Editorials 21 April 2010

April 21st, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Three on the Declaration. First the Herald:

When the previous Labour Government was confronted with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, it quailed.

The potential political backlash, rather than the practical outcome of signing a non-binding document, was uppermost in its mind.

At its behest, New Zealand joined a group of only four UN members opposed to the declaration. It was a nonsensical state of affairs for a country whose record on indigenous rights is far superior to the vast majority of those who had signed up. …

If New Zealand does certain things differently to the ideal scenario alluded to by the declaration, that is of no great practical consequence. The focus should be on its record on indigenous relations, which places it in the international vanguard.

The work of the Waitangi Tribunal, which since 1975 has served as an effective sounding board for iwi to relate their stories of land loss, has been an integral part of that.

New Zealand has always spoken from a position of strength on matters of indigenous rights because it comes closer than most to meeting the aspirations espoused in the UN declaration.

Signing that document was, as Dr Sharples suggests, a small step but one that has symbolic value domestically and internationally.

There may, indeed, be no practical impact. That does not mean, however, that grasping this nettle was not worthwhile.

So Herald very supportive.

The Press:

The Party chalked up another victory this week with the announcement that the Government will support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although this decision is largely symbolic, support for the declaration had been a long-standing goal of the party and a source of friction between it and the previous Labour-led administration.

From a political perspective, support for the declaration makes sense for both the and . The can add this to a growing list of policy concessions by National, including retaining the Maori seats and flying the Maori flag on Waitangi Day. In addition, the hated foreshore and seabed law will be repealed and the ’s flagship Whanau Ora policy will be introduced.

For National, these concessions have the effect of tying the Maori Party closer to it and creating the prospect that a support relationship between the two could endure past this term. In particular, it creates a point of difference with Labour, which justified its position as one of just four nations to oppose the declaration in 2007 by saying that it was at odds with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal framework. …

There is a risk that the declaration could be the basis of future attacks on this nation’s human rights record. But New Zealand governments have shown themselves capable of shrugging off previous criticism from bodies such as the UN Commission on Human Rights.

It might be argued, as Labour has done, that there was little point in endorsing the declaration if it would have no practical effect. It is, however, a symbol of New Zealand’s support for indigenous peoples across the globe.

And it was always incongruous that the vast majority of nations, many of which have appalling human rights records compared with New Zealand, voted for the bill, and that this nation did not.

Two in favour.

The Dom Post:

Recognising blah blah blah, affirming waffle waffle waffle. As a contribution to the human rights canon, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples leaves something to be desired.

It reads like a 48-page wish list assembled by a committee, which is exactly what it is – a committee which debated the merits of additional clauses, full stops and commas for 22 years. Drafting began in 1985, but the final wording was not approved by the United Nations General Assembly until 2007.

Heh sounds typical.

However, its drawn-out conception is not a reason to oppose it. Nor is its verbosity. The declaration is a flawed document – an assemblage of truisms and platitudes that imposes no obligations on signatories but contains fishhooks for nations that try to honour it.

It is actually to the last government’s credit that it declined to endorse a document it knew it could not implement. Amid the verbiage are a handful of articles that confer rights on indigenous peoples that are denied to other citizens. They include the right to veto government decisions and reclaim ownership of traditional lands – a right that, in New Zealand’s case, could be interpreted as covering the entire country.

New Zealand does not need to pay lip service to unworkable statements to demonstrate its good intent. …

However, there is value in restating the special status of Maori as New Zealand’s indigenous people, acknowledging the importance of Maori culture, affirming the Treaty of Waitangi’s place as New Zealand’s founding document and acknowledging the historic injustices suffered by Maori.

The negotiations between the Maori Party and National have enabled the Government to do so in a way which does not expose it to accusations of bad faith.

New Zealand’s declaration of support explicitly reaffirms the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin the legal system and notes that those frameworks define the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the UN declaration. In other words, New Zealand law takes precedence over the declaration.

A momentous occasion as the Maori Party has suggested? Perhaps not, but a welcome opportunity to remove a source of friction between Maori and the Government and to put New Zealand back in the international mainstream. Of the four countries that initially opposed the declaration – New Zealand, the United States, Australia and Canada – only the US now stands outside the declaration. Australia changed its position last year and Canada has said it will do so.

Luke warm, but broadly supportive.

The ODT focuses on volcanic fallout:

If there is a lesson to be learned – again – from the billowing clouds of volcanic ash in the skies over Europe, it is the latent power of nature.

In 1783, the eruption of the volcano Laki in Iceland lasted for about eight months.

The effects of the layers of dust it threw into the atmosphere have been linked, among other things, to the failure of crops in France, and subsequent famine.

The fallout, Dr Stephen Edwards of the Department of Earth Sciences at University College London told the London Observer at the weekend, may have been one of a number of factors that led to the French Revolution. …

The interruption to normal service is costing the airline industry alone almost $NZ500 million a day, according to a conservative estimate by the International Air Transport Association.

The knock-on effects to a world economy just beginning to witness the signs of a fragile recovery from the recent recession, could be considerably amplified beyond the immediate consequences of cancelled flights.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Editorials 21 April 2010”

  1. ben (2,279 comments) says:

    How long until we hear, “Honour the Declaration”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Scorpio (341 comments) says:

    Are Maori ‘indigenous’? I thought they got here about 2-300 years before other settlers. Who have been here coming up 200 years themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    The drums are beating…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    That is the one thing that has struck me about the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. It does not define in any legislative standpoint, what an indigenous person is.

    It could be argued that the Australian Aborigines, with a known history dating back some 40,000 years (based on cave art), definately qualify, but that maori, who by their own admission, arrived in NZ only 1000 years ago at the earliest, do not fit the definition of indigenous.

    Does the declaration apply to them? Where is that notion able to be tested?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    NZ Hooerald, Dominion Post, and Christchurch Press all to the left of Labour, while the country has moved towards the political centre.

    Uninterested absentee owners and leftist journalists are more danger to the survival of the NZ print media than the internet is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Jack5- the Greens supported the declaration. At least the Herald, Post and Press are not to the left of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. gorille (1 comment) says:

    For goodness sake what’s Scorpio on about? Maori are Polynesians. Polynesians are the original inhabitants of the vast area of Oceania bounded by Hawai’i, Aotearoa and Rapanui (the Polynesian triangle). Cave drawings in South Canterbury have been carbon-dated from 900 A.D. The first European person to be born in Aotearoa, Thomas King wa born in 1815. Being ignorant of, or worse still denying it, wont make the truth of our country’s settlement and colonial exploitation go away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    The media and the far right and left will try to stir up public opinion saying the govt is giving in to Maori… But I don’t think the average everyday joe kiwi really cares.. don’t fear Maori and see Maori as kiwi’s standing up for their rights to be kiwi’s in their own land.. over that of foreign ownership… at the end of the day Maori are just New Zealanders fighting for their rights to be New Zealanders.. whats to fear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    RKBee 3:03 pm,

    … at the end of the day Maori are just New Zealanders fighting for their rights to be New Zealanders.. whats to fear.

    Famous last words?

    Ask me again in 5-10 years, perhaps less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    … at the end of the day Maori are just New Zealanders fighting for their rights to be New Zealanders.. whats to fear.

    The Balkanisation of New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Concessions the Maori party has won: replacing foreshore and seabed with something pretty much identical; flying a flag one day of the year; Pita Sharples gets to give a speech at the UN; Whanua Ora. The only thing material there is Whanua Ora, and it remains to be seen whether it amounts to anything except an effectless waste of money. So it’s hard to see the Maori party as a tail wagging the dog..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. berend (1,690 comments) says:

    Jack5: NZ Hooerald, Dominion Post, and Christchurch Press all to the left of Labour

    Really? I think Labour did a comparison between National policy and NZ Herald editorials. The similarities were amazing. And here we have Labour opposed, and National supporting the newspapers.

    What a surprise.

    But what would we expect from a guy who thinks parents who lightly smack their child are potential criminals. And what a surprise, the Greens also support this declaration.

    No, the only thing that is confirmed here is that National is to the left of the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kiki (408 comments) says:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Signing-marks-most-significant-day-for-Maori-since-1840/tabid/419/articleID/152156/Default.aspx?ArticleID=152156

    “If New Zealand does certain things differently to the ideal scenario alluded to by the declaration, that is of no great practical consequence. The focus should be on its record on indigenous relations, which places it in the international vanguard.”

    “The focus should be” should be means don’t bother. This will be the starting point for a real slide down hill. I am interested though in this declarations effect on the BNP in England or parts of Europe if we are forced into second class citizenship here, what would those indigenous Europeans think this allows?

    I thought Key was smart but now I see him as a smiling idiot, I’m disappointed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    As a Kiwi I’m disappointed that there are a few Maori that continually hope to divide the country by colour. When are these fools going to realise that there is no future in separate governance, the horse has bolted. Sharples and those that take stock in this document are dinosaurs, with luck and fifty years they should be totally extinct. Whether they like it or not the world is not black or white and no poxy declaration from the socialist new world order in the UN will change anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    I think Labour were right this time. Why should NZ sign up to a charter that promotes one group (based on their race) being able to veto government decisions? The UN declaration is a crock, and I hope NZ will not suffer for it.
    I also don’t see Australia lining up to sign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote