Under the veil of secrecy the Minister of Maori Affairs signed the Government up to the UNDRIP. National Ministers were quick to downplay the move as “aspirational” and “non-binding”! The PM must have stressed that point at least three times during question time. The test for National is whether they intend to leave this document as a symbol of aspiration that has no currency in New Zealand or whether they intend to deliver any of the expected outcomes which the MParty allude to?? No tupuna title for Hone, No Maori seats for Auckland and no gains whatsoever for the MParty. The whole move is a disaster with Rodney doing a haka that threatens the fragility of the Government agreements. A whole heap of window dressing of empty promises and hollow gains – meanwhile Maori unemployment continues to rise…
Think about how many other countries signed up without any intention of enacting the legislation…its just going for the kudos and to reaffirm the Maori party/National Government relationship really – it’s only symbolic and only ever will be
It is symbolic until an iwi has a grievance that they take to the UN – what a good look, Smile and Wave on TV1 saying ‘We didn’t really mean it it was just a joke’
So I’m interested, if 2008 was a Labour party victory, would Labour have signed the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights?
Josh , have you been asleep for the past 3 years.?
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON
THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the General Assembly 13 September 2007
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine).
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html
Kokks like there is Maori language version of UNDRIP.!!!
Maybe some words there mean ‘more’ to Maori than the English ones. Where have we seem that before? … let me think
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_Maori.pdf
heres the Maori version of Article 4
I raro i te whakamahi ä nga iwi taketake i to ratou Tino Rangatiratanga, ka ähei ratou ki
te tü motuhake, ki te hanga Käwanatanga Motuhake, hei whakahaere i nga kaupapa i
waenga i a ratou ano, me te hanga pütea hei utu i aua whakahaere motuhake.
And English
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination,
have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating totheir internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing
their autonomous functions.
It seems mistaken to treat “aspiration” as an empty word in relation to people whose aspirations are concrete and real.
It may be [sort our your language and try again, Chris]
Yes Olwyn. It will be the perception of Maori that it does offer a real means to an end. Imagine the future of the Customary Rights for the Seabed and Foreshore.
It is interesting to me that Mr Key said several times in Parliament yesterday that they had not signed anything. Yet the News has Hone and others saying that ” the signing of this UNIR ….” Sadly what might have been straight forward discussions on Customary Rights will become fraught.
Yet again, Labour has missed the politics of this issue and reverted to PC policy wonk mode, where it seems most comfortable. One day, they will realise that the first gap to close is the 20 percent gap in the polls. Meanwhile, Johnboy gets to run the country and the Maori party chalk up their wins. There is nothing ‘symbolic’ about signing up to this charter, as Helen Clark knew all too well.
Jennifer, either it’s symbolic (John Key’s version) or it isn’t (Pita Sharples’s version). That’s the problem.
Also will be interseting to see how it’s compatible (or more likely, not) with the Waitangi processes.
PS I can spell “interesting”. Usually.
Thanks Jennifer. You have all the answers. You would be a shoe in for a safe labour seat and the leader of the party a month later…. or maybe …
Ghost, come on, Phil is a good leader,
Too right Spud. In my work area no one listens to the experts either
ghostwhowalksnz, yes, I know Labour did originally vote against the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights, which is exactly why I was asking if they got in power would they still keep that position. The criticism here seems to be that the Declaration is symbolic more than anything else, so I was asking if Labour would have signed this and then made it more than symbolic, into something real, or if they would keep their previous policy and not even move for symbolism to appease their coalition partners?
It appears that respected jurist, Sir Eddie Durie, thinks it’s anything but ‘symbolic’, which kind lines up with the advice Clark got. Looks like Sharples is right, and Key is lying again.
Why complain about Sharpels at the UN? The Labour party didn’t do much for their Maori voters!
Deleted. Racist and provocative. Clare
Disappointing veiwpoint Nanaia.
I am of Tainui descent too
and I put it to you that the signing of this declaration is better that the non signing of it for all the motu including Tainui.
perhaps instead of critisism you could offer a more potentially viable solution . Congrats to the Maori party