Following up my confusion about the UN declaration on indigenous peoples (which New Zealand voted against), Robin sent me a Radio New Zealand piece (vanished, but still in Google cache) which says that the declaration isn’t good enough.

It “implies different classes of citizenship”, and it could “put[…] into question matters that have been settled by treaty” (that last from the Canadian UN Ambassador). Apparently our vote against is specifically because the declaration is incompatible with our own law.

I guess I don’t understand the political ramifications of something like this (for example, the article mentions that the Treaty of Waitangi “already provides an appropriate system of redress” — whether that’s true or not, surely it’s not incompatible with adopting a declaration that requires such a system?). But if our official line is correct, and the declaration is unsuitable for exactly these four countries,1 surely that should ring little warning bells? I mean, if New Zealand is really “far ahead of other countries in promoting the rights of indigenous people”, and we can’t endorse this document because it would hold us back, doesn’t that suggest the document is flawed?

*Sigh*. I’ll steer clear of politics I think.

(Thanks to Robin for the link, and also to Rebecca and Shaun on Facebook for trying to educate me.)

Notes:

  1. According to Wikipedia, the US has 0.82% (2005 census) indigenous population; Canada had 3.4% in 2001; Australia 2.2% (also from 2001) and New Zealand 14.6% in 2006. [↪]