draft), which 'was set out to include all New Zealanders'. He had prepared a paper, which included this very important issue, for Prime Minister Helen Clark's consideration.

Clearly, Trevor Mallard had inherited a "dead duck" when he was handed the task of implementing the Treaty Information Programme in October 2003. In the few months that he'd had the job, the Treaty of Waitangi had really come under the spotlight and all the evidence showed that revisionist interpretations of the treaty, developed over the preceding 3-decades, were severely threatened or in need of serious review. The problem was that we were using one of James Stuart Freeman's "Royal Style" English texts in all of our legislation, which wording was never the Treaty of Waitangi. All along, we should have been using the solitary wording contained within the Maori text (the only true treaty), which is very fair and guarantees equal rights to all the people of New Zealand. If any dispute arose concerning what the Maori text meant, we could always refer to the final English draft. Although Hobson's final draft original was mislaid for 149-years until 1989, three further copies of this final draft version were sent to the United States in February and April 1840, and the whereabouts of at least two of these, in Washington D.C. and Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A. were always known to our treaty historians.

Mallard was now walking in a minefield. For the first time in years the grievance-industry fashioned pseudo-treaty was under major assault and serious flaws were appearing in the force-fed, Marxist revisionist arguments, related to what the treaty truly said or meant. A month after Winston Peters publicly announced his opinion that the "Littlewood Treaty" was, indeed Hobson's final draft and, as such, the only English language text of the treaty that could carry any weight or authority, Mallard made a face-saving public announcement of his own. At a formal gathering in Wellington on the 19th of April he spoke of the unveiling of the government's long awaited, revamped "treaty website", which would finally go on-line on the 29th of April 2004. It had only been allowed to run for 10-days after it was initially put up in February. The decision to "pull the plug" in February was blamed on how 'Its scheduled launch coincided with a massive public response to a speech by National Party leader Don Brash calling for an end to policies favouring Maori'.

By late April, a number of opposition politicians had been asking, rather loudly, what had happened to the $6.5-million dollars removed from the public purse for "treaty education"? The government had to come up with "some goods" double-quick as the whole farcical exercise was beginning to look quite ridiculous. The "toned-down" propaganda finally went on-line permanently on April 29th 2004, over 3-months after its scheduled launch date. Contributors to the treaty indoctrination scheme had been:

Dr Vincent O'Malley, David Armstrong, Bruce Stirling, Associate Professor Richard Hill, Dr Claudia Orange, Professor Alan Ward and Aroha Harris. Historians from the Waitangi Tribunal, Office of Treaty Settlements, Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Te Puni Kokiri and the Crown Law Office, Sir Paul Reeves, Professor James Belich, Mrs Lynette Stewart, Mr Peter Biggs, Ms Belinda Clark and Mr Leith Comer.

After the government got their website up, a dedicated "mirror website" www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz appeared immediately to give the public access to photo-originals of document and other very pertinent historical material that had been "all-too-conveniently" conspicuous by its absence in the government presentation. Amongst many other things, the mirror website demanded that the government address the outstanding issue of "Hobson's final English draft (the "Littlewood" document) found in 1989. At the same time, the website of the One New Zealand Foundation, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz demanded the same. The contention of these two websites was that it was impossible to have any informed discussion about the treaty until this lingering issue was resolved and all original treaty related documents were laid on the table for full public scrutiny. Despite the government website's 3-month makeover, it was still very thinly disguised Marxist propaganda in its content, which showed all the attributes of something crafted by politically motivated wordsmiths. The otherwise glossy PR presentation deliberately omitted highly important detail relevant to the treaty case.

STATE OF THE NATION...10/6/04

The next follow-on grievance-industry, PR attempt at salvaging some credibility was something heralded as, "State of the Nation". For this carefully pre-staged farce, Anita McNaught was shipped in from England to act as co-ordinator. The media hype that preceded the T.V. screening promised a no-holds-barred, knockdown, drag-out fight, where all contenders could exude their pent up rage. This was to be a clearing house for people to tell how they truly felt about the treaty and all the other sickening, divisive cancer that had inflicted itself upon the country for several years. The studio gallery was divided into two main eyeballing camps of European and Maori gladiators and the stage was set for the ensuing bloodbath. After McNaught's intro, the camera panned almost immediately to a sour-faced and righteously indignant member of the European audience, who with gushy platitudes towards the supposedly opposing, Maori-adversary camp unleashed his verbal, back-stabbing tirade against the his fellow Europeans.

Oh, I see, said I... a fifth columnist plant in the European camp, deliberately placed there and all-too-conveniently consulted in the first instance for the purpose of stifling the "British" colonial case from the outset. Oh, thought I, this is actually going to be a stringently controlled two-hour propaganda exercise for the benefit of the grievance-industry. Nothing that I saw thereafter dissuaded me from those initial conclusions.

 

Anita McNaught was flown in from Britain to front the next "grievance-industry" PR exercise. The next day, National M.P. Gerry Brownlee told NZPA the programme demonstrated the poor calibre of TVNZ current affairs reporting. "It was the ultimate television cure for insomnia," he said. "The presenters were very, very poorly prepared, their research was appalling and they appeared to have no understanding of what they were actually about."

Kerry Woodham (British colonial) and Robert Rakete (Maori) were to act as the "cheerleader" advocates, representing the hardnose opposing views of each camp. Daintily interspersed throughout the two hour programme were a series of grievance-industry "commercials" misrepresented as "fact-statements", the sole purpose of which were to pump out propaganda denigrating the British contribution to the nation. Typical of these very misleading pseudo-history snippets was the one where Robert Rakete led Kerry Woodham around Auckland City to demonstrate how cruelly the Ngati-whatua iwi had been ripped-off by the Hobson Government in 1841 and thereafter. Amidst the real-estate splendour of a modern, developed City, Rakete spoke of the paltry beads and trinkets handed over to defraud and dispossess Maori of all of this amazing wealth. Woodham accepted Rakete's "oh-so-true" version of events compliantly and soberly. My god!...what a pack of conniving, thieving bastards those Brits were....!!!

In other words, the much touted, "spontaneous" outpouring that was to be at the heart and soul of "State of the Nation" was pre-crafted to stack the deck in favour of the grievance-industry. The trusting New Zealand public were sitting in on a, largely, choreographed infomercial.

In reflection, perhaps the "great-white-hope" champion, Kerre Woodham could have mentioned how a delegation of Ngati-whatua had travelled up to the Bay of Islands to implore Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson to "please-please" come down an make Auckland the Seat of Government and Capital City. Perhaps she could have mentioned that Hobson initially bought 3000 acres of, largely, crab-infested salt-marsh mangrove mudflats, bordered by some undulating hills and sheer cliffs, off Ngati-whatua. The splendid city that eventuated was largely built on reclaimed, sodden papa-sediments and wrestled out of the sea's ownership. Maori retained all of the good land around the Tamaki seafront.

The sum paid for the, largely, salt-marsh or rough and undulating 3000 acres for Auckland township was quite substantial, as were other land purchases made in ensuing years. Apart from the monetary portion, items like the much-cherished and sought after blankets, fabric or metal goods had to be imported from afar at considerable cost. In commenting about the government's early purchases, South Auckland historian, Henry E.R.L Wily stated that fifty years later, in the 1880's - 90's, many blocks of land could be purchased at a cheaper price that what the 1840's - 50's government initially paid the Maori owners.

A portrait (water-colour) of Freeman's Bay in 1860, by John Kinder. The foreground marshland and much of the background wetland, extending well out into the water shallows, had to be laboriously reclaimed over many decades of very hard work and continuous landfilling. The whole Auckland City waterfront, from the railway station to Mechanic's Bay and up inlets to as far as the Town Hall, had to be drained and filled. In recent years, even the ornate Civic theatre, situated near the Auckland Town Hall, had to undergo substantial renovations and stabilizing of its foundations in order to save it from receding into the sodden sea sediment land beneath it. By 1860 some houses dotted the skyline on the high ground ridge along which Hobson Street was constructed. John Logan Campbell, a pioneer who witnessed the very beginnings of Auckland township, mentions the experiences of an associate in his dealings with the Maoris:

'He had come to the country expecting to find them a very easy race to deal with, whereas in his land speculations, and, indeed, in everything else, he had discovered they were as acute as they were intelligent, very ready and willing to sell bad land at a good price, but always displaying sturdy obstinacy in not selling good land at any price at all'. (See Poenamo - Sketches Of The Early Days Of New Zealand, pp. 69 - 70, by John Logan Campbell, 1881, Edinburgh).

As stated, Hobson's Government was asked to move from the Bay of Islands to the Waitemata (Auckland) by such chiefs as Te Kawau of Ngati Whatua and his son Te Reweti Tamaki. Ngati Whatua chiefs had even travelled up to the Bay of Islands to finalise arrangements for the seat of government to move to Auckland. The first purchase of land by the Hobson government from Ngati Whatua was the 3000 acres that became downtown Auckland. By 1842 land as far South as Papakura had been sold by Maori owners to the Crown. By the 1850's large tracts of land, extending through Franklin & Manukau (Eden County) and southwest to parts of Northern Raglan had been purchased from the native owners. Early purchases on the south eastern side of the Auckland Isthmus included Clevedon and Miranda. 'Fifty years later it was possible to buy from the Crown sections at a lower price than they originally cost' (see: South Auckland, by Henry E.R.L. Wily, 1939, Franklin Printing and Publishing Company Ltd., Pukekohe, NZ).

So, If I ever feel some masochistic urge to be prosecuted for a crime I haven't committed, I'll call upon the talents of Kerre Woodham to be my cheerleader and advocate.

Amongst the Maori contingent of "State of the Nation" there seemed to be a very aware, "yell-you-down" and ever alert "Orchestra" waiting for their cue. Whenever it looked like there might be some really informed and damaging comment from such well-read and centred individuals as Allan Duff and others, the "Orchestra" would start up. Their "sounding brass" section would drown out unwanted or threatening "facts" entering the discussion, by a rising crescendo of abstract noise.

State of the Nation's panel of experts was interspersed with "gravy-train" lawyers who spoke in glowing admiration of the grievance industries legalese stance. Another one of these so-called "experts and opinion shapers" was Derek Fox, the failed Director of defunct and bankrupt "Maori Broadcasting", which managed to suck $120.85 million dollars out of the public purse between 1999 and 2004. Fox had to extricate himself from a bit of legal strife later, after making uninformed and unsubstantiated, accusations against Dr. Don Brash during the show.

During the State of the Nation pantomime, Derek Fox (left) publicly stated that Dr. Don Brash (right), Head of the National Party, had never read any reputable work on the Treaty of Waitangi. Fox, while directing comments at a member of the audience, said:

'And he's entirely representative - he's not alone - ah it's people like Don Brash. Don Brash has not read any reputable work on the Treaty. So how can we take the guy's opinion seriously? And this chap's opinion seriously, when he can't be bothered to read the document?'

In Dr. Brash's complaint about this comment to TVNZ, under Standard 5 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, it was stated:

'Dr Brash…is certainly familiar with both the English and Maori (translated) versions of the Treaty and also the 'Littlewood Treaty' version'.

On 11/10/06, Dr. Don Brash met with the One New Zealand Foundation delegation at Parliament and, in the presence of the Hon. John Carter, stated that: 'the Littlewood document is the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi'. This endorsement was also made by the Hon. Doug Woolerton, in the presence of the Hon. Pita Parone on the 12/10/06. The Hon. Winston Peter's stated the same in Parliament on 18/3/04. None of these individuals would have arrived at this milestone conclusion lightly and have had their research teams study the evidence very deeply before announcing their findings.

Sadly, the Littlewood Treaty (Hobson's final draft) was never allowed to be mentioned in the State of the Nation programme. If the issue had of been raised, it certainly would have sent the Orchestra into a fit of howling, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, which would have rivalled the clamour of the 1812 overture (with cannons).

On the "morning-after-the-night-before" Dylan Tipene summed it all up very eloquently for most of us in the Opinion section of Scoop:

The "State of the Nation" live debate on New Zealand's race relations status was beyond disappointing. The programme producers lofty goal of having a "long overdue" discussion was not realised - just tired old rhetoric and politically correct platitudes espoused by the vocal minority.
What was revealed was the level to which the New Zealand public (particularly Pakeha apologists) have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated with lies about our land and our history. Supposed "Principles" of the Treaty? "Taonga" meaning "treasure"?
No mention of the existence of the National Archives-ratified Littlewood Treaty, which will single-handedly eliminate the Treaty grievance industry once enough people know of its content? Clearly, the truth was a negotiable commodity this night.
What a great shame. All we really learnt was that the "State of the Nation" is simply two entrenched and divided rac aty of Waitangi - something I thought that we already knew. Thanks for nothing.
Yours faithfully
Dylan Tipene - Auckland NZ.

THE DOLDRUMS

The Treaty Information Unit seemed to go quiet after that, perhaps while they planned their next strategic move or what they could do. A fund was made available within their website for organisations prepared to teach about the Treaty of Waitangi. A close scrutiny of the application form, however, showed an insurmountable "Catch 22" for anyone but Maori. In order to qualify for funding one had to nominate their "iwi". Funding was, apparently only earmarked and available to Maori organisations who were willing to push the grievance-industry ideological wheelbarrow. For several months the Unit seemed undecided on what course of action to take in the indoctrination of the public. According to a report I received, an attempt was made to make some kind of formal "launch" of a presentation series, beginning at a Marae, during 2005. The TV News coverage of the launch at 6 p.m. showed it to be a complete disaster. Very stern looking kaumatuas in the audience stood up and, pointing accusingly at the presenter, made comment that the presentation was untrue. It was back to the drawing board, as that approach was definitely not going to work.

NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW

On March 4th 2005, The National Business Review Magazine published a lengthy article about the Littlewood Treaty (Hobson's final draft) and it's implications to contemporary interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi. For this, they sought out the leading treaty authorities for comment. The outwardly apparent result was that our authorities were very divided on the issue and had very conflicting views as to what the "Littlewood Treaty" could be. A vivid example of self-contradiction was found in the way that Graham Langton, a leading Archivist and Historian, wasn't able to realise that 1 + 1 = 2. In The NBR article he freely admitted that the Littlewood Treaty was "very likely" documentation from before the signing of the treaty on February 6. He went on to say it was probably a draft version and it was possible it was the final draft.

The fact is that our leading treaty historians have, at one time or other, indicated in their writing or commentary that the "Littlewood document", found in 1989, was the correctly dated final English draft of February 4th 1840. Here are some examples:

1. Dr. Phil Parkinson wrote: ‘Although nothing can be proven I think that what Hobson read [at Waitangi on the 5th of February 1840] was not the “Her most gracious Majesty . . .” text (which has a rather stiff and formal preamble) but rather the simpler and less formal Littlewood one “Her Majesty Victoria . . .” ..... Dr Orange, in a document of 5 October 1992, considered that Dr Loveridge was “probably correct” in deducing that the Littlewood document was “a translation of the Maori treaty” but what Loveridge said was that the “translation from the native document” and “the Maori version on which it was based” both bore the date of 6 February (rather than 4 February). But this is not really satisfactory. The Busby / Littlewood document of 4 February is not a translation of the Maori text of the treaty because that translation was written on 5 February, by Henry Williams.’ (see: Letter response from Dr. Phil Parkinson to Martin Doutré, 25507 Doutre, AT 13/19/4, 24th of December 2003). Red emphasis added.
   
   
2. Dr. Loveridge observes how Dr. Claudia Orange, 'was not entirely satisfied with my proposition that the “4th Feb. 1840” date on the Littlewood document was likely to have been the result of a copying error...'
   
   
3. ‘Archivist and historian Graham Langton said the Littlewood Treaty had “no status whatsoever” but unlike Dr. Parkinson’s view, said it was “very likely” it was documentation from before the signing of the treaty on February 6.
   Mr. Langton said “it was probably a draft version and it was possible it was the final draft but added: So what?” (see National Business Review, pg. 13, March 4, 2005). Red emphasis added.
   
   
4. ‘I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text’ (See excerpt from Dr. Paul Moon’s letter to treaty researcher, Ross Baker, 30/08/2004 and posted onto the O.N.Z.F. website).
   
   
5. ‘On 30th March, US Commodore Charles Wilkes, Antarctic explorer, arrived in the Vincennes to join his other ships Porpoise and Flying Fish. Damaged after their bruising exploration of the icy land, they reprovisioned and repaired their ships till late April. As he left Clendon gave him a further despatch containing a hand-written copy of the Treaty in English copied from Busby’s copy of the final draft. It is believed that Clendon then retained Busby’s copy of the Treaty’ (see The Treaty and Its Times, by Paul Moon & Peter Biggs, chpt. 9, pg. 213).

So, our so-called treaty experts are on record from as early as 1992 in accepting that the Littlewood document existed before the Waitangi assembly of the 5th of February 1840 and, over the years, the evidence has mounted, not lessened, in support of that unassailable conclusion.

A treaty "draft" can be defined as the "work-in-progress", written in English, leading up to "the final, finished draft" from which Te Tiriti O Waitangi was translated. We, undoubtedly, have most, if not all of the developing rough draft notes in English (16-pages) written out between January 30th and February 3rd 1840. We know from historical accounts that the final, refined and completed draft was written on the 4th of February 1840 by James Busby. The Littlewood treaty document is dated the 4th of February 1840 and is positively in Busby's handwriting. It can't, therefore, be a back-translation of the Maori, as there was no Maori text until the morning of the 5th of February 1840. This contention was supported by Dr. Phil Parkinson in 2003.

Graham Langton featured very prominently in the 2006 Treaty 2 U travelling roadshow and was part of the meet-the-public staff. He's on record as stating his belief in March 2004 that the Littlewood treaty was a "draft" and possibly the "final draft", but cannot, seemingly, bear to face the consequences of taking the next logical mental leap. Neither Graham Langton nor any of his "Revisionist" historian colleagues can produce one convincing morsel of evidence to show that this isn't the final draft, for which it qualifies in every conceivable historical test one wishes to subject the document to.

After what appears to have been an abortive first attempt at launching presentations around the county, which seemed to have been reliant on the hospitality and invitations extended from maraes, a new programme had to be devised. Somewhere between March and May 2005 a plan was hatched to have a travelling exhibition, incorporating a special fold out display trailer. It would seem that the programme architects considered that chances of embarrassing incidents of rejection would be greatly lessened. The only people who would be in attendance were those who opted to be there, (the converted) or forcibly bussed in from the local schools (lambs to the slaughter). Perhaps the architects realised that there are three kinds of lies... these are "lies, damned lies and statistics"...and if the tour was an abject failure the statistical results could be fudged, then subjected to gushy, enthusiastic Parliamentary outpourings to make it all sound like an overwhelming success.

PART THREE