ALAN RICHARDS PULLS CLEMENTINE FRASER’S NONSENSE APART POINT BY POINT

This nonsense by Clementine Fraser (CF), I have made a lengthy attempt to refute her nonsense below. Her sort of false propaganda is what is used to transfer massive wealth and assets to to an opportunist group of people and is racially dividing our country today.

Clementine Fraser’s article here > http://tinyurl.com/ybgrhvps

Points of contention are numbered:

1) CF says > “I worked for the Waitangi Tribunal as a historian and a claims facilitator. “unquote

That explains her whole nonsense blog and really I should not need to go any further, but I will.

See what some say about this racially stacked and therefore biased Waitangi Tribunal > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/waitangi-tribunal

More > The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 set up the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori over any law, regulation, or acts, omissions, policies, or practices of the Crown that may have given offence. It was an attempt to provide an avenue for Maori grievance and get Maori nationalist protest off the streets. The Act was passed a couple of days before the Maori Land March led by Dame Whina Cooper delivered a 60,000-signature petition to Prime Minister Bill Rowling.

The act also gave a handful of un-elected tribunal members the exclusive authority to interpret the treaty. The Act was the first legal recognition of the treaty. > https://sites.google.com/…/treat…/home/the-waitangi-tribunal

2) CF says > “It’s the only treaty I know of that deals with a presumed transfer of power rather than just land.“ unquote

Although named a treaty it is not a true treaty – it is simply a cessation agreement, with the chiefs ceding their individual sovereignty to the Queen. And nowhere does it mention transfer of land – in fact Article 2 guarantees ownership of land to ALL New Zealanders (occupied and in usage at the time).

David Round Canterbury law lecturer says > the TOW has no legal standing in international law

In international law the TOW is nullity. It has no legal standing as a treaty in international law.

The reason is that treaties can be made only between states, and maori, not formed into an organised state but living in a much smaller and far less sophisticated societies (and indeed, ones in a constant state of flux, given the intensly war-torn nature of the times) were simply incapable of entering into such an agreement in 1840.....(Excerpt from ‘Twisting the Treaty’ page 83 by David Round - law lecturer Canterbury uni)

3) CF says > you can read the treaty here > https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text “unquote

CF infers that the Maori version which approx 500 chiefs signed is the the legitimate treaty – THIS IS TRUE

But what this cunning little piece of works has done in the link above is point to the Busby discard / Freeman / Official English treaty that only 39 chiefs signed at Port Waikato/Manakau – she is inferring that the maori version translates to this version – IT DOES NOT.

The nearest translation to the true maori version with only 4 minor variations is the Littlewood Draft > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty

4) CF says > “they (maori) didn’t give up their power. They kept it. In the Māori version of the Treaty, in Article 2, Māori are guaranteed Tino Rangatiratanga – full chieftainship – ie, Sovereignty. “ unquote

The best explanation that clearly blows her BS above is written by Bruce Moon here > TINO RANGATIRATANGA = FULL POSSESSION

In the TOW, Article 1, THE CHIEFS CEDED SOVEREIGNTY (KAWANATANGA) completely and for ever and they knew it. (Read Colenso’s record)

It is utterly absurd therefore to say that in Article 2, THEY SOMEHOW RETAINED IT.

Therefore, whatever the meaning of “tino rangatiratanga” it means nothing remotely like sovereignty.

The only tenable meaning is “full possession”.

Moreover it was assured to ALL the people of NZ.

By Bruce Moon

Further, Mike Butler explains Kawanatanga & Rangitiratanga here > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/rangitiratanga-kawanatanga

Also further, the chiefs speeches prior to signing the treaty indicate that they were fully aware that they were ceding FULL sovereignty > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/chiefs-speeches-1840

5) CF says > “French missionaries present at the signing were recorded by the British missionary printer Colenso as saying: ‘the chiefs have no intention of ceding their sovereignty”. “ unquote

Well here is the link to Colenso’s AUTHENTIC report, can you see the quote above in it? > http://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html

6) CF says > “Why did the British offer a treaty instead of just taking over” unquote

The only reason the British did not take over was that a strong humanitarian movement centred on the churches influenced British colonial policy and this meant the Colonial Secretary Lord Normanby genuinely tried to treat New Zealand inhabitants better than happened in earlier colonisations. (CF agrees on this as well)

7) CF says > “The Declaration of Independence of 1835 (did you know we had one? Most people don’t) had been recognised several times by Britain, meaning that they had already recognised Māori mana o te whenua (sovereignty). “ unquote

Yes it was ‘recognised’ but not authorised or ratified. It was a non-event and NO FUNCTIONING NEW ZEALAND-WIDE GOVERNMENT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AS A RESULT OF THE DECLARATION.

Clause 4 (from memory) states that the chiefs would meet in congress every year and form new laws – I challenge CF to provide evidence of the few chiefs (mostly one related tribe and mostly North of Auckland) ever meeting in the years 1836, 37, 38 and 39, further I challenge her to provide evidence of any laws they enacted.

See more on the 1835 Declaration of Independence here > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/1835-declaration-of-independence

8) CF says > “Not every iwi signed either; Tūhoe, Tūwharetoa, Waikato, and Te Arawa among them. “ unquote

Correct but sovereignty can be transferred in other ways -

TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY

There are three ways in which one state may acquire sovereignty over another – by cession, by conquest, and by occupation. The British government gained the sovereignty over New Zealand through four ways.

1. Cession by treaty. A total of 512 chiefs, including 13 women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, mostly the Maori language text, at 34 locations around New Zealand between February 6 and May 21, 1840. As a reminder, all the treaty actually says is that the Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including possession of property.

2. Proclamation. Lieutenant Governor William Hobson proclaimed sovereignty over the North Island on May 21, 1840, on the grounds of cession by treaty. Major Thomas Bunbury and Captain Joseph Nias R.N. proclaimed sovereignty over Stewart Island on June 5 on the basis of Cook’s discovery, and over the South Island on June 17, at Port Underwood, on the basis of cession. The proclamations appeared in the London Gazette on October 2, 1840.

3. Occupation. Around 2000 non-Maori, predominantly British people occupied New Zealand in 1840. By 1858, settlers outnumbered Maori by 3000: 59,000 to 56,000. By 1881 there were 500,000 settlers.

4. Conquest. If the defeats of tribes who took up arms against the government during the 1860s is to be considered, the British government also confirmed sovereignty over New Zealand by conquest. In those wars, a total of 2154 anti-government Maori and 745 pro-government Maori, settlers and British soldiers were killed.
https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/transfer-of-sovereignty

And a Fifth way has been suggested The fifth was purchase. The crown purchased most of the South Island (the top of the South Island was bought off the New Zealand Company which had bought it pre Treaty) and also large tracts of the North Is. This was enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty.

9) CF says > “Also, an internationally recognised doctrine of contractual law called Contra Preferentium states that where there is ambiguity or conflict over the terms of a treaty or contract that the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the draftsman – the one who provided the wording of the contract. This means that the Treaty in the indigenous language is the one that must be given precedence. “unquote

"CONTRA PROFERENTEM", a self-serving argument used by treatyists, is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

THE UNFORTUNATE REALITY FOR TREATYISTS IS THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN TE TIRITI.

The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.

So if the "contra proferentem" doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.

https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/contra-proferentem

10) CF says > “Doesn’t it (the treaty) just make us all one New Zealand? - Yes it does” unquote

Correct - The original true Treaty Of Waitangi (Maori language) was a great race uniting document that gave ALL New Zealanders (not just Maori) equality, protection (law & order) and ownership of their lands - it is later translations and interpretations that have caused the racial issues in New Zealand today.

11) CF says > “It has the potential to foster a real partnership “ unquote

Like a true treatyist CF harps on about ‘partnership’, there is not even an inference of partnership in the treaty – I challenge CF to point to the word/s or clause/s in the TOW that she believes infer a ‘partnership’

12) CF says > “Article three gives Māori ‘the same rights and privileges as British subjects’ in the English version and ‘promises to protect Māori and give them the same rights as British subjects’ in the Māori version. “ unquote

Here again CF confuses readers with the two version (either ignorantly or cunningly?)

In both versions Article 3 gives maoris protection and the same rights and privileges as British subjects.

MAORI VERSION

Ko te tuatoru

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

Article third in English (what the above ^^ was translated from)

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.

ENGLISH VERSION (Busby discard / Freeman / Official English Version below)

Article the Third

In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

Note: there was no need to grant protection for the Europeans that were already here because they were mostly British subjects already and so had that protection.

13) CF says > “Unfortunately, it (the TOW) was broken a lot. Māori weren’t able to vote under the 1852 Constitution Act because they owned land communally (incidentally this is the reason for the later creation of the Māori Seats for Parliament). “ unquote

Bruce Moon explains > When a legislature was established in 1852/4 in NZ, naturally the British model was followed with a property qualification and many settlers were excluded. Once again, country electorates had far fewer voters than town ones - in the Canterbury Provincial Council, country electorates had only a third of the voters of town ones so their electors had much more power in the scheme of things.

SO PLENTY OF SETTLERS HAD JUST AS MUCH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT AS ANY MAORI!!

Because very few Maoris had an individual property qualification it is true that initially few of them had the right to vote. Then, however, it was realized that, in a situation quite unlike that to which the settlers were accustomed, most Maori land was held communally so most Maoris, it could indeed be said, were landholders in their own way.

Therefore, about 1862, the rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in common, i.e. most of them, were enfranchised but the rules were not altered for settlers. FOR SOME YEARS THEREFORE, VIRTUALLY ALL MAORI MEN HAD THE VOTE BUT MOST SETTLERS DID NOT - CLEARLY IT WAS THE SETTLERS, NOT THE MAORIS, WHO WERE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

In due course the arbitrary nature of it all was recognized and in about 1867 the vote was extended to all adult men, irrespective of race, criminals and the mentally unsound only being excluded.

Read on here > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/maori-and-voting

14) CF says > “They weren’t included in the Old Age Pensions in the 1890s...” unquote

The 1898 Old-age Pensions Act, which was a world first, gave a small means-tested pension to elderly people with few assets who were 'of good moral character'.

You will see that Sections 7 and 8 did not exclude Maori on this link > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sp7JHX5VSJ_RW2ejYLTIgiRTqVbUoeYm/view?usp=sharing

I ask CF to provide any other evidence to back up her assertions.

I suggest CF is either ignorant or lying?

15) CF says > “Their lands were invaded in the 1860s when they protested illegal sales and were later confiscated. “ unquote

This all started with one related tribe wanting to sell land and the other part of the tribe did not and so a feud started which spilt over onto neighbouring settler farms in Taranaki, so the Government stepped in to restore peace. Things escalated from here and became a sovereignty rebellion – not a land war, further no lands were initially invaded by Europeans.

Yes land was LEGALLY confiscated AFTER warnings and AFTER the rebellions were quelled (not before)

See here > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/maori-land-stolen

16) CF says > “ Māori were denied the right to seek spiritual or medical guidance from Tohunga under the 1907 Tohunga Suppression Act.” unquote

TOHUNGA SUPPRESSION ACT

The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using traditional Māori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pā to pā claiming to cure all kinds of illness.

The influential TE AUTE COLLEGE STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION WAS PARTICULARLY CRITICAL, BELIEVING THAT TOHUNGA MIGHT HARM PATIENTS, AND COULD HINDER MĀORI PROGRESS. Tohunga also CAME UNDER ATTACK from the prominent Māori doctors Māui Pōmare and Te Rangi Hīroa (Sir Peter Buck).

The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Māori MP James Carroll AND SUPPORTED BY THE FOUR MĀORI MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. It was passed in 1907. The preamble to the Act read:

“Every person who gathers Maoris around him by practising on their superstition or credulity, or who misleads or attempts to mislead any Maori by professing or pretending to possess supernatural powers in the treatment or cure of any disease, or in the foretelling of future events, or otherwise, is liable on summary conviction before a Magistrate to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.”

There were few prosecutions under the Act, and few convictions – its main effect was to drive tohunga underground. In 1962, it was repealed.

The Act has also been viewed as a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, as it challenged traditional Maori wisdom – considered to be one of the taonga (treasures) that Maori were promised under the second article of the Treaty.

However, on 2009, five people were convicted of the manslaughter of their family member Janet Moses after drowning her in a ritual after advice from a tohunga that she was suffering under a makutu, or Maori curse.

https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/tohunga-suppression-act

17) CF says > “They weren’t allowed to speak their own language at school, and would get strapped for doing so.” unquote

This was at the request of the wise maori elders (parents etc) they wanted their children to be able to take advantage from the new economy and fit into the new society.

Further ALL children were strapped for school misdemeanours not just maoris, things like looking out the window, spelling mistakes, writing left handed....

See here > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/maori-language-forbidden-at-school

18) CF says > “ So the Treaty gave them the same rights, but a succession of governments denied them the same rights. And that ‘protection’? Not super evident. “ unquote

GOVERNMENT DAMNED BECAUSE IT DID, AND DAMNED IF IT DIDN’T

Since 1840 many Acts and Laws have been passed with good intention to help maori adapt to European society. But today’s crop of agenda driven griever maori and their European sycophants twist these to put them in bad light.

A prime example is the Native Schools Act 1867 which decreed that English should be the only language used in the education of Māori children, today’s part-maori grievers spread the tale that ‘maori was beaten out of the children’, yes in some cases children were physically punished for speaking maori, in those days ALL children were physically punished if rules were breached.

The opportunist grievers conveniently forget that this was at the request of the wise maori elders who wanted maori children to be equipped for the changing society and economy that colonisation brought. There was/is no law preventing maoris from keeping their language or culture alive in their own environment as many other races do.

If the government had not of helped maori learn the English language then today’s grievers and their European sycophants would be beating the door down at the Waitangi Tribunal and bleating that the govt breached the TOW in not treating maori as equal British subjects in not making the English language available to them. - Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

19) CF says > “But the ‘special rights’ that people usually mean are rights to land and fisheries. In which case – yes. Māori rights to these things are guaranteed both in the Māori version (Article 2 guarantees tino rangatiratanga remember) and also in the English version (Article 2 guarantees ‘full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties”.) “ unquote

There were no ‘special rights’ in the maori language treaty that approx 500 chiefs signed – Article 2 referred to ALL New Zealanders

Article 2 (maori language)

Ko te tuarua

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

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.

CF’s English version is a non-event as Hobson had declared the Maori language treaty as the de facto treaty.

20) CF says > (Re Littlewood Treaty) > “But the key thing to note – whatever this document is, it is NOT a treaty. It isn’t signed. By anyone.” unquote

Clever girl :-) - that ^^ is correct it is an unsigned draft and believed to be the original draft that was translated into maori language at Waitangi. I understand it was CF’s ilk that named it a treaty (no one else LOL).

21) CF says > “Why can’t we just move on?” unquote

It is those 'supremacist maori' who in their complete lack of ethical individualism are unable to transcend tribal mentality who are the "DIVIDERS" of our society.

Tribal consciousness even divides those of the same race into warring tribes / clans / factions.

New Zealanders who believe in racial equality and one rule for all have simply been cast by regressives as the enemy 'tribe'

Tribalism REQUIRES AN ENEMY, and won’t rest until it finds or invents one.

22) CF says > “ It’s the same in every colonised country where the indigenous people are given second class citizenship. “ unquote

Does this look like second class maori citizenship to you? It looks like superior rights and separatism to me.

* Maori-only schools,

* Special Maori content in the education curriculum,

* Maori-only education scholarships,

* Maori-only housing projects,

* Maori-only health initiatives,

* Maori-only welfare initiatives,

* Maori-only prisoner programmes,

* Maori-only positions on government agencies,

* Maori-only consultation rights under the Resource Management Act,

* Maori-only co-management of parks, rivers, lakes, and the coastline,

* Maori-only ownership rights to the foreshore and seabed,

* A special Maori Authority tax rate of 17.5 percent,

* A special Maori-only exemption to allow blood relatives to qualify for charitable status,

* Maori language funding,

* Maori radio and TV,

* Maori-only seats on local councils,

* Maori-only appointments onto local government committees,

* Maori-only local government Statutory Boards,

* Maori-only local government advisory committees,

* Maori seats in Parliament,

23) CF says > Māori weren’t happy about the Treaty being broken. They’ve basically been protesting since 1842 and the Wairau Affray, followed by Hōne Heke’s famous chopping down of the Flagpole in 1844. “ unquote

Hone Heke's 1845 rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with "breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi" as is misrepresented today.

When the Governor relocated New Zealand's capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up as Auckland.

Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues. Nor was he making money any more from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.

Even more infuriating, the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi's traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.

Credit: RPC

24) CF says > “They (maoris) tried to reclaim their power during the 19th Century through PEACEFUL means (the Kīngitanga,” unquote

KINGITANGA & FIRST MAORI KING

After a number of meetings in the Waikato the Kingitanga movement was formed, but not all chiefs supported such a separate government or a rival King, Temuera te Amohau said “One of our chiefs, Timoti, was the only man of the Arawa people who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, but we shall not depart from the pledge he then gave. We will not join the king tribes. My king is Queen Victoria.”

THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION TO THE WHOLE MOVEMENT BY MAORIS who became known as the ‘Queens Party’

In June 1858 an alternative royal authority was chosen and anointed, Te Wherowhero became the first Maori ‘King’ known as Potatau 1.

This King movement in fact was another ‘Land league’ as its members placed their land under the mana of the King, thus giving him the right to forbid sales.

Other important characteristics of the movement were it represented the rejection of European rule, and ultimately of European influence which was in contrast to the unity in the Treaty of Waitangi. IN SHORT – A TREATY BREACH.

IT WAS SUPPORTERS OF THE SECOND MAORI KING TAWHIAO WHO PLANNED AN ATTACK ON AUCKLAND - “I shall spare neither unarmed people nor property” http://tinyurl.com/kyvp2ck

Before any such uprising could occur, the government issued an order, on july 9, 1863, requiring all maori living north of the Mangatawhiri river, TO TAKE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE QUEEN AND GIVE UP THEIR WEAPONS. Those refusing to do so were required to retire to the Waikato. A FURTHER PROCLAMATION DATED JULY 11, 1863, WARNED THAT THOSE WHO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE THEIR LANDS CONFISCATED.

Colonial government soldiers crossed the Mangatawhiri River on July 12, 1863. Maori unwilling to take the oath were evicted as the colonial force advanced. Fighting occurred at Meremere, Ngaruawahia, Rangiaowhia (southwest of Cambridge) and at Orakau (near Te Awamutu) during 1863 and 1864. The final military action in Waikato was on April 2, 1864, at Orakau. A proclamation confiscating land was issued in December 1864 under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. Wiremu Tamehana made peace in 1865.

25) CF says > “They tried to reclaim their power during the 19th Century through PEACEFUL means ....... and Parihaka” unquote

Re Parihaka see here > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/parihaka

26) CF says > “ ..but NZ is a country that (according to the Treaty) includes a special partnership between Māori and everyone else.” unquote

As stated at # 11 above there is NO ‘PARTNERSHIP’ - It defies logic to believe that, arguably, the Greatest Empire in the 1800s sailed half way around the world to go into a ‘partnership’ with a menagerie of warring chiefs who were begging for protection, and yet fought the Zulu Nation costing thousands of lives to rule over them. The British did not do partnerships at that time.

27) CF says > “The aim is for the historical claims settlement process to be complete by 2020. This DOESN’T MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CLAIMS – if Māori believe that the Government is breaching the Treaty they are able to lodge a claim with the Tribunal. THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS to ensure that Māori rights under the Treaty are upheld.” unquote

And there New Zealanders you have it in black and white – the claims will never end – unless Kiwis do something about it.

28) CF says > “Sometimes ensuring equity is different from ensuring equality. Preferential treatment/affirmative action is not apartheid (I think it’s deeply insulting to suggest it is and shows a lack of understanding of the history of apartheid), but a way to promote equity. “ unquote

These two links expose CF’s ‘Equality and Equity BS

Equality > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/equality

Equity > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/equity-equality-the-difference

FOOTNOTE: The Treaty of Waitangi was first drafted by James Busby, approved by Hobson and then translated into Maori by the Williams father and son who were fluent in the maori language. It was read to the chiefs at Waitangi in both languages (English language by Hobson and Maori language by Williams). Busby who was a maori sympathiser never objected at this reading or the next day at the signing.

Further, Hobson declared the Maori language treaty that was signed at Waitangi as the de facto treaty so what Fraser is referring to as the English treaty is null and void.

A colour coded Treaty timeline explanation can be seen here > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/tow-simplified

Maori version and Littlewood draft here > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/treaty-of-waitangi

Busby discard / Freeman version / Fraser’s Official English Treaty here > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/official-english-text

Littlewood Draft here > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty