16 May 2026
MY POSITION
I oppose the inclusion of Article 13.2 of the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which expressly affirms the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
I ask the Committee to recommend the removal of Article 13.2(a) before ratification.
JUSTIFICATION
Article 13.2 uses the contemporary meaning of the term 'indigenous' in the interests of retribalisation politics and against liberal-democracy.
This contemporary use can be traced to the United Nations in the 1960s. Previously 'indigenous' was mainly confined to anthropology. It referred to autochthony [Gk sprung from the land itself; khthon – land;].
In the 1960s a United Nations committee investigated the employment conditions of two groups of pre-industrial peasants that become distinguishable during industrialisation. It applied the term 'indigenous' to those who had remained in situ to distinguish them from those who migrated to the cities or to other countries.
It is likely that 'indigenous' was brought from the UN to New Zealand in the 1980s by academic Aroha Mead. Its meaning was conflated with autochthony, despite the fact that Māori were 14th century settlers.
By the end of the 1980s, 'indigenous' (and 'tangata whenua') spread from the universities (helped by influential anthropologist Dame Anne Salmond) into retribalisation politics and commonplace parlance. It became a truism that Māori were indigenousi with economic and political rights attached to the essentialised status. The 2000 establishment of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues strengthened the word's permanent place in our speech and in our minds. It was reified as truth; a position cemented when New Zealand formally endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010, despite having refused to do so in 2007ii.
Language is the means by which ideologies are inserted into peoples' minds. The conflation of 'indigenous' with autochthony and its subsequent reification has proved one of the most successful. Its true meaning – that of a blood and soil ideology – is very well concealed.On a final note: I recommend that today's politicians look closely at all retribalisation language. There is much that warrants consideration.
For those on the Select Committee who wish to take up this challenge, I recommend my two scholarly publications which examine the ideological use of language in the interests of retribalisation politics. They are:
The Transformation of Indigeneity, published in Review, A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems and Civilisations, XXV, 2, 2002, 173-95. 380.
Discursive Strategies of the Maori Tribal Elite, Critique of Anthropology, 31(4), 2011, 359–380.
Both are available at www.elizabethrata.com.
Professor Elizabeth Rata is a sociologist of education in the School of Critical Studies, Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Auckland where she is Director of the Knowledge in Education Research Unit (KERU).
i The history of 'indigenous' (and also 'ethnicity') are sober reminders about the importance of knowing etymology. Thank goodness the Knowledge-Rich English Curriculum (October 2025) includes etymology. Vocabulary acquisition must always include details about a word's history so that no word is taken for granted and able to acquire an undeserved potency used to capture minds.
ii I would like to see this endorsement withdrawn, for the reasons I give concerning the FTA Article 13.2
27 comments:
An impeccable erudite and evidence=based analysis. to hope that Select Committees still operate on this basis. The failure of ACT's TP Bill in 2025 proved that political correctness trumps fact.
People must realize: a non- legally binding
UN document can acquire legally binding status if it becomes part of the national legislation of a sovereign state. This legal step explains the inclusion of the UNDRIP reference in the NZ/India FTA. This will have dangerous consequences for NZ's democracy and race relations. It must be removed now.
Absolutely correct summary. Indigenous from the Latin: Indigena: meaning sprung from the land or soil and native to.
The word has been hijacked to serve the radical agenda. It does have potency as many people, including it seems our politicians, now consider Maori to have special rights and privileges. In reality they are early settlers.
What on earth a trade agreement has to do with indigenous rights is anybody's guess.
As we can see, this infiltration into legislation always has ramifications down the track.
Maori people are indigenous to Taiwan. They are descendants of a Taiwanese tribe that fled Taiwan thousands of years ago. They travelled down through Melanesia and settled in the Pacific Islands. More recently they travelled to New Zealand and settled here .
They have Taiwanese DNA, and also their language is very similar to current Taiwanese dialect.
That this provision (Article 13.2(a)) must be removed from the Indoia FTA is a no-brainer. Let's see if the committee has a brain?
That word 'indigenous' is so problematical - it has no standard meaning according to the UN. So UNDRIP was an UNGA Declaration about people whose identity is nebulous. Now that really helps.
Just how silly things can get was shown by the Saramaka case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2007 when the court held that these descendants of Negro slaves had the same rights in relation to land that they had occupied since the 17thC as 'indigenous' people.
What I'm hoping is that one of these days a group of Amerindians will put in a claim for that land on the basis that they are more 'indigenous' than the Saramaka.
The trouble with Doug's argument is that the 'indigenous' people of Taiwan had to have come from somewhere as well. You end up with a chain of regression ending somewhere in Africa where the first hominins appeared.
A practical definition of 'indigenous' that I favour is a people who have been in a place long enough to have developed a unique culture and language. Maoris are indigenous by that definition but so are my own crowd, the Dutch, at least the ones who live in Holland.
Can't win, can you?
How does such wording get into the Trade agreement in the first place? Is their no one totally indepenant of maori who compiles or reads this stuff through? Will they be censured for oversight? Will anyone on the committee trouble to fathom exactly what Rata with her unfamiiar words is stating?
Actually Barend, maoris imported their language and culture to NZ, it didn't develop here, and I presume it remained little changed until European/English influence so your argument doesn't really hold water. In fact they are no more 'indigenous' to the Eastern Pacific islands from which they came, as was pointed out by another commentator. As you noted, the truly indigenous in a biological sense are African human populations, from whence the rest of us benighted hominids arose.
Allen, you are assuming that Maori culture and language did not change significantly over some three quarters of a millennium, despite having come to an environment quite different from the one they left. That's pretty unlikely. Anyway, where had they sojourned and for how long between leaving Taiwan and arriving here? It was probably an island-hopping migration, not a direct beeline from Taipei to Wellington. There would have been adaptational changes along the way.
Another issue here is how much change amounts to 'significant change'. The inferential stats meaning of 'significant' is not applicable here - it comes down to an arbitrary judgement.
Exactly the same questions arise for any group of people descended from migrants long ago. My lot (Dutchies) came from Germanic tribes who had 'originally' come from Scandinavia who had 'originally' come from the Caucasus who had 'originally' come from...... say 'when'!
To Janine 7.56: The reference ( seemingly irrelevant) is deliberate. Retention or removal indicates support for equal citizenship with implications for the 2026 election and NZ's evolution until 2040. A major test for National.
An interesting array of comments, which to me miss the point that, someone in The "Indigenous Beltway" of Wellington, a person who 'migrated' from a NZ University, via the Courtney Place Public Houses (during student years) travelling along Lambton Quay to "finally" reside in a Whare aka as a home for NZ Civil Servants, who was tasked to scribe the document that was to be presented for consideration (which under erudite consideration- had to include dairy exports) and upon "proof reading" another scribe added UNDRIP -to finally have Todd McClay present as NZ's version of a FTA, to which the Indian Govt, changed to add -
- NO dairy (they were never going to agree on this point)
- Lots of Immigration - one way
- you pay us money
- plus any other thing they can 'screw' out of us.
Interesting to see, in my City, we already a dealership selling Royal Enfield Motorcycles - as made in India.
Gee that was quick!
Yup our City Council will now have to create motorcycle pathways, so we can ride in safety.
I have a question - in India, they do not wear motorcycle helmets, under UNDRIP (as written in the FTA) will NZ citizen's be able to do the same?
In conclusion - this is one FTA, that needs to be revoked.
That's beside the point, Barend, for getting back to the issue, what business is the insertion of Article 13.2(a) of the FTA got to do with trade between these two countries - other than being there to underhandedly (by stealth) push an ideology (and declaration) that does not apply to NZ and has the potential for far reaching destabilising consequences in our unity? Inter alia, UNDRIP's Article 46 says
1. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States. He Puapua does directly that, and its existence is founded in and on UNDRIP. We should have no part of it, leastwise without the mandate of this country's citizens. Anything less is deliberate corruption and an act of treason on the part of our politicians. Helen Clark was right to have not a bar of it.
Thanks for your comments Barend, but you do not have evidence that there was or was not change in either language or culture because there are no written records and the two aspects are rather ephemeral. I did not use the adjective 'significant'.
True, Allen; evidence is sorely missing. But it is a reasonable assumption to make that culture and language, being behavioural adaptations, change with changing time and place.
You didn't use the word 'significant' but I did; the point being that when we are dealing with gradual cumulative change, we need to draw a line and say, "Here, culture X becomes culture Y." Of course we run smack into the Sorites Paradox but as long as we create categories we need to do this.
Peter, I see where you are coming from, but the 'I' in UNDRIP does raise the question of what it refers to. Showing that it has no standard meaning weakens the case for He Puapua and associated separatist drives.
Be that as it may, Barend, but He Puapua sprang forth from Sharples visit to the UN and this will almost certainly result in a repeat of that unwanted 'divider of NZ' rising again. We certainly don't need it being enshrined in our law through 'the backdoor' - without a public mandate. And on the indigenous point, show me first a full-blooded Maori and I'll contemplate whether they're more indigenous than me and warrant having special privileges because of it. And we also constantly hear the refrain these days "honour the Treaty." Well what does Te Tiriti call Maori? To quote - "tangata maori", NOT 'tangata whenua' - as in the people of the land, which the revisionists are only too keen to adopt these days for obvious reasons. I'm prepared to defer to the Williamses who translated the Treaty into Te Reo and I'm prepared to wager that the Rangatira, who signed it, knew the meaning of what it said and that they also knew full-well that they themselves came here by boat and that there were others here before them. They're not indigenous, and any claim that they are is simply a lie to gain an advantage - in my opinion.
India evaded the UNDRIP in the agreement we must have known this so we actively kept it there.
Does worry a bit about our team.
Yes, Bill T, there are some amongst us who are definitely not batting for the team. Given that McClay seemed (in an interview) oblivious to it, who in MFAT insisted on its inclusion and for what other possible reason than that which is obvious? There's treason afoot.
Does indigenous mean "sprung from the soil" or does it simply mean "those that arrived here first?". Apparently, according to Elizabeth Rata, the term indigenous being applied to Maori, evolved in the 1980s. Before that Maori didn't care presumably if they were indigenous or not.
It can then be argued there was some advantage to be had by being called "indigenous" not just an altruistic motive.
Some say the Maori were preceded by the Moriori but they have conveniently been sidelined to the Chathams, never to have set foot in New Zealand at all.
I understand that Maori DNA references Taiwan.... ... Are they even "indigenous" there? Perhaps their exit from Taiwan is something they want to hide???
Who cares, other than those seeking some advantage? It didn't end well for the Sneetches, nor did it for South Africa.
Interesting how Maori claim to be indigenous, but when they die their spirits depart to Hawaiki via the North Cape. Why?
Yippee, I must be indigenous too, as all 8 of my gt grandparents were here and building NZ pre 1876, well before most of the ancestors of Helmut and Debbie. Now all I need to do is find a ticket to clip, a necklace and a walking stick.
See: https://onenzfoundation.co.nz/sir-john-key-destroyed-new-zealands-democracy/
MĀORI ARE NOT INDIGENOUS
‘Indigenous’ means your remote ancestors were someplace from time immemorial, i.e. before knowledge, handed-down memory, and the scientific record can accurately determine.
Indigenous means you didn’t come from somewhere else to settle here.
Clearly, Maori don’t fit the definition of indigenous. They were settlers in what is now New Zealand, like everyone else.
The only reason Māori could be considered ‘indigenous’ at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 is that they were the most recent arrivals.
Their own ‘from whakapapa’ oral hand-me-downs were recorded by early settlers with an interest in Māori lore, and gleefully recount the killing, eating, enslavement, and dispossession of the people—the Tangata Whenua—who were already living here when the Maori arrived around 1250 AD in ancestral canoes, the names of which are still known today.
Unlike the Australian Aboriginals, who according to carbon dating can hold up uninterrupted time in the land of more than 40, 000 years, Maori are just another wave of immigrants who showed up 300 - 400 years before Abel Tasman made landfall in 1642.
Truly indigenous people don’t have stories about coming from elsewhere less than 800 years ago.
Maori tikanga holds that after death, Maori spirits leave NZ via its northernmost tip, Cape Reinga, to return to their ancestral homeland of Hawaiiki.
Hardly something they’d need to do if anyone alive today descended in part from a Maori was actually ‘Indigenous.’
Nimrods who assert otherwise should be called out loudly and often on the horse wallop they peddle.
Anyone descended in part from a Maori has exactly the same rights as everyone else.
Nothing more and nothing less.
>"Indigenous means you didn’t come from somewhere else to settle here."
Just think that one through for a moment. There is a terminal flaw in this argument as it means that a given people must have sprung up from nowhere, without any antecedents - an impossibility.
Every people on the planet have to have "come from somewhere". You end up with a series of regressions - for instance, my lot (the Dutch) 'came from' ancient Germania, their ancestors 'came from' Scandinavia, those ancestors 'came from' the Caucasus...... eventually, you end up with a bunch of hominins somewhere in Africa.
The real problem is the word 'indigenous' which the UN concedes has no standard definition. The main arbiter according to the UN is the way people define themselves. Also prominent is identification with homelands - that was an issue in the Saramaka case before the Inter-American Court of Human RIghts in 2007 who ruled that they had the same land rights as indigenous peoples despite being descendants of African slaves!
My response to both the assertion that Maori are 'indigenous' and to the assertion that they are not is, "By what definition of 'indigenous'?"
Damn the UN for peddling a Declaration (UNDRIP) that includes a word that is at best ill-defined. In mitigation, they were probably thinking about neolithic Amazonian Indians having their traditional lands despoiled by logging companies rather than about Maoris driving around in 4WDs.
In 1769 a fellow called Tupaia, from Ra'iatia, joined Cook at Bank's insistence because of his navigational knowledge of the Pacific Islands. He travelled on the Endeavour across the Pacific and came to New Zealand with Cook, Banks etc. This was some four hundred years after Maori had arrived in this country. If indigenous people had developed a different language and culture over those four centuries (which is a definition of Indigenous), how was Tupaia able to converse with the supposed indigenous occupants of these islands? Obviously the language had not changed to any degree.
The language of groups of people who have been separated tends to diverge; differences between the language of the two mount up over time until they may be considered to be different languages - it's a gradual cumulative process, not a matter of one language suddenly turning into something completely different. This Tupaia guy was a very well educated and intellectually gifted individual, and would have had little trouble working out how to communicate with the Maoris after listening to them for a while.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.