Is there not a factual problem that Maori are PART AND PARCEL of the New Zealand body politic? Maori are on Company Boards, Councils and in Parliament. If so, is there not then a great overreach in the construction and application of UNDRIP?
Yes, you are right. In practical terms, that points toward a claim that Māori should participate in all, or most, governmental decision-making that affects New Zealanders. Since government decisions affect all New Zealanders, including Māori, the implication is very broad. In substance, that is co-governance: authority shared between the democratically elected government of all New Zealanders (including Maori) and those who claim to speak for Māori.
It's time National Party Idiots including McLay wake up to the fact that there are no indigenous people in New Zealand. The only non idiots appear to be David Seymour and the ACT party.
Goldsmith is trying to rationalise some of the mish mash of legislation relating to Maori while his fool of an offsider McLay is undermining his efforts by window dressing the FTA agreement.
I guess we could just pass legislation that states, for clarity in NZ Law, that given everyone's ancestors arrived here relatively recently, then any person born in NZ qualifies as 'Indigenous'. Game over grifters.
Seems to me, not knowing much on Law, politiks or intra-party crimes of subversion but it seems the undercurrent of what seems fair plays out very differently; subversive govt employees. Democracy it appears is full of Idealists on both sides working to undermine us all. There’s unfortunately a massive divide between working for the benefit of all New Zealanders and working for an elite sub-sector.
NZ has been cultivating activists and Idealists for so long now we may as well ask China to take over.
Thanks, Gary. That's a fascinating — and explosive — analysis.
The change from "notes" in the UK-NZ / EU-NZ FTAs to "affirms" in the India FTA is a highly significant (and very stealthy and dangerous) shift. The govt simply can't wriggle out of the dilemma by insisting that NZ's position on UNDRIP is "non-binding" given its 2023 commitment, as you note, “to upholding the rights affirmed in the Declaration”.
It may not have been "the government’s intention" to manufacture a situation that makes UNDRIP binding but it may have been necessary to get Labour's support after NZF decided to oppose it. It seems possible to me that National and Act are so keen to ratify the deal they accepted that change at Labour's behest. Labour has never given up on implementing He Puapua.
As far as I can tell, the govt could easily negotiate with India to change the UNDRIP clause given it doesn't undermine the purpose of the treaty in the slightest (the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows changes to be made between signing and ratification so long as they do not defeat the purpose of the Treaty). But so far McClay has been adamant that any change, however minor, is not possible.
Changing "affirms" back to "noted" would solve the problem of both UNDRIP and the Paris Accord. If it's an easy fix, why are National and Act so resistant?
Perhaps the answer lies in David Seymour's comment to Michael Laws: “The Labour Party might say, ‘C’mon guys, we said we’d support this, why the change?’"
A problem about trying to reopen the agreement is that it allows India to ask for changes.
Everything I've seen indicates this provision has caught the government by surprise. After all, Cabinet decided UNDRIP implementation activity should halt. This move from note to affirm is advancing it. That is plain disobedience.
If the problem is that reopening the agreement allows India to ask for changes, the govt really should tell us that directly rather insisting it can't be changed under any circumstances. That approach only invites suspicion that it is deliberately avoiding telling voters how "noted" became "affirmed" — which of course will lead to speculation (of the kind I have indulged in regarding Labour's possible influence).
Equally, India could presumably only ask for changes that had no bearing on the overall purpose of the FTA. And, in fact, I have been told by a knowledgeable source that such "legal scrubbing" is a well-established process in tidying up an agreement before ratification. So India may suggest its own minor changes anyway as part of that.
I assume by describing the clause's inclusion as "plain disobedience" you are implying an official (presumably from MFAT) made the change. If so, we should be told. If McClay really has been surprised by it being upgraded to "affirmed", it's hard to imagine that he hasn't made inquiries into how it happened.
Like you, I detect a sniff of interparty liaison going on between Act and Labour, Graham. It is now upon National to pull the rug and make good on their coalition commitment with NZFirst. Simply standing by and allowing the twine to tangle further probably suits Luxons promise of FTA India at any cost with plausible deniability. They have the numbers, regardless, but this deal as it is, will cost them. Mr Judd has exposed the escalation that directly contravenes the coalition agreement. Who will blink first?
I suspect it's more likely to be a deal between National and Labour that Act is going along with (for now, at least). After all, McClay is the Trade minister and lead political negotiator.
Act is deeply opposed to co-governance (or has been) whereas National gave us UNDRIP (via Key as PM) in the first place; Finlayson gave us MACA and co-governance deals over physical landscapes.
I may be completely wrong, of course, and the UNDRIP clause may have been inserted early on before NZF made its opposition clear and it's nothing to do with appeasing Labour at all.
From the uncomfortable look on Seymour's face every time this crap comes up (and by his consistent line on race matters, a la TPB), I think ACT is caught in a tricky spot. Trying to be a nice coalition partner (and certainly with more grace than blowhard Peters), but really, deeply unhappy with some of the bullshit that National is tolerating. Luxflakes needed to come out hard on race related matters right back at the start of their term. He needed to recognise the public mandate he had been given to purge our once great country of all this BS. If he & Willis are so keen on balancing the books, there is not better place to do that than to sort out the myriad of issues and costs that arise from radical 'Maori' and all its brainwashed adherents who are so hostile to the world of colonisation. You add up the real costs from all the actions of said miscreants, and it is a fucking long list, then balancing the books would be a cinch.
Then the very fact that a deal has been evident between our major parties that undermines our constitution should alarm all previously parochial red- blue voters. The creep from 'regard to' to 'affirm' is a serious steer down the path towards separatism, a destination that could not be less *kiwi*. We must crush it. This is absolutely as many have said, and especially Newman - an egregious betrayal.
Forgot to say the other parties at the table who will loudly oppose the change in UNDRIP clause language are TPK, Iwi Chairs Forum et al. You know, the other *primary stakeholders*.
McLay needs to name and shame the civil servant who inserted that clause into the Treaty and then ask Mr Roche - the Commissioner for Public Servants- to reassign that person to a less influential position ( emptying the canteen waste bins?) or ideally terminate that persons employment without a golden handshake. NZ is being undermined by civil servants ignoring the mandate of the voters and undermining elected governments. Action needs to be taken that ensures public servants are on notice thst such behavior will not be tolerated.
The National Party is too gutless to stand up to their Public Service masters. Shane Jones got it right when he said "Parliament is paramount". However that is not proving correct in practice.
Can we just remove NZ from UNDRIP? Would be much easier to simply not be in it?
We weren't until Key, Finlayson, Sharples and co put us in.
Yes but can we get out of it?
I shall be recommending a way when I submit to the Committee on Tuesday morning.
Thank you Sir!
Hope it goes really well next Tues morning Gary.
I'm sure you'll let us all know....
Thanks.
Is there not a factual problem that Maori are PART AND PARCEL of the New Zealand body politic? Maori are on Company Boards, Councils and in Parliament. If so, is there not then a great overreach in the construction and application of UNDRIP?
Yes, you are right. In practical terms, that points toward a claim that Māori should participate in all, or most, governmental decision-making that affects New Zealanders. Since government decisions affect all New Zealanders, including Māori, the implication is very broad. In substance, that is co-governance: authority shared between the democratically elected government of all New Zealanders (including Maori) and those who claim to speak for Māori.
Thanks Gary.
It's time National Party Idiots including McLay wake up to the fact that there are no indigenous people in New Zealand. The only non idiots appear to be David Seymour and the ACT party.
Goldsmith is trying to rationalise some of the mish mash of legislation relating to Maori while his fool of an offsider McLay is undermining his efforts by window dressing the FTA agreement.
Go figure.
I guess we could just pass legislation that states, for clarity in NZ Law, that given everyone's ancestors arrived here relatively recently, then any person born in NZ qualifies as 'Indigenous'. Game over grifters.
How to pull a country apart.
Seems to me, not knowing much on Law, politiks or intra-party crimes of subversion but it seems the undercurrent of what seems fair plays out very differently; subversive govt employees. Democracy it appears is full of Idealists on both sides working to undermine us all. There’s unfortunately a massive divide between working for the benefit of all New Zealanders and working for an elite sub-sector.
NZ has been cultivating activists and Idealists for so long now we may as well ask China to take over.
Winston and Luxon both knew about this, therefore they are traitors to 83% of NZ.
Do you have evidence? I've seen none.
Thanks, Gary. That's a fascinating — and explosive — analysis.
The change from "notes" in the UK-NZ / EU-NZ FTAs to "affirms" in the India FTA is a highly significant (and very stealthy and dangerous) shift. The govt simply can't wriggle out of the dilemma by insisting that NZ's position on UNDRIP is "non-binding" given its 2023 commitment, as you note, “to upholding the rights affirmed in the Declaration”.
It may not have been "the government’s intention" to manufacture a situation that makes UNDRIP binding but it may have been necessary to get Labour's support after NZF decided to oppose it. It seems possible to me that National and Act are so keen to ratify the deal they accepted that change at Labour's behest. Labour has never given up on implementing He Puapua.
As far as I can tell, the govt could easily negotiate with India to change the UNDRIP clause given it doesn't undermine the purpose of the treaty in the slightest (the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows changes to be made between signing and ratification so long as they do not defeat the purpose of the Treaty). But so far McClay has been adamant that any change, however minor, is not possible.
Changing "affirms" back to "noted" would solve the problem of both UNDRIP and the Paris Accord. If it's an easy fix, why are National and Act so resistant?
Perhaps the answer lies in David Seymour's comment to Michael Laws: “The Labour Party might say, ‘C’mon guys, we said we’d support this, why the change?’"
A problem about trying to reopen the agreement is that it allows India to ask for changes.
Everything I've seen indicates this provision has caught the government by surprise. After all, Cabinet decided UNDRIP implementation activity should halt. This move from note to affirm is advancing it. That is plain disobedience.
It is Most Certainly Disobedience!
If the problem is that reopening the agreement allows India to ask for changes, the govt really should tell us that directly rather insisting it can't be changed under any circumstances. That approach only invites suspicion that it is deliberately avoiding telling voters how "noted" became "affirmed" — which of course will lead to speculation (of the kind I have indulged in regarding Labour's possible influence).
Equally, India could presumably only ask for changes that had no bearing on the overall purpose of the FTA. And, in fact, I have been told by a knowledgeable source that such "legal scrubbing" is a well-established process in tidying up an agreement before ratification. So India may suggest its own minor changes anyway as part of that.
I assume by describing the clause's inclusion as "plain disobedience" you are implying an official (presumably from MFAT) made the change. If so, we should be told. If McClay really has been surprised by it being upgraded to "affirmed", it's hard to imagine that he hasn't made inquiries into how it happened.
Like you, I detect a sniff of interparty liaison going on between Act and Labour, Graham. It is now upon National to pull the rug and make good on their coalition commitment with NZFirst. Simply standing by and allowing the twine to tangle further probably suits Luxons promise of FTA India at any cost with plausible deniability. They have the numbers, regardless, but this deal as it is, will cost them. Mr Judd has exposed the escalation that directly contravenes the coalition agreement. Who will blink first?
I suspect it's more likely to be a deal between National and Labour that Act is going along with (for now, at least). After all, McClay is the Trade minister and lead political negotiator.
Act is deeply opposed to co-governance (or has been) whereas National gave us UNDRIP (via Key as PM) in the first place; Finlayson gave us MACA and co-governance deals over physical landscapes.
I may be completely wrong, of course, and the UNDRIP clause may have been inserted early on before NZF made its opposition clear and it's nothing to do with appeasing Labour at all.
From the uncomfortable look on Seymour's face every time this crap comes up (and by his consistent line on race matters, a la TPB), I think ACT is caught in a tricky spot. Trying to be a nice coalition partner (and certainly with more grace than blowhard Peters), but really, deeply unhappy with some of the bullshit that National is tolerating. Luxflakes needed to come out hard on race related matters right back at the start of their term. He needed to recognise the public mandate he had been given to purge our once great country of all this BS. If he & Willis are so keen on balancing the books, there is not better place to do that than to sort out the myriad of issues and costs that arise from radical 'Maori' and all its brainwashed adherents who are so hostile to the world of colonisation. You add up the real costs from all the actions of said miscreants, and it is a fucking long list, then balancing the books would be a cinch.
Then the very fact that a deal has been evident between our major parties that undermines our constitution should alarm all previously parochial red- blue voters. The creep from 'regard to' to 'affirm' is a serious steer down the path towards separatism, a destination that could not be less *kiwi*. We must crush it. This is absolutely as many have said, and especially Newman - an egregious betrayal.
Forgot to say the other parties at the table who will loudly oppose the change in UNDRIP clause language are TPK, Iwi Chairs Forum et al. You know, the other *primary stakeholders*.
McLay needs to name and shame the civil servant who inserted that clause into the Treaty and then ask Mr Roche - the Commissioner for Public Servants- to reassign that person to a less influential position ( emptying the canteen waste bins?) or ideally terminate that persons employment without a golden handshake. NZ is being undermined by civil servants ignoring the mandate of the voters and undermining elected governments. Action needs to be taken that ensures public servants are on notice thst such behavior will not be tolerated.
Commission need to Step Up! ???
The National Party is too gutless to stand up to their Public Service masters. Shane Jones got it right when he said "Parliament is paramount". However that is not proving correct in practice.