True Waitangi treaty suppressed, says author

New Zealand's official version of the Treaty of Waitangi is a house of cards that Martin Doutre wants to blow down.
The author of The Littlewood Treaty was in Wanganui yesterday to counteract a Government-funded campaign aimed at "educating" the public about the Treaty of Waitangi's validity.
At his side were One New Zealand Foundation historian Ross Baker and Northlander Allan Titford, who lost his farm in bitter circumstances several years ago.
All three told the Chronicle of their frustration with governments and a nobbled news media.
"For the last 25 or 30 years we have been using the wrong Treaty of Waitangi wording," Mr Doutre said.
"Instead of using the Maori version, we've been using a composite made up from the rough draft notes compiled from the end of January (1840) up to about the third of February," he said.
These were made solely for dispatch overseas and were not intended to stay in New Zealand.
In his book Mr Doutre said treaty historians and experts acknowledged that the final English draft, which provided the text for the Maori translation, went missing in February, 1840.
From historical references it was known that the document was written by the British Resident, James Busby. Captain William Hobson handed the final draft to Rev Henry Williams on February 4 for translation into the treaty.
In 1989 an English language version was found in Pukekohe when members of the Littlewood family were sorting out an estate.
This old sheet of paper was subsequently proven to be in Busby's handwriting, Mr Doutre said. It was authenticated.
Despite promises to the Littlewood family in 1989 and to the general public in 1992 that a forensic analysis would be undertaken to determine the pedigree and historical significance of the Littlewood document, no results were released to the public.
"This gross dereliction of duty requires a full explanation from our authorities, especially in view of the fact that traditional Treaty of Waitangi interpretations have undergone such radical revision in the past three decades."
He said legislators knowingly used a rejected and discarded early rough draft of the treaty when fashioning and interpreting the law, though it was superseded by a final draft.
Since 1975 deliberate distortions of the treaty's meanings led to much aggravation, division and hardship for New Zealanders.
"Social engineers, opportunists and political activists, in collusion with their highly paid lawyers, have spun such a web of legalese deceit around the treaty as to render its original intents incomprehensible," Mr Doutre wrote.
"All of our legislation is based on this false wording," he told the Chronicle.
Mr Doutre said the valid version gave rights for all the people of New Zealand.
"But we have a document of unification that stood perfectly for over 125 years, which was changed into a document of apartheid."
The Littlewood document, dated February 4, 1840, was dismissed by the Government as a back translation.
"But there was no Maori tiriti o Waitangi until the fifth. It can't be a back translation, because it preceded te tiriti o Waitangi."
He called on the Government to come clean.
"They've hidden it away and allowed the grievance industry to lumber on."
Asked whether politicians of any flavour could be trusted to sort out the issue, Mr Doutre said: "Historians should go in and assess the documentation clinically and give the results, warts and all."
He expressed frustration at a virtual blackout in the news media, including a refusal to review the book.
"It should be a point of major discussion round New Zealand."