I do not engage with the meaning of indigenous because it is a technical issue and at the very best your view as to its meaning is in doubt.
The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary, “indigenous (adj.), sense 1.a,” March 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4213148695) defines indigenous in its first meaning as, “Born or originating in a particular place; spec. (now often with capital initial) designating a people or group inhabiting a place before the arrival of (European) settlers or colonizers. Also with to introducing the place in question.”
The OED provides quotations illustrative of meanings, of which this is particularly noteworthy because of its date and subject:
1777 If it were ever possible for Europeans to have humanity enough to acknowledge the indigenous tribes of the South Sea as their brethren, we might have settlements which would not be defiled with the blood of innocent nations.
G. Forster, Voyage round World vol. I. 523
Going down the ‘meaning of indigenous’ path diverts attention from the substance, the real problems of UNDRIP, which were well spelt out in 2007 by NZ’s permanent UN rep, Rosemary Banks when recording NZ’s reasons for opposition: “[UNDRIP’s ] recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens,” “that indigenous peoples had rights that others did not have,” “[the implication] that indigenous peoples had a right of veto over a democratic legislature and national resource management” and the existence of “different classes of citizenship, where indigenous had a right to veto that other groups or individuals did not have,” and “provisions that were … fundamentally incompatible with [NZ’s] democratic processes, legislation and constitutional arrangements.”
He Puapua, the full title of which is “Report of the Working Group on a plan to realise the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples: He Puapua,” clearly demonstrates that the 2007 reasons for NZ’s opposition were well-founded because the He Puapua plan exhibits those very features.
Fully agree that there are bigger issues that arguing about the meaning of 'indigenous', but would it not be a wise interim step to simply pass a law that says, for the purpose of all laws in NZ, that given the relatively recent arrival of the first folk to these shores, that we define indigenous as 'a naturally born NZ citizen'. Boris ain't no lawyer, but perhaps that would set the race-based grift back a little?
Hello Gary, Irrespective of all the external crap that has been allowed to pollute democratic process, the fact that people arrived in New Zealand from other cultures, in different time periods, doesn't make any of them indigenous.
From a lay persons point of view, who firmly believes in one law for all, it has become obvious that the tail is wagging the dog. The dog being the spineless National Party. The tail being the woke idiots in New Zealand's public service.
Following the resignation from Australia’s Parliament of deposed Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley, a couple of weeks ago there was a by-election in the NSW rural electorate of Farrer. Held by the Liberals or The Nationals since 1949 (that’s 77 years!), it has been captured by One Nation with the Liberals and The Nationals pushed into third and fourth respectively behind an Independent.
A principal One Nation policy plank is its advocacy for Direct Democracy on the Swiss model. One Nation says it would allow the Australian people to initiate referendums via simple petitions, enabling politicians to be controlled between elections. It would provide a ‘People’s Veto’ over the High Court of Australia when activist judges attempt to change the Constitution through the back door – something only the people should be able to do by a considered vote.
If the referenda could be conducted online, they should not be expensive.
But it could expose us to the similar risks as postal voting (someone voting for the family, or even a wider group) IF we don't have digital IDs (that I oppose for other reasons).
The referenda shouldn't be too expensive, if included/added to the 3-yearly election vote.
But, we should aspire to more frequent referenda. Worth the cost to have true democracy IMO...
We would need to be very careful that certain elements did not control narrative and awareness leading up to any voting. (Consider how many people now ignorantly refer to 'Israel's war on Gaza')
The Left have also been crafty at times. Note how many TPB submissions were 'counted as one' as they came through Hobsons Pledge I believe? And I wonder how many Iwi sent in submissions using the names of tribal members who possibly may not have even been literate...
Great idea, just would need to be secure and actually representative.
Yes, Switzerland and I think he wrote about it again recently, in relation to the Govt's threat to force amalgamation of local bodies (if they don't do it themselves).
It looks like the Swiss have around 4 referendum-voting sessions each year, and their Govt must submit significant decisions to referendum.
I recall there has been suggestions for referenda here, from time to time, and we did have one on MMP didn't we?
I'd be a real fan for referenda to be mandatory here. At the moment, we have parties who don't keep their election promises (sometimes prevented from doing so by coalition partners) and we have parties where I agree with some, but not all of their policies.
Rather than having to vote by choosing the party you dislike least, I think it's time the people should truly decide on all the important issues; via referenda
There is one key difference between the Swiss and Kiwis though Noel. Their citizens are educated, civically responsible and well informed (and yes, annoying pedantic about detail, but hey, it makes the watches work...).
NZ has far too many people who exist in our South Pacific Bubble and not the first frigging clue about very much at all. Schools need to run civics classes that teach kids about stuff that matters. And the curriculum needs to be fair and balanced, not left wing crap. Then, maybe then could we have informed voting in NZ.
Oh, and Switzerland, despite its complex language landscape, has a single dominant & shared culture, tracing back to the theology of Calvin, Zwingli etc. No Maui and fishhooks to be seen.
Dare I say it, but would it undermine democracy if, when voting on issues/policies, you had to first complete a test to prove you were aware if the pros and cons of what you were voting for?
Thomas Sowell: "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
How this clause has any effect except virtue signalling is beyond me. There are no indigenous people in New Zealand so this clause is null and void.
I do not engage with the meaning of indigenous because it is a technical issue and at the very best your view as to its meaning is in doubt.
The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary, “indigenous (adj.), sense 1.a,” March 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4213148695) defines indigenous in its first meaning as, “Born or originating in a particular place; spec. (now often with capital initial) designating a people or group inhabiting a place before the arrival of (European) settlers or colonizers. Also with to introducing the place in question.”
The OED provides quotations illustrative of meanings, of which this is particularly noteworthy because of its date and subject:
1777 If it were ever possible for Europeans to have humanity enough to acknowledge the indigenous tribes of the South Sea as their brethren, we might have settlements which would not be defiled with the blood of innocent nations.
G. Forster, Voyage round World vol. I. 523
Going down the ‘meaning of indigenous’ path diverts attention from the substance, the real problems of UNDRIP, which were well spelt out in 2007 by NZ’s permanent UN rep, Rosemary Banks when recording NZ’s reasons for opposition: “[UNDRIP’s ] recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens,” “that indigenous peoples had rights that others did not have,” “[the implication] that indigenous peoples had a right of veto over a democratic legislature and national resource management” and the existence of “different classes of citizenship, where indigenous had a right to veto that other groups or individuals did not have,” and “provisions that were … fundamentally incompatible with [NZ’s] democratic processes, legislation and constitutional arrangements.”
He Puapua, the full title of which is “Report of the Working Group on a plan to realise the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples: He Puapua,” clearly demonstrates that the 2007 reasons for NZ’s opposition were well-founded because the He Puapua plan exhibits those very features.
Fully agree that there are bigger issues that arguing about the meaning of 'indigenous', but would it not be a wise interim step to simply pass a law that says, for the purpose of all laws in NZ, that given the relatively recent arrival of the first folk to these shores, that we define indigenous as 'a naturally born NZ citizen'. Boris ain't no lawyer, but perhaps that would set the race-based grift back a little?
Hello Gary, Irrespective of all the external crap that has been allowed to pollute democratic process, the fact that people arrived in New Zealand from other cultures, in different time periods, doesn't make any of them indigenous.
From a lay persons point of view, who firmly believes in one law for all, it has become obvious that the tail is wagging the dog. The dog being the spineless National Party. The tail being the woke idiots in New Zealand's public service.
Thanks Gary.
Drat!
I haven't been keeping up; thought there would be plenty of time to make a submission.
Thanks for your very appropriate submission, made just in time...
Is this really how democracy operates (inadequate notification and time to make submissions)?
Slightly off-topic, but in this technological age, I feel it's time to be able to vote on policies rather than parties..
Is it Switzerland that has this system of direct democracy? Oliver Hartwich covered this in 2023.
Great submission Mr Judd.
The time was short, and difficult to make a considered effort if we weren't keeping up, all the time.
That of course is the lesson.
Constant vigilance is a safeguard against tyranny.
We can still email our MPs to spread the net.
Following the resignation from Australia’s Parliament of deposed Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley, a couple of weeks ago there was a by-election in the NSW rural electorate of Farrer. Held by the Liberals or The Nationals since 1949 (that’s 77 years!), it has been captured by One Nation with the Liberals and The Nationals pushed into third and fourth respectively behind an Independent.
A principal One Nation policy plank is its advocacy for Direct Democracy on the Swiss model. One Nation says it would allow the Australian people to initiate referendums via simple petitions, enabling politicians to be controlled between elections. It would provide a ‘People’s Veto’ over the High Court of Australia when activist judges attempt to change the Constitution through the back door – something only the people should be able to do by a considered vote.
Sounds like the answer to most of our dreams!
Is there anyone here (populist political parties) who has/would entertain/ed such a policy...
More accountability, more democracy outside of elections.
With a question - are these people's referenda expensive, does that matter, and who decides the threshold of "significance"?
This question is also for you Noel Reid.
If the referenda could be conducted online, they should not be expensive.
But it could expose us to the similar risks as postal voting (someone voting for the family, or even a wider group) IF we don't have digital IDs (that I oppose for other reasons).
The referenda shouldn't be too expensive, if included/added to the 3-yearly election vote.
But, we should aspire to more frequent referenda. Worth the cost to have true democracy IMO...
We would need to be very careful that certain elements did not control narrative and awareness leading up to any voting. (Consider how many people now ignorantly refer to 'Israel's war on Gaza')
The Left have also been crafty at times. Note how many TPB submissions were 'counted as one' as they came through Hobsons Pledge I believe? And I wonder how many Iwi sent in submissions using the names of tribal members who possibly may not have even been literate...
Great idea, just would need to be secure and actually representative.
Yes, Switzerland and I think he wrote about it again recently, in relation to the Govt's threat to force amalgamation of local bodies (if they don't do it themselves).
It looks like the Swiss have around 4 referendum-voting sessions each year, and their Govt must submit significant decisions to referendum.
I recall there has been suggestions for referenda here, from time to time, and we did have one on MMP didn't we?
I'd be a real fan for referenda to be mandatory here. At the moment, we have parties who don't keep their election promises (sometimes prevented from doing so by coalition partners) and we have parties where I agree with some, but not all of their policies.
Rather than having to vote by choosing the party you dislike least, I think it's time the people should truly decide on all the important issues; via referenda
There is one key difference between the Swiss and Kiwis though Noel. Their citizens are educated, civically responsible and well informed (and yes, annoying pedantic about detail, but hey, it makes the watches work...).
NZ has far too many people who exist in our South Pacific Bubble and not the first frigging clue about very much at all. Schools need to run civics classes that teach kids about stuff that matters. And the curriculum needs to be fair and balanced, not left wing crap. Then, maybe then could we have informed voting in NZ.
Oh, and Switzerland, despite its complex language landscape, has a single dominant & shared culture, tracing back to the theology of Calvin, Zwingli etc. No Maui and fishhooks to be seen.
Dare I say it, but would it undermine democracy if, when voting on issues/policies, you had to first complete a test to prove you were aware if the pros and cons of what you were voting for?
Ha ha! It’s worse than that!
Thomas Sowell: "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Oops
The most recent Substack about Switzerland and local body elections was from Roger Partridge.
I had missed this Herald article from 9 years ago.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/kiwi-bosses-set-off-in-search-of-secrets-behind-swiss-success/QLZCKGD52NIAYIRBXBZXNOVJTY/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Was there any follow-up, to establish what they learned, and what actions could be taken here in NZ to emulate the best of what the Swiss have?