Founder / Director

Dr Muriel Newman

Dr Muriel Newman



View our latest NZCPR Weekly Newsletter …               

Register newsletter– to receive this free newsletter each week by email click the button and register

Newsletter logo


Dear NZCPR Reader,


This week…

This week we outline the controversial background to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and explain the implications of the Government’s decision to implement it, our NZCPR Guest Commentator Brian Giesbrecht explains why Canada’s decision to adopt UNDRIP as law will be such a disaster, and our poll asks whether you agree with the Government that UNDRIP should be ‘implemented’.

Last week…

In case you missed it, last week we examined the consequences of the Christchurch shooting – including a growing mass hysteria over security largely created by the Government’s scaremongering to justify its crackdown on gun owners HERE, and our NZCPR Guest Commentator Stephen Franks shared his concerns over the Government’s gun law changes HERE.

Making a difference…

Every week, through our newsletters, the NZCPR speaks out about public policy issues of key concern to New Zealanders. To maintain our independence we do not seek assistance from the Government, but instead rely on the kind support of readers. Please click HERE to help.

Ensuring you receive our newsletters…

If Internet Service Providers wrongly classify our newsletter as spam – you will not receive it unless you have whitelisted our newsletter mailing address: and my email address: Adding these addresses to your ‘contacts’ list will help, but  whitelisting is the only way to guarantee delivery. If your newsletter fails to arrive, the latest edition can be viewed via the Newsletter link on our website.

Email MPs…

For MP email addresses and other useful links, please visit our Communications page HERE.

Share our ideas…

Please feel free to share our newsletters with your contacts and social media. Anyone is welcome to register for the mailing list HERE.

Thank you for your on-going interest and support.  

Warmest regards,






Dr Muriel Newman
NZCPR Founding Director

What’s new on our Breaking Views blog…

Breaking Views is administered by the NZCPR – the views are those of the authors. Here is a selection of this week’s articles…

  • Clive Bibby: The killing machines and the law
    The normal procedure is to make sure the Government’s “feel good” actions are backed up by new legislation that has to be rushed through the House in the dead of night so that people will see their leaders are serious about fixing the problem…

NZCPR Weekly:

By Dr Muriel Newman


Last month the Minister of Maori Development, Nania Mahuta, announced that the Government intended developing a national plan of action for implementing the highly controversial United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

This is the so-called ‘aspirational’ and ‘non-binding’ agreement that Helen Clark’s Labour Government had considered too radical to support, but that John Key’s National Government signed.

Given the importance of this announcement for the future, it’s worth reviewing the background in some detail.

At 4.45 am New Zealand time on the 20th of April 2010, the Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples announced to the United Nations in New York that New Zealand would support UNDRIP.

Later that day Prime Minister John Key announced to the New Zealand public – who had not been consulted – that the signing had taken place.

It had been a clandestine affair – no-one had been told that Dr Sharples was flying to New York with officials and selected media to sign the agreement. Those involved had been sworn to secrecy.

Supporting the Declaration was considered controversial because Helen Clark as Prime Minister had refused to sign on advice from Crown Law that it was fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements.

At the time, New Zealand was one of only four countries that hadn’t signed – the others were Australia, Canada, and the United States, which also had in place substantial legislative frameworks associated with early inhabitants.  

In her address to the United Nations on 13 September 2007, Rosemary Banks, New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, outlined why New Zealand could not sign the Declaration:

“Madam President, the place of Maori in society, their grievances and the disparities affecting them, are central and enduring features of domestic debate and of government action. Furthermore, New Zealand has an unparalleled system for redress accepted by both indigenous and non-indigenous citizens alike…

“It is therefore a matter of deep regret that we find ourselves unable to support the text before us today. In particular, four provisions in the Declaration are fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements, the Treaty of Waitangi, and the principle of governing for the good of all our citizens.

“These are Article 26 on lands and resources, Article 28 on redress, and Articles 19 and 32 on a right of veto over the State.

“Madame President, the provision on lands and resources cannot be implemented in New Zealand. Article 26 states that indigenous peoples have a right to own, use, develop or control lands and territories that they have traditionally owned, occupied or used. For New Zealand, the entire country is potentially caught within the scope of the Article. The Article appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous, and does not take into account the customs, traditions, and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned. Furthermore, this Article implies that indigenous peoples have rights that others do not have.

“In addition, the provisions on redress and compensation, in particular in Article 28, are unworkable in New Zealand, despite the unparalleled and extensive processes that exist under New Zealand law in this regard. Again, the entire country would appear to fall within the scope of the Article and the text generally takes no account of the fact that land may now be occupied or owned legitimately by others or subject to numerous different, or overlapping, indigenous claims. It is impossible for the State in New Zealand to uphold a right to redress and provide compensation for value for the entire country – and indeed financial compensation has generally not been the principal objective of most indigenous groups seeking settlements in New Zealand.

“Finally, the Declaration implies that indigenous peoples have a right of veto over a democratic legislature and national resource management, in particular Articles 19 and 32(2). We strongly support the full and active engagement of indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making processes. We also have some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world, where the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including the principle of informed consent, are enshrined in resource management law. But these Articles imply different classes of citizenship, where indigenous have a right of veto that other groups or individuals do not have.

“Unfortunately, these are not the only provisions that cause us difficulties; for example, we also have concerns about Article 31 concerning intellectual property.

“Madame President, New Zealand takes international human rights and our international human rights obligations seriously. But we are unable to support a text that includes provisions that are so fundamentally incompatible with our democratic processes, our legislation and our constitutional arrangements. These provisions are all discriminatory in the New Zealand context.

“This Declaration is explained by its supporters as being an aspirational document, intended to inspire rather than to have legal effect. New Zealand does not, however, accept that a State can responsibly take such a stance towards a document that purports to declare the contents of the rights of indigenous people. We take the statements in the Declaration very seriously and for that reason have felt compelled to take the position that we do.”

The clauses that Rosemary Banks referred to in the Declaration are as follows:

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 26

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired…

Article 28

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent…

Article 32

2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

Article 31

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions…

Altogether UNDRIP – see HERE – consists of 46 Articles which confer special rights on indigenous people that elevate their status above that of all other citizens. These include the right to “self-determination” and separate self-rule, through their own political, economic, legal, social and cultural systems. It includes separate education, health and housing (all funded by the state), the right to virtually all of New Zealand’s land and resources, the right to on-going compensation, and the right of veto over the actions of the Government.

Furthermore, the thorny issue of defining who is an ‘indigenous’ person is resolved through self-identification in Article 33: “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.”

The whole Declaration is at such great odds with the concept of New Zealand as a modern democratic nation where people of all races are equal before the law, that it’s almost impossible to understand how John Key and his National Government could have justified even contemplating signing. At the time the PM said the Declaration was a symbolic aspirational affirmation of indigeneity. The warning that UNDRIP was it is in fact a lever to set in motion an agenda which would see the tribal elite assuming higher authority over domestic matters than other New Zealanders, was ignored.

On announcing the signing of the Declaration, John Key said, “As a Government, we can be proud of the fact that we have worked through any difficulties supporting the declaration have presented. While the declaration is non-binding, it both affirms accepted rights and establishes future aspirations. My objective is to build better relationships between Maori and the Crown, and I believe that supporting the declaration is a small but significant step in that direction.”

He outlined what he believed was a crucial safeguard: “The statement in support of the Declaration, reaffirms the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin New Zealand’s legal system, noting that those existing frameworks define the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the declaration”.

New Zealand First’s leader Winston Peters expressed concerns about the Declaration: “The United Nations Indigenous Peoples Declaration was signed in the dead of night at the UN in New York. The people were never consulted. This declaration says that in a dispute over New Zealand laws, some New Zealanders’ rights over-ride the rights of others. And in time, this is going to be written into our laws. This is the final step on the road to separatism. This is the road to Zimbabwe.”

Now, in announcing they will implement UNDRIP, it is Winston Peters’ Government that intends taking that “final step on the road to separatism”.

According to a Cabinet minute, on 5 March 2019 Government Ministers – including Winston Peters – agreed that the Minister of Maori Development would develop a national plan of action for the implementation of the Declaration. A technical working group will be established and “an engagement process with iwi, hapū and whānau that embodies New Zealand’s best practice under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Declaration” will be developed.

The Minister is expected to report back her plan by August.

So there you have it. Thanks to his approval, the final step to separatism that Winston Peters warned about is now underway.

Public concerns about the Declaration, that National dismissed as scaremongering, are now coming to fruition. By allowing themselves to be manipulated by the Maori Party into introducing a powerful weapon for Maori supremacy, National set the scene for its implementation.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is former Canadian Judge Brian Giesbrecht, who outlines his deep concerns over the fact that Canada not only signed UNDRIP in 2010, but under their progressive PM Justin Trudeau, are implementing it into law:

“Canada has always been solidly with The United States, Australia and New Zealand In refusing to acknowledge UNDRIP as anything more than an aspirational document. But now it seems that the current government has thrown all caution to the wind, and intends to force UNDRIP through Parliament as Canadian law. Bill C-262 has received third reading in the Commons and first reading in the Senate. Unless wiser heads in the Senate can stop this juggernaut we may soon be saddled with a monster that will destroy jobs, compromise Canada’s economic future, and negatively affect the governance of the country.

“The Prime Minister has previously vowed to make his Indigenization agenda impossible for succeeding governments to undo. He has also publicly stated that he is determined to make his view of Indigenous advancement his most important legacy. It seems that he is prepared to do these things at all costs – even if that means severely diminishing the Canadian economy, and making the country effectively ungovernable in the process.”

Heaven help us if Winston Peters and his Government decide to do the same thing!


Do you agree with the Government that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be ‘implemented’?

*Poll comments are posted at the end of the main article.


*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.

Click to view x 120

NZCPR Guest Commentary:

By Brian Giesbrecht 


“However, there is another equally important reason why enacting UNDRIP as law is a bad idea for Canada. It regards Indigenous people as a collective rather than as individual citizens. Canada has already made the momentous mistake in 1867 of perpetuating the 1763 Royal Declaration’s outdated concept of looking at Indigenous people as a tribe, rather than as individual citizens, and UNDRIP would cement that backward thinking in place permanently.

“There should never have been special reference to Indians in the Constitution – they should have been treated as ordinary Canadian citizens. There should have been no such things as reserves. We have paid the price for the colossal error of singling Indians out for special treatment. As a result Indian reserves have left too many Indigenous people poor, isolated and dependent in an odd communist system. Social pathologies have been the inevitable result. UNDRIP perpetuates that unfortunate mindset that treats Indigenous people as a collective composed of wards of the state instead of treating indigenous people like everyone else.

“Make no mistake about it: The Indigenous policy that Canada has followed for the past couple of generations – namely giving ever more money and power to chiefs – has been an absolute and utter failure. It is time to abandon that disastrous policy, and treat Indigenous people as individuals as all other Canadians are treated. Achieving legal equality of for all citizens is fundamental to the ability of this country to be successful.

“Perhaps an Australian Minister best articulated this important goal. While explaining why making UNDRIP Australian law would be a bad idea, the Minister responsible for Indigenous matters said “ There should only be one law for all Australians and we should not enshrine in law practices that are not acceptable in the modern world.” Australia signed on to UNDRIP, but only as an aspirational document – Australian law will not be governed by it. That is what we should do…”

*To read the full article, please visit the NZCPR website.





New Zealand Centre for Political Research
Ph: 09-434-3836, Fax: 09 434-4224, Mob: 021-800-111

To unsubscribe from the newsletter, send this email – but don’t forget to reply to the confirmation message.
If you need help unsubscribing, please email with “REMOVE” in the subject line.
Please note it’s important that you contact us over unsubscribing problems because
it’s often caused by the fact that it was an older address that was registered,
not your current one, and we will need to search for that. 

To change your address please email with “ADDRESS CHANGE” in the
subject line, advising the new address to be added and the old one to be removed.