Act has scored the most recent bragging rights by persuading National to ensure only elected councillors can vote on most council committees. This win follows NZ First’s push to amend or repeal Treaty clauses in 19 laws — which is upsetting the permanently aggrieved Waitangi Tribunal. (Unfortunately, despite both parties promising to rein in the tribunal’s powers, it has retained its position as the nation’s premier race-based, cry-bully organisation.)
However, with the election only five months away, it looks as if a wild card might create problems for both Act and NZ First as they try to burnish their credentials in combating Māori nationalism. At issue is the mysterious insertion of a clause into the India-New Zealand free-trade agreement that “affirms” our position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Critics say the shift from UNDRIP being “noted” in earlier free-trade agreements to “affirmed” in the India FTA is a significant change that activist judges could use to support Māori nationalists’ aspirations when developing law.
Winston Peters has said NZ First won’t support the enabling legislation needed to ratify the agreement — signed in New Delhi in April — with one of his specific objections being the inclusion of the UNDRIP clause.
Act, however, is brushing off concerns, with MP Laura McClure telling the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee currently examining the agreement that its inclusion should be seen as “symbolic”.
However, when John Key’s government endorsed UNDRIP in 2010 as part of the evolution of the “partnership between Māori and the government” he similarly passed it off as being no more than “aspirational”. Nevertheless, it handed Nanaia Mahuta the opportunity in 2019 to work up He Puapua as a roadmap for co-governance as a form of “partnership”.
Act’s hope that voters will readily forget UNDRIP’s history and pass off its affirmation in the India FTA as inconsequential seems overly optimistic. It will look to many voters like a free hit handed to NZ First.
Indeed, Michael Laws said on The Platform last week that National’s and Act’s support for the FTA and therefore the UNDRIP clause has handed Winston Peters a “cudgel” he can use to beat them with until the election.
So far, so very good you might think, for Peters. However, there are fish-hooks for him — principally the question of how the clause found its way into the agreement.
With apparently no one in National or Act — including Trade minister Todd McClay and David Seymour — knowing how the UNDRIP clause entered the trade agreement, an accusatory finger is being repeatedly pointed at bureaucratic meddlers.
And very unfortunately for Peters, it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which ultimately answers to him, that is in the frame.
Constitutional lawyer and former Act MP Stephen Franks told the select committee last week:
“I am really concerned that there are people within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have done, again, what has often been done with international agreements — they have embarked on some sort of frolic to achieve domestic political aims that have absolutely nothing to do with free trade or reaching an agreement with India.”
Franks described the “inclusion — indeed, the elevation” — of UNDRIP as a “disgrace”.
“What I discovered when I was an MP… was that one simply could not trust Foreign Affairs officials to be there without them trying to screw the scrum.”
He asked Act to view the clause’s inclusion as sufficiently important for the party to send a message to officials — “or even ministers” — that they “should not pull this kind of stunt”, by withholding its support until “that damage is nullified”.
Last month, Seymour voiced the same suspicions as Franks. When Laws asked him, “How the hell did that [UNDRIP clause] get in there?”, Act’s leader said:
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs... have a specific Māori partnership organisation... They have gone about inserting this, in spite of the minister, I suspect.”
The remark was speculative — indeed, Seymour couldn’t even remember the name of the unit within MFAT — but it now looks like it might turn into a grenade rolled under his rival’s bed that is yet to explode.
If Peters does indeed use the UNDRIP clause to harry National and Act, he may find it backfires when voters discover his ministry is a hotbed of Māori activism. They may begin to ask just how serious he is about combating Maorification if he can’t even sort out his own fiefdom.
The “partnership organisation” Seymour mentioned is called Te Hurumanu and its stated purpose is to “recommend and guide the co-creation of a partnership model that reflects an authentic and enduring Treaty/Te Tiriti partnership”.
Furthermore, in the section headed “Engagement with Māori”, the ministry declares it is “committed to incorporating and honouring the Treaty/te Tiriti in its mahi. To meet these expectations we must work authentically with Treaty partners, and acknowledge the value that both partners bring to the relationship.”
So Peters is leading a ministry that enthusiastically promotes a Treaty “partnership” despite his long history of railing against it. And that contradiction can’t be easily explained by arguing he is far too busy to keep close tabs on his ministerial domain. He champions MFAT’s interests energetically — to the extent he has recently stated it will be exempt from the budget cuts that other ministries will be required to make.
Nor is he a hands-off minister. He has shown he will personally step in when political pressure is applied — as was the case when he was asked in March last year to explain an MFAT employment ad for a “tikanga lead”. The job, offering a salary of up to $170,000, entailed providing advice to the ministry and overseas staff on Māori customs. He told RNZ it was his job to “fix” the problem.
In fact, the “fix” was simply to have the word “tikanga” changed to “protocol” — and, astonishingly, the job was readvertised with his approval.
Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the ministry’s dedication to Maorification extends to endorsing Treaty principles. Its Māori data sovereignty arm, Te Rautaki Whakahaere Raraunga, declares: “Māori Data Governance aligns with relevant Ministry and government initiatives to ensure the principles of the Treaty/Te Tiriti are applied to Māori data...”
Peters, of course, sneered at Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill on the grounds that the original text doesn’t include principles. Yet, his own ministry builds policy around the very principles he derides.
And if all that talk of partnership and Treaty principles by MFAT isn’t enough to expose a jarring disconnect between Peters’ public stance and that of his own ministry, its response to an OIA request released on 1 September last year is an eye-opener.
A researcher wanting to know the full extent of Maorification in that organisation was told (among a welter of examples):
“The ministry is committed to acting as a Treaty/Te Tiriti partner with authenticity and integrity. This includes through appropriate engagement with Māori, strengthening partnerships, [and] building staff capability in mātauranga Māori and te reo Māori…”
MFAT also acknowledged in its response that: “Weekly waiata practices are held and open to all staff. Sessions are generally held at lunchtime, but some staff may engage in further practice, for example when preparing to host visiting delegations.”
However, with the election only five months away, it looks as if a wild card might create problems for both Act and NZ First as they try to burnish their credentials in combating Māori nationalism. At issue is the mysterious insertion of a clause into the India-New Zealand free-trade agreement that “affirms” our position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Critics say the shift from UNDRIP being “noted” in earlier free-trade agreements to “affirmed” in the India FTA is a significant change that activist judges could use to support Māori nationalists’ aspirations when developing law.
Winston Peters has said NZ First won’t support the enabling legislation needed to ratify the agreement — signed in New Delhi in April — with one of his specific objections being the inclusion of the UNDRIP clause.
Act, however, is brushing off concerns, with MP Laura McClure telling the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee currently examining the agreement that its inclusion should be seen as “symbolic”.
However, when John Key’s government endorsed UNDRIP in 2010 as part of the evolution of the “partnership between Māori and the government” he similarly passed it off as being no more than “aspirational”. Nevertheless, it handed Nanaia Mahuta the opportunity in 2019 to work up He Puapua as a roadmap for co-governance as a form of “partnership”.
Act’s hope that voters will readily forget UNDRIP’s history and pass off its affirmation in the India FTA as inconsequential seems overly optimistic. It will look to many voters like a free hit handed to NZ First.
Indeed, Michael Laws said on The Platform last week that National’s and Act’s support for the FTA and therefore the UNDRIP clause has handed Winston Peters a “cudgel” he can use to beat them with until the election.
So far, so very good you might think, for Peters. However, there are fish-hooks for him — principally the question of how the clause found its way into the agreement.
With apparently no one in National or Act — including Trade minister Todd McClay and David Seymour — knowing how the UNDRIP clause entered the trade agreement, an accusatory finger is being repeatedly pointed at bureaucratic meddlers.
And very unfortunately for Peters, it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which ultimately answers to him, that is in the frame.
Constitutional lawyer and former Act MP Stephen Franks told the select committee last week:
“I am really concerned that there are people within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have done, again, what has often been done with international agreements — they have embarked on some sort of frolic to achieve domestic political aims that have absolutely nothing to do with free trade or reaching an agreement with India.”
Franks described the “inclusion — indeed, the elevation” — of UNDRIP as a “disgrace”.
“What I discovered when I was an MP… was that one simply could not trust Foreign Affairs officials to be there without them trying to screw the scrum.”
He asked Act to view the clause’s inclusion as sufficiently important for the party to send a message to officials — “or even ministers” — that they “should not pull this kind of stunt”, by withholding its support until “that damage is nullified”.
Last month, Seymour voiced the same suspicions as Franks. When Laws asked him, “How the hell did that [UNDRIP clause] get in there?”, Act’s leader said:
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs... have a specific Māori partnership organisation... They have gone about inserting this, in spite of the minister, I suspect.”
The remark was speculative — indeed, Seymour couldn’t even remember the name of the unit within MFAT — but it now looks like it might turn into a grenade rolled under his rival’s bed that is yet to explode.
If Peters does indeed use the UNDRIP clause to harry National and Act, he may find it backfires when voters discover his ministry is a hotbed of Māori activism. They may begin to ask just how serious he is about combating Maorification if he can’t even sort out his own fiefdom.
The “partnership organisation” Seymour mentioned is called Te Hurumanu and its stated purpose is to “recommend and guide the co-creation of a partnership model that reflects an authentic and enduring Treaty/Te Tiriti partnership”.
Furthermore, in the section headed “Engagement with Māori”, the ministry declares it is “committed to incorporating and honouring the Treaty/te Tiriti in its mahi. To meet these expectations we must work authentically with Treaty partners, and acknowledge the value that both partners bring to the relationship.”
So Peters is leading a ministry that enthusiastically promotes a Treaty “partnership” despite his long history of railing against it. And that contradiction can’t be easily explained by arguing he is far too busy to keep close tabs on his ministerial domain. He champions MFAT’s interests energetically — to the extent he has recently stated it will be exempt from the budget cuts that other ministries will be required to make.
Nor is he a hands-off minister. He has shown he will personally step in when political pressure is applied — as was the case when he was asked in March last year to explain an MFAT employment ad for a “tikanga lead”. The job, offering a salary of up to $170,000, entailed providing advice to the ministry and overseas staff on Māori customs. He told RNZ it was his job to “fix” the problem.
In fact, the “fix” was simply to have the word “tikanga” changed to “protocol” — and, astonishingly, the job was readvertised with his approval.
Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the ministry’s dedication to Maorification extends to endorsing Treaty principles. Its Māori data sovereignty arm, Te Rautaki Whakahaere Raraunga, declares: “Māori Data Governance aligns with relevant Ministry and government initiatives to ensure the principles of the Treaty/Te Tiriti are applied to Māori data...”
Peters, of course, sneered at Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill on the grounds that the original text doesn’t include principles. Yet, his own ministry builds policy around the very principles he derides.
And if all that talk of partnership and Treaty principles by MFAT isn’t enough to expose a jarring disconnect between Peters’ public stance and that of his own ministry, its response to an OIA request released on 1 September last year is an eye-opener.
A researcher wanting to know the full extent of Maorification in that organisation was told (among a welter of examples):
“The ministry is committed to acting as a Treaty/Te Tiriti partner with authenticity and integrity. This includes through appropriate engagement with Māori, strengthening partnerships, [and] building staff capability in mātauranga Māori and te reo Māori…”
MFAT also acknowledged in its response that: “Weekly waiata practices are held and open to all staff. Sessions are generally held at lunchtime, but some staff may engage in further practice, for example when preparing to host visiting delegations.”
Furthermore, “the ministry encourages the appropriate use of karakia, including to open and close meetings. Examples of karakia are placed in our meeting rooms and in shared staff spaces. Voluntary sessions are available for staff wanting to practise karakia.”
The extensive use of karakia within his ministry may explain why Peters reacted so defensively in July last year to Seymour’s criticism of tikanga requirements he saw as enforcing spirituality when new government buildings were opened. Seymour described karakia as “ceremonial chanting”.
Asked to comment by journalists, Peters replied: “Why am I responding to what David Seymour doesn’t know?”
He then resorted to his shop-worn tactic of accusing opponents or critics of not having the same experience and knowledge as someone like him who has acquired such wisdom over 50 years in public life.
Pressed once more on whether karakia should be used, he replied: “It depends on the building. It depends on the occasion… Karakia are appropriate when used correctly.”
This stance may again come as a surprise to anyone who believes Peters is strongly opposed to the Maorification of government agencies.
What is also odd is that the ministry’s response to the OIA request hasn’t been published on its website, despite Sarah Corbett, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who signed it, reminding the request’s author: “Please note that it is our policy to proactively release our responses to official information requests where possible.”
The extensive use of karakia within his ministry may explain why Peters reacted so defensively in July last year to Seymour’s criticism of tikanga requirements he saw as enforcing spirituality when new government buildings were opened. Seymour described karakia as “ceremonial chanting”.
Asked to comment by journalists, Peters replied: “Why am I responding to what David Seymour doesn’t know?”
He then resorted to his shop-worn tactic of accusing opponents or critics of not having the same experience and knowledge as someone like him who has acquired such wisdom over 50 years in public life.
Pressed once more on whether karakia should be used, he replied: “It depends on the building. It depends on the occasion… Karakia are appropriate when used correctly.”
This stance may again come as a surprise to anyone who believes Peters is strongly opposed to the Maorification of government agencies.
What is also odd is that the ministry’s response to the OIA request hasn’t been published on its website, despite Sarah Corbett, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who signed it, reminding the request’s author: “Please note that it is our policy to proactively release our responses to official information requests where possible.”
One possible explanation is that MFAT isn’t keen on further advertising the fact it is dedicated to Māori nationalism, including promoting karakia, waiata and mātauranga Māori as integral components of a partnership between Crown and iwi.
Or perhaps Peters himself wasn’t keen on that information being made public.
The immediate danger for him using the UNDRIP clause as a “cudgel” against National and Act and keeping it in the public eye is that, sooner or later, someone might ask him whether a bureaucrat in his ministry inserted it and whether he should press for an inquiry to establish how and when the clause appeared and who put it there. After all, if he cares as deeply about the issue as he makes out on the hustings, you might think it’s the least he can do.
He might also like to inquire why — as Gary Judd, KC, pointed out to the select committee — the 149-page National Interest Analysis provided by MFAT to the select committee doesn’t even mention UNDRIP.
In a speech at Whangarei on May 24, Peters asked: “New Zealand First demanded in our coalition agreement that we do not recognise UNDRIP as having any legal standing — so why has National and Act, as part of the government, signed up to this [in the India FTA]?"
It’s going to be very awkward for him if the answer turns out to be: “Because your own MFAT officials surreptitiously slipped it into the text and failed to alert the Minister of Trade. And, presumably, you.”
Or perhaps Peters himself wasn’t keen on that information being made public.
The immediate danger for him using the UNDRIP clause as a “cudgel” against National and Act and keeping it in the public eye is that, sooner or later, someone might ask him whether a bureaucrat in his ministry inserted it and whether he should press for an inquiry to establish how and when the clause appeared and who put it there. After all, if he cares as deeply about the issue as he makes out on the hustings, you might think it’s the least he can do.
He might also like to inquire why — as Gary Judd, KC, pointed out to the select committee — the 149-page National Interest Analysis provided by MFAT to the select committee doesn’t even mention UNDRIP.
In a speech at Whangarei on May 24, Peters asked: “New Zealand First demanded in our coalition agreement that we do not recognise UNDRIP as having any legal standing — so why has National and Act, as part of the government, signed up to this [in the India FTA]?"
It’s going to be very awkward for him if the answer turns out to be: “Because your own MFAT officials surreptitiously slipped it into the text and failed to alert the Minister of Trade. And, presumably, you.”
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
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.