PM C Luxon was the one doing the trade deal with India and he is also reluctant to do away with Labours policies favouring anything maori. He over reached his position and stood on the Trade Ministers toes to bring this about clearly because it would probably not have gone ahead left to the rightful person undertaking his role not someone with a hidden agenda and should be made known to all the public before the elections. NZ 1st said they would not support it but
Act has not commented which leaves it questionable. Thankyou Gary for providing this insightful and quite frightening piece of information if it proceeds further.
Thanks Gary, the more I read the more I become disilluioned with Nationals blinkered push for getting "stuff done".
India made sure UNDRIP wasnt going to affect domestic politics. Minister McLay saying he didnt know we will be affected or could be, shows he's not paying attention or he's kicking the can down the road.
It's not there as a page filler. It's a trojan horse wheeled in very quietly to pop up when the times right. Oh no...
Māori are not indigenous. They were the people here before the Crown, making them sovereign. Indigenous is correctly applied to the Aboriginal people of Australia, as an example.
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.
I stand very much corrected, and I appreciate the detailed reply as it has helped enormously in my understanding. Please accept my apology, and I thank you for your reply.
I agree with your analysis. These agreements are more than just symbolic. As with previous FTAs, the Parliament can effect no change. The MPs either rubber stamp or not, with the perverse dynamic that for the Executive to be able to negotiate said agreement, they have the numbers in the House. In this situation, a little different due to NZ First's objections, but Labour and others have no issues embracing UNDRIP. Concerningly, the Minister of Trade and others appear to have agreed a text they have not read nor fully understood. It would appear the desire to get any agreement within a set time frame has trumped national interest.
I don't think we can say that because we do not know that the PM and his trade minister knew the provision was there. The agreement has 20 chapters and is over 1300 pages long, plus side letters and the like. Personally, I would not sign an agreement, even one this long, without reading it sufficiently closely to pick up a provision like 13.2, but I'm a lawyer and that's what my training calls upon me to do. Luxon relies on ministers to look after their portfolios. If there is fault, it lies with Trade Minister McClay, but he appears to say he didn't know it was there. I think it was his business to know that a provision like this had been inserted so the failure is that of himself and his political advisers, and of a system which allows officials the power to engage in politically and constitutionally sensitive activities without drawing what they are doing to the specific attention of those politically accountable. What should really happen here, and likely would happen in the private sector, is that those responsible for not drawing McClay's attention to the provision and getting his sign-off would be sacked.
The position is different with the Key government's signing up to UNDRIP. This was clearly a deliberate politically motivated act performed without a mandate and in secret. It shows utter contempt for the New Zealand people.
Having read your article this morn, I said to the trouble, CoGovernance is a done deal. Our Bureaucracy have failed us!
Why do our politicians not confront the Bureaucracy for inserting separatist clauses in agreements?
Why do we feel we have to bend the knee to faceless world organisations like the UN?
We read of; far north Local Council issues, similar here in the Bay; Local Councils who are instituting Maori representation even though Maori wards were voted out; separatist leave at some Govt. departments etc. etc.
I’m flabbergasted that anyone would think a separatist culture does not end in a “ us and them” mentality.
History shows that thinking has unfortunate outcomes
As usual Gary... you are 100% correct on this. The tidal wave of indoctrinated university graduates and law students are following up from the rear with the same constitutional agenda. Tania Waikato (Green candidate and lawyer) is one such radical entering parliament with this same loud cry for constitutional reform.
The lack of wisdom of foresight in this country is astounding - they know not what they are pushing for... a kind of hellish society. Politically, NZFirst is the only Party on to it and opposing.
Aside from voting, what other tangible solutions are available to assist in extracting this mad imposition?
Yes, correct. Even if it is true NZF did not see the He Puapua report when it was presented in November 2019, NZF Ministers were part of the Cabinet that requested its compilation in February/March 2019.
I absolutely agree the bureaucratic ideologues are on a constitutional revisionism path, towards 2040 Maori sovereignty/Tribal Rule and National is fully aware.
There have been too many once over lightly dismissals of the work Palmer, Finlayson, Charters et al progressed.
The activist courts will be keen to further this tool of enforcement, and it will be 2019 deja vu all over again.
John keys knighthood should be revoked. Stuff the National Party and stuff the UN, why the hell are we still funding these leaches? - devious bastards!
I had thought Labour was the most deceitful/devious Govt in NZ's history with their hidden He Puapua agenda, but now I have to wonder whether Luxon et al have been just as bad.
While I was concerned about immigration entitlements and a massive investment requirement in a FTA (totally irrelevant IMO) I missed the most-important UNDRIP.
As Grant has said, I would hope ACT withdraw their support (unless the UNDRIP clause is deleted), as soon as they become aware of it (or should they already know?).
Can I suggest Rosemary Banks should be nominated as a national hero.
NZF has no tolerance for the undemocratic stealth of UNDRIP. In fact, I believe it was Winston who actually advised the Clarke govt in 2007 to not sign it.
undrip has absolutely no place in any free trade agreement, furthermore I would say given the true definition of the term indigenous, maori are not and if they are not no one is as everyone travelled to this place at some point in time, but this is a pit that Luxon has dug for us and I believe Winston can see that
Winston is a "sheep on wolf's clothing" when it comes to Maorification. He and Shane Jones talk the talk when it comes to Treaty issues but never do anything substantive. The talk is a ploy to win the populist vote and attract voters National is abandoning. Winston talks about stopping the Maori Electoral Role but didn't follow it thru in 2017 when he was King ( Queen maker) and could introduce legislation now rather than use it as another vote winning promise to be forgotten the day after the election. When it comes to action NZF are all talk - no substance. Same with immigration - he was in government when it went totally out of control and said nothing.
Give NZF a break... if they enter a coalition on only 6% of the vote, that is only a very small amount of pull power. With greater support, they will actually be able to make some substantive moves to support the values of their voter base. Read their 15 founding principles, and if you agree, vote for them. And encourage others too. We could move mountains in this country if we backed the guy who actually cares about the protection of our democracy and the Rule of Law.
I agree. NZF and WP/SJ are an easy target, but I think currently they only have 3 members actually in the cabinet and therefore can always be outvoted - by National MPs, same goes for ACT.
The 'you didn't do anything while in Govt' line is a cheap shot.
People's ire should be reserved primarily for National. They reversed the 2007 stance on UNDRIP and they have shepherded through the India FTA.
I wouldn't be so sure about Winston. He may not have seen He Puapua when it was presented to Mahuta in November 2019 (as he claims), but he was part of the Cabinet that approved its procurement at the beginning of 2019. I've given links to Mahuta's Cabinet paper and the record of Cabinet's decision. As to ACT, I have yet to see any comment on UNDRIP's inclusion.
You are right to question that Gary but if there is one thing I have noticed about Winston is he is very careful about what he says, he is extremely careful not to have anything he says come back to bite him and believe me many have tried to catch him out over many years and Jackson certainly is not one to be trusted and as for Mahuta, well...
Thanks for the link, Graham. I've listened to it. If McClay did not know the provision was there, it must mean they were smuggled in by MFAT ideologues and McClay is so incompetent he didn't notice. That's the charitable view. Less charitable but more likely given the National Party's track record is that he did know they were there.
Gary, this is essential reading — and a public service. You've done what the parliamentary committee should be doing: followed the constitutional thread wherever it leads, regardless of the diplomatic packaging around it.
The pattern you identify is not new, but it is accelerating. A non-binding UN declaration becomes an endorsed aspiration, which becomes an implementation blueprint, which becomes a Cabinet paper withheld from the public, which now becomes an affirmation inside a binding international treaty. Each step is presented as modest. Cumulatively, they are transformative.
What makes this particular insertion so objectionable is its cynicism. India insisted on its own reservation — protecting its domestic legal position — while New Zealand's negotiators apparently volunteered to carry UNDRIP forward with no such protection. The electorate deserves to know who made that call, and why.
I suspect National ( or the civil servants drafting on its behalf) inserted the clause - India responded by requiring its position be qualified. National signed us up to UNDRIP - they are now embedding it in a way that will be hard to reverse. ACT should join NZF and refuse to support the legislation unless that clause is removed - McClay would have no objection given he claims he wasn't even aware of it. The staff member(s) responsible for installing the clause should be fired.
PM C Luxon was the one doing the trade deal with India and he is also reluctant to do away with Labours policies favouring anything maori. He over reached his position and stood on the Trade Ministers toes to bring this about clearly because it would probably not have gone ahead left to the rightful person undertaking his role not someone with a hidden agenda and should be made known to all the public before the elections. NZ 1st said they would not support it but
Act has not commented which leaves it questionable. Thankyou Gary for providing this insightful and quite frightening piece of information if it proceeds further.
Thanks again Gary for shining light on surreptitious attempts to change our constitution.
Thanks Gary, the more I read the more I become disilluioned with Nationals blinkered push for getting "stuff done".
India made sure UNDRIP wasnt going to affect domestic politics. Minister McLay saying he didnt know we will be affected or could be, shows he's not paying attention or he's kicking the can down the road.
It's not there as a page filler. It's a trojan horse wheeled in very quietly to pop up when the times right. Oh no...
Certainly a Trojan horse but who wheeled it in is the question.
Māori are not indigenous. They were the people here before the Crown, making them sovereign. Indigenous is correctly applied to the Aboriginal people of Australia, as an example.
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.
I stand very much corrected, and I appreciate the detailed reply as it has helped enormously in my understanding. Please accept my apology, and I thank you for your reply.
I agree with your analysis. These agreements are more than just symbolic. As with previous FTAs, the Parliament can effect no change. The MPs either rubber stamp or not, with the perverse dynamic that for the Executive to be able to negotiate said agreement, they have the numbers in the House. In this situation, a little different due to NZ First's objections, but Labour and others have no issues embracing UNDRIP. Concerningly, the Minister of Trade and others appear to have agreed a text they have not read nor fully understood. It would appear the desire to get any agreement within a set time frame has trumped national interest.
Thank you Gary
NZ stabbed in the back by Luxon & National.
CoGovernance will destroy our country.
Steve
I don't think we can say that because we do not know that the PM and his trade minister knew the provision was there. The agreement has 20 chapters and is over 1300 pages long, plus side letters and the like. Personally, I would not sign an agreement, even one this long, without reading it sufficiently closely to pick up a provision like 13.2, but I'm a lawyer and that's what my training calls upon me to do. Luxon relies on ministers to look after their portfolios. If there is fault, it lies with Trade Minister McClay, but he appears to say he didn't know it was there. I think it was his business to know that a provision like this had been inserted so the failure is that of himself and his political advisers, and of a system which allows officials the power to engage in politically and constitutionally sensitive activities without drawing what they are doing to the specific attention of those politically accountable. What should really happen here, and likely would happen in the private sector, is that those responsible for not drawing McClay's attention to the provision and getting his sign-off would be sacked.
The position is different with the Key government's signing up to UNDRIP. This was clearly a deliberate politically motivated act performed without a mandate and in secret. It shows utter contempt for the New Zealand people.
Agree your last paragraph.
Having read your article this morn, I said to the trouble, CoGovernance is a done deal. Our Bureaucracy have failed us!
Why do our politicians not confront the Bureaucracy for inserting separatist clauses in agreements?
Why do we feel we have to bend the knee to faceless world organisations like the UN?
We read of; far north Local Council issues, similar here in the Bay; Local Councils who are instituting Maori representation even though Maori wards were voted out; separatist leave at some Govt. departments etc. etc.
I’m flabbergasted that anyone would think a separatist culture does not end in a “ us and them” mentality.
History shows that thinking has unfortunate outcomes
Keep on keeping on
Steve
As usual Gary... you are 100% correct on this. The tidal wave of indoctrinated university graduates and law students are following up from the rear with the same constitutional agenda. Tania Waikato (Green candidate and lawyer) is one such radical entering parliament with this same loud cry for constitutional reform.
The lack of wisdom of foresight in this country is astounding - they know not what they are pushing for... a kind of hellish society. Politically, NZFirst is the only Party on to it and opposing.
Aside from voting, what other tangible solutions are available to assist in extracting this mad imposition?
Yes but Winston Peters was part of the Ardern Cabinet that pushed HePuapua!
Yes, correct. Even if it is true NZF did not see the He Puapua report when it was presented in November 2019, NZF Ministers were part of the Cabinet that requested its compilation in February/March 2019.
I absolutely agree the bureaucratic ideologues are on a constitutional revisionism path, towards 2040 Maori sovereignty/Tribal Rule and National is fully aware.
There have been too many once over lightly dismissals of the work Palmer, Finlayson, Charters et al progressed.
The activist courts will be keen to further this tool of enforcement, and it will be 2019 deja vu all over again.
John keys knighthood should be revoked. Stuff the National Party and stuff the UN, why the hell are we still funding these leaches? - devious bastards!
Wow, thanks for this Gary.
I had thought Labour was the most deceitful/devious Govt in NZ's history with their hidden He Puapua agenda, but now I have to wonder whether Luxon et al have been just as bad.
While I was concerned about immigration entitlements and a massive investment requirement in a FTA (totally irrelevant IMO) I missed the most-important UNDRIP.
As Grant has said, I would hope ACT withdraw their support (unless the UNDRIP clause is deleted), as soon as they become aware of it (or should they already know?).
Can I suggest Rosemary Banks should be nominated as a national hero.
What does ACT & NZF say.
NZF has no tolerance for the undemocratic stealth of UNDRIP. In fact, I believe it was Winston who actually advised the Clarke govt in 2007 to not sign it.
undrip has absolutely no place in any free trade agreement, furthermore I would say given the true definition of the term indigenous, maori are not and if they are not no one is as everyone travelled to this place at some point in time, but this is a pit that Luxon has dug for us and I believe Winston can see that
Winston is a "sheep on wolf's clothing" when it comes to Maorification. He and Shane Jones talk the talk when it comes to Treaty issues but never do anything substantive. The talk is a ploy to win the populist vote and attract voters National is abandoning. Winston talks about stopping the Maori Electoral Role but didn't follow it thru in 2017 when he was King ( Queen maker) and could introduce legislation now rather than use it as another vote winning promise to be forgotten the day after the election. When it comes to action NZF are all talk - no substance. Same with immigration - he was in government when it went totally out of control and said nothing.
Give NZF a break... if they enter a coalition on only 6% of the vote, that is only a very small amount of pull power. With greater support, they will actually be able to make some substantive moves to support the values of their voter base. Read their 15 founding principles, and if you agree, vote for them. And encourage others too. We could move mountains in this country if we backed the guy who actually cares about the protection of our democracy and the Rule of Law.
I agree. NZF and WP/SJ are an easy target, but I think currently they only have 3 members actually in the cabinet and therefore can always be outvoted - by National MPs, same goes for ACT.
The 'you didn't do anything while in Govt' line is a cheap shot.
People's ire should be reserved primarily for National. They reversed the 2007 stance on UNDRIP and they have shepherded through the India FTA.
I wouldn't be so sure about Winston. He may not have seen He Puapua when it was presented to Mahuta in November 2019 (as he claims), but he was part of the Cabinet that approved its procurement at the beginning of 2019. I've given links to Mahuta's Cabinet paper and the record of Cabinet's decision. As to ACT, I have yet to see any comment on UNDRIP's inclusion.
You are right to question that Gary but if there is one thing I have noticed about Winston is he is very careful about what he says, he is extremely careful not to have anything he says come back to bite him and believe me many have tried to catch him out over many years and Jackson certainly is not one to be trusted and as for Mahuta, well...
Sean Plunket tackled Todd McClay on how UNDRIP (and the Paris Accord) found their way into the FTA. McClay claimed to not know how it happened.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1187850163352020
Thanks for the link, Graham. I've listened to it. If McClay did not know the provision was there, it must mean they were smuggled in by MFAT ideologues and McClay is so incompetent he didn't notice. That's the charitable view. Less charitable but more likely given the National Party's track record is that he did know they were there.
Gary, this is essential reading — and a public service. You've done what the parliamentary committee should be doing: followed the constitutional thread wherever it leads, regardless of the diplomatic packaging around it.
The pattern you identify is not new, but it is accelerating. A non-binding UN declaration becomes an endorsed aspiration, which becomes an implementation blueprint, which becomes a Cabinet paper withheld from the public, which now becomes an affirmation inside a binding international treaty. Each step is presented as modest. Cumulatively, they are transformative.
What makes this particular insertion so objectionable is its cynicism. India insisted on its own reservation — protecting its domestic legal position — while New Zealand's negotiators apparently volunteered to carry UNDRIP forward with no such protection. The electorate deserves to know who made that call, and why.
Thank you for naming it plainly.
I suspect National ( or the civil servants drafting on its behalf) inserted the clause - India responded by requiring its position be qualified. National signed us up to UNDRIP - they are now embedding it in a way that will be hard to reverse. ACT should join NZF and refuse to support the legislation unless that clause is removed - McClay would have no objection given he claims he wasn't even aware of it. The staff member(s) responsible for installing the clause should be fired.
Perhaps we should all write to Seymour!