Aaron Smale examines political attitudes towards the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Explainer: UNDRIP is an unfortunate sounding acronym which stands for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It also lends itself to all sorts of puns. Indigenous peoples must at times feel that waiting for the declaration to be fulfilled is like waiting for a dripping tap to fill a bath.
The political fight over UNDRIP sometimes goes on without any actual reference to the document or the obligations it outlines. UNDRIP was originally drawn up by a wide range of indigenous representatives who made their case at the UN. There were particularly strong representations from Anglo-settler states, which included Moana Jackson. As Jackson has written, some of the indigenous delegates were "disappeared" by their governments when they returned home.
The four colonial settler states of United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were the only countries that not only refused to sign, but voted against it. This was a pretty good indication that they recognised they'd been breaching the principles for centuries and didn't want to address what the declaration was saying.
Eventually the three other countries changed their stance and moved to sign on to the Declaration. It was only then that New Zealand decided it didn't want to be the only one to oppose the Declaration and agreed to it, albeit with a lukewarm endorsement. Ironically then, it was Helen Clark that refused to sign on to the declaration in 2007, but it was John Key's National government that agreed to it in 2010.
What the Declaration says is fairly basic, anodyne even. The second article, for example, states that: "Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity." (emphasis added)
This sounds straightforward, but when you begin to reflect on this one article you realise that, actually, it has been violated many times before and continues to be violated in the present. For a start, indigenous peoples, including Māori, have not been treated as equal to all other peoples. Implicit in this article is the idea that Māori and other indigenous peoples have rights that are based on their indigenous origin or identity, like the right to actually exist as distinct peoples.
Take another example, Article 8, which says that "states shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; Any form of forced assimilation or integration; Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them."
This is basically a laundry list of what the New Zealand state has been doing the opposite of for the past 180 years. The Native Land Court was a mechanism that, besides taking Māori land, was also implicitly designed to undermine Māori social structures that Māori land ownership was based on. Forced assimilation and integration has been the Crown's practice, in one shape or form, since. The physical punishment inflicted on generations of Maori children for speaking their mother tongue is one obvious example, but there were plenty of other policies that were designed to do the same thing - strip Māori identity and ways of doing things and replace it with a culture that was someone else's. In terms of "propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them", the Fourth Estate has done a pretty efficient job of that over the years. Politicians have relied on the press to carry racist views to the masses for decades without question. While this is slowly changing, it's long overdue and has a long way to go.
Existing as a distinct people means more than just breaking out in a haka or waiata now and again. It also means exercising Māori identity through collective action. Article 18 of the UNDRIP says: "indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions."
Article 21 stipulates that signatory states "shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of (indigenous) economic and social conditions." But it doesn't stop there - in Article 23 it asserts that "indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions."
Which is where things get interesting. National and ACT seek to portray these kinds of arrangements as "separatism" when they're in Opposition but have also promoted them when in power. What isn't consistently acknowledged is that New Zealand has told the world it will commit to these principles.
Although the declaration is non-binding and doesn't have any authority in law, it does provide a regular independent assessment of how the New Zealand government is going, not only addressing disparities that are common to indigenous peoples through the world, but upholding a list of rights that indigenous peoples should enjoy. Its power is in its ability to expose underperformance or compliance on the international stage.
Willie Jackson, Minister of Maori Development, has claimed the Government should be congratulated on its achievements and policies that show it is committed to fulfilling UNDRIP.
“We’ve already made positive strides to improve Māori health and housing outcomes and as a Government we are focused on what works and what will fix the issues important to Māori," Jackson proclaimed."For example there are some innovative iwi-led housing initiatives which are making a huge difference in communities."
"Positive strides" is subjective. The reality is more complex. Iwi, rather than politicians, have come up with solutions, possibly impatient for governments to act. Māori continue in large numbers to live in emergency accommodation or in cars, or struggle week to week trying to pay the exorbitant rents that are now commonplace. In terms of health, the Covid stats are still rolling in but they don't paint a positive picture for Māori.
“The Māori Health Authority will have an ongoing role in reducing poorer health outcomes for Māori," Jackson predicts. Successive governments, including those led by Labour, have not managed to address disparities in health and other sectors.
During the backlash from the opposition after the leak of He Puapua the Government was at pains to emphasise that the document wasn't policy, just a collection of ideas. Since then it has said little about where the document or the ideas are heading, but it is likely to be consulting further and trying to figure out how to progress some of the ideas without risking a voter backlash. There's a risk UNDRIP will fall by the wayside because of a fear of electoral consequences.
National has attacked moves by the Government to act on the UNDRIP commitments. The He Puapua report was an internal document that was supposed to broach the subject of how New Zealand could meet its commitments made under National. It is a declaration that a previous National government had signed up for, but National in Opposition have questioned the legitimacy of the whole exercise. But the party has not provided its ideas on how it intends to fulfil UNDRIP or whether it intends to fulfil it at all.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a brutal reminder that unless there are some internationally agreed upon standards on how the peoples of the planet should relate to each other, it can lead to serious trouble.
The Labour Party on the international stage has long favoured the UN but now on the domestic stage it is committed to act on the declaration.
In the end, under UNDRIP - and the Treaty of Waitangi for that matter - it doesn't matter which party is leading the government, they have to respond to the same obligations. Or ignore them. Any argument that NZ does not need UNDRIP because the country has the Treaty of Waitangi, would likely be viewed sceptically by Māori who have had to fight for generations for that treaty to be honoured.
Any move to ignore or revoke NZ's commitment to UNDRIP would raise issues over whether other UN declarations and conventions signed up to, such as those designed to prevent torture, to protect women, children and the disabled would continue to be observed and acted upon.
Whether it's UNDRIP or the Treaty of Wāitangi, when the Crown signs on to a document it is giving its word to honour the commitments contained in those documents in perpetuity. If politics now leads to NZ stepping back from those commitments, the mana of the Crown could, for many, be diminished.
