UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support

Are there are any articles in the text that his Government signed up to this morning that he is not able, or is unwilling, to implement?

I think it is important to understand that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is just that—it is a declaration. It is not a treaty, it is not a covenant, and one does not actually sign up to it. It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no impact on New Zealand law and no impact on the constitutional framework. What is more, the advice we had from Crown Law was that whether or not New Zealand affirmed it, in areas where we do not have law or constitutional arrangements already, the declaration could be imported already, and that people have already tried to do so, so affirming it would have no effect whatsoever.

As the Prime Minister has told this House that he does not sign up to texts unless he intends to implement them, within the text that he signed up to this morning does he intend to implement wholly or partially articles 19, 26, or 32?

We did not sign up to anything; we affirmed a declaration that is non-binding and aspirational.

In saying he did not sign up to anything this morning, does that confirm that what he signed up to is totally meaningless?

No. The reality is that New Zealand has a very proud record when it comes to indigenous rights, and for New Zealand not to have affirmed the declaration, when Crown Law’s advice was quite clear that this was a non-binding, aspirational goal that would have no impact on New Zealand’s law or New Zealand’s constitution, looked to me to be a bit churlish.

Which of his Ministers was correct this morning: his Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, who said this signature came without caveats; or his Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said it came with caveats?

Both of them are correct. I would not describe the statement made in reading the affirmation to the declaration as being a caveat, but it clearly spells out that it is a non-binding, aspirational goal that does not supersede New Zealand’s law or New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.

Why did he breach his no-surprises agreement with his coalition partner Rodney Hide by covertly agreeing to sign up to this text without telling him, or the rest of New Zealand, first?

For a start, it is a bit hard to do things covertly when we put out a press release to say we were doing it. That is the first thing. The second thing is that for quite some time I have been saying the Government was working towards this, including as late as last week, when I said: “From New Zealand’s perspective it is true we have been working and looking at ways we might adopt the declaration. Progress is being made and I am happy with that progress.”

Does his Government support article 26 of the declaration, which states: “… Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.”; if so, can he tell the House which parts of New Zealand or which natural resource were not traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired by Māori before European settlement?

We support that only where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. I might add that last year Australia affirmed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as has the vast majority of the world. The last time that I looked, the indigenous people of Australia were not taking control of the entire country, nor were other indigenous peoples around the world. It is a non-binding, aspirational goal. Where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori will have their lands.

Smith Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister did not address my question. It was not about Australia, and it was not about whether endorsing the declaration was aspirational or non-binding. My question was about whether his Government supports article 26. Then I asked, if the Government did support that, which parts were not already owned, occupied, or used by Māori before European settlement. None of that was addressed. It had nothing to do with Australia.

The member has raised a finely balanced point of order. My interpretation of the Prime Minister’s answer was that he was pointing out that the article has no binding effect; therefore it cannot alter who owns what in New Zealand at all. The member still has a further supplementary question. If he wishes to dig deeper into that issue, I think he can do so with that further supplementary question.

Smith Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Actually, we do not have a further supplementary question, because Mr Boscawen has a question for oral answer. But the point is that whether or not the declaration is binding, this was a serious question about whether the Government supports the article. It was not about whether the declaration is binding or whether Australia did this or that; it was about whether the Government supports article 26.

The member makes a fair point. I invite him to state his question again and give the Prime Minister a chance to answer it.

Does his Government support article 26 of the declaration, which says: “… Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.”; if so, can he tell the House which parts of New Zealand or which natural resource were not traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired by Māori before European settlement?

Only where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. That is exactly the process when people go through a Treaty claim.

Was Dr Sharples correct when he said the decision to sign the text was made weeks ago by Cabinet; if so, why was no announcement made, why were the media not informed of Dr Sharples’ impending trip—other than Māori Television—and why was the event taken out of the ministerial diary of events?

Katene Rahui Katene Link to this

If he said “signed”, then he cannot be right, because one does not sign the declaration; one affirms it.

Is there any sense of how New Zealand’s decision to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been received on the international stage?

Horomia Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this

Yes. The statement of Mr Carlos Mamani, chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, is extremely positive. Mr Mamani said that in declaring its support for the declaration, “ … the Government of New Zealand has reaffirmed the principles of respect, non-discrimination and good faith enshrined in the Declaration. The Permanent Forum looks forward to continuing its engagement with the Government of New Zealand in a spirit of cooperation in order to advance the rights of indigenous peoples in New Zealand and around the world.”

How will the signing of this text contribute in any practical way to resolving problems that face Māori in New Zealand today?

Katene Rahui Katene Link to this

In a practical sense, there is much more likely to be advanced results in that regard when it comes to Whānau Ora. I look forward to the Opposition supporting that.

What does he think will be the consequences for the international reputation of New Zealand of headlines such as the one from Metro News in Canada: “New Zealand reverses opposition to UN Declaration on indigenous rights, US reviewing stance” or the one from AFP at the United Nations stating simply: “New Zealand backs indigenous rights”?