Constitutional review: Treaty of Waitangi

I doubt anything will come of it, and by anything I mean anything legal.  I doubt that they will ensure that...

A) That everything that needs to be done has been done to ensure any New Zealand constitution has been approved by the citizens of New Zealand, to date this has not happened.

B) That we are using the correct translation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and if the research I'm looking into right now has anything to say about it, we aren't... does the Littlewood Treaty ring any bells with anyone? Of course that would spell doom for the Waitangi Tribunal and in fact the Maori party, as their existence would then be unconstitutional as would the existence of Maori seats

Arguably, parts of it have, specifically the electoral system (in 1992
and 1993) and CIR through their use. However you're right, there's never
been a vote as such on our constitution nor is there any requirement
for one except for the term of parliament and electoral system (even
then that protection isn't that strong).

It is a requirement until such time there is no constitutional requirement to do so.  The purpose of a constitution  is the people saying which of their sovereign rights they allow the government to exercise.  When New Zealand gain independence, Sovereignty was ceded to the people of New Zealand, not the Colonial government at the time.  Regardless of what any law legislated by this government says, they fact is they have no legal authority over New Zealander, until such time as a Binding referendum is held in which the people commit to a constitution. 

I don't think the Littlewood document spells doom for the Waitangi Tribunal. Just see any of Dr Paul Moon's writing on the subject.

I think you should read this book it does raise some interesting questions

I don't buy it.

What we know and what is generally accepted is that the English Version currently in use today, is not the original version of the Treaty, but a composite of previous drafts of the treaty.  The meanings between the signed version of the Maori Treaty and the English version of the treaty, are vastly different.

We know that there was a final draft of the English Version of the Treaty that went missing.

We know that the Littlewood Treaty is dated Feb 4, and that it's meaning mirrors the Maori Version of the Treaty.

We know the Littlewood Treaty was written by James Busby

We know Henry Williams who translated the treaty also wrote a Maori  dictionary still used with authority to day.

I believe Dr Paul Moon is drawing the wrong  conclusions, I have noted several points where he is assuming as fact.  He states that what is written on the 4th is irrelevant because Busby submitted a draft for approval on 3rd... he is right about that it was submitted but was rejected and was reworked through the night and on the 4th of Feb... which was submitted to be translated by Henry Williams.  So he's dead wrong, what was scribed on 4th is extremely relevant to the meaning and intent of the Treaty.

He says, "The phrase “all the people
of New Zealand” – in the setting of New
Zealand in 1840 – would simply be another
way of referring to Maori.". I do not accept that the English would write themselves in a 2nd class citizens in a new colony, I also reject the idea that Busby or Hobson would need to frivolously repeat to whom the article applies.

I think he is more interested in the status quo and has no perspective of the Littlewood side of the argument.