Many groups who identify as Indigenous don’t claim to be first peoples; many who did come first don’t claim to be Indigenous. Can the concept escape its colonial past? Feb 20^th 2023 Manvir Singh Assistant Professor of Anthropology University of California

In] the nineteen-sixties and seventies. Liberation movements flourished. In New Zealand, the Polynesian Panthers worked with the group Ngā Tamatoa to rally for Māori rights. In the United States, the Red Power movement spawned groups like the American Indian Movement and the International Indian Treaty Council,”

A proposal is put forward to allow for the creation of a new type of corporation under the existing legislative framework for Indigenous entrepreneurs to run their for-profit businesses in a culturally appropriate way .  a result, Indigenous Australians are able to take ownership, develop and administer programs that provide essential services to the community, including in the areas of health, education, employment, training, community services and housing. legislation is also heavily focused on improving ‘governance and capacity’ in the Indigenous corporate sector.² Ensuring and enhancing accountability of Indigenous enterprises registered under its predecessor,

The IPETCA Partnership Council (Indigenous Peoples Economic & Trade Cooperation Arrangement) NZ Govt . Concluded in December 2021, the IPETCA brings together Australian, Canadian, Chinese-Taipei and New Zealand Indigenous peoples. A key feature of the IPETCA is the establishment of the IPETCA Partnership Council which consist of officials and Indigenous representatives that will jointly oversee and implement the IPETCA. (Endorsed by participating economies). NZ chairing the Partnership, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Associate Minister for Māori Development Nanaia Mahuta and Minister of Trade and Export Growth Damien O’Connor announced the conclusion of the IPETCA initiative on 10 December, and invited economies to declare their intention to join.

The Arrangement will help to unlock cooperation across a range of sectors and areas, including responsible business conduct, traditional knowledge, opportunities for Micro, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, digital trade and e-commerce, and many more. It also reaffirms economies’ commitments to important international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.. The IPETCA achieves a number of important elements:

• Reaffirms the existing rights of Indigenous Peoples, including under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international instruments;
• Contains a definition of “Indigenous trade and investment” that was developed by Indigenous Peoples, including Māori;
• Enables economies to work with Indigenous Peoples to further develop and expand international Indigenous trade and requires economies to promote policies that increase Indigenous Peoples’ participation in trade and investment;
• Enables economies to consider a range of activities and sectors for direct cooperation, as well as underlying principles that should underpin cooperation;
• Specific understandings on Responsible Business Conduct and the protection of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge;
• Establishes an IPETCA Partnership Council comprised of economies’ and Indigenous Peoples’ representatives to oversee the IPETCA’s implementation;
• Review provisions aimed at ensuring that the IPETCA remains fit for purpose; and
• Is open to any APEC Member economy, WTO Member or any other economy to join.

• Indigenous Peoples, including Māori, have played a critical role in developing the text of the IPETCA alongside participating economies.
• What will role of Indigenous Peoples going forward?
• Going forward, through the establishment of the IPETCA Partnership Council, Indigenous Peoples and participating economies will jointly oversee the implementation and operation of the IPETCA.
• Who can join the IPETCA?
• The IPETCA is open to all economies that are committed to strengthening the economic empowerment of Indigenous Peoples and trade and economic collaboration. (Source of information NZ Foreign Affairs & Trase -Govt.)
• In the thirty-year history of indigenous issues at the United Nations, and the longer history in the ILO on this question, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body. One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of the indigenous was given by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.[i] Significant discussions on the subject have been held within the context of the preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[ii] by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations since 1982. An understanding of the concept of “indigenous and tribal peoples” is contained in article 1 of the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, No. 169, adopted by the International Labour Organization.

[i] UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1-4. The conclusions and recommendations of the study, in Addendum 4, are also available as a United Nations sales publication (U.N. Sales No. E.86.XIV.3). The study was launched in 1972 and was completed in 1986, thus making it the most voluminous study of its kind, based on 37 monographs.

[ii] The Draft Declaration is contained in UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 and is currently under consideration by a Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights.

HATE SPEECH AND INDIGENOUS HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON ‘Both are defined – described as by way of ‘Self-Determination’. A person or group that deem they are adversely effected or discriminated against by others ‘ the oppressor-victim mentality-. The so called receiver (Victim) self determining what is harmful to them or not. The United Nations (UN) states ‘Hate Speech’ refers to an offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics eg Race, Religion, Gender. That may threaten social peace. A kind of communication speech, writing, behaviour that attacks, uses pejorative or discriminatory language that references a person or group on the basis of whom they are eg religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or any other identity factor. The UN concludes ‘To-date there is NO Universal definition for Hate Speech under the UN International Human Rights Law.

The concept is still under much discussion in relation to ‘Freedom of opinion, expression’. Hate Speech is defined by ‘Self Determination’. Hate Speech – Mis and Disinformation  Concludes there is no universally accepted definitions of Hate Speech- Min and Dis- Information. UN Entities eg UNESCO a specialized agency for universal education, science and culture(Education 2030) supports and undertakes research to better understand these dynamics.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s liberation movements were flourishing, increasing in New Zealand it was the Polynesian Panthers working with Nga Tamato rallying for Maori Rights. In the US it was Red Power the American Indian Movement  and in Canada the Canadian Indian Brotherhood (President was George Manuel) . In Tanzania it was a radical activist from the Maasai Tribe by the name of Moringe ole Parkipuny who was a member of Tanzaia Parliament for a short time. It was Parkipuny who coined the phrase ‘Indigenous People’.

On August 3^rd 1989 Parkipuny’s coined phrase Indigenous People further evolved when he spoke before a UN working group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva. However prior to this the phrase for identification of so called ‘Indigenous People’ was being implanted widely overseas by George Manuel of the Canadian Indian Brotherhood. Whom later went on to establish  the Un World Indigenous People. 1971 Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father arranged with George Manuel and a Canadian delegation to visit to NZ. It was whilst Manuel was in NZ in met with certain Māori Politicians to seriously discuss the identification of ‘Indigenous People’ as a global agenda. Then Manuel and the Canadian delegation went onto visit a university in the Northern Territories of Australia where Manuel spoke with Aboriginal students about the ID of ‘Indigenous People’

In the Original Te Tiriti O Waitangi you will not find the words Principles, Partnership nor Indigenous. History of NZ of Tribal Feudalism has become romanticized . Even the Whanganui River has gained ‘personhood’ and become romanticized as have certain other rivers in the world. Language has been post modernized such as gender pronouns. Critical Race Theory, a Universal language. UNESCO-WEF Education 2030. Global Goals to leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age (From the Cradle(Birth) to the Grave).

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE: One ‘Self Determines’ whether one wants to be described as Indigenous or not by way of ‘Self-Determination’.

HATE SPEECH: One determines whether what they see, hear, the way some-one behaves is hateful or not (By way of Self-Determination)

INDIGENOUS: The post modernization of an old Latin word. (meaning ‘in’ or ‘within’) or beget- to be born.

The UNDRIP UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People ‘Self Identification is the fundamental  criteria’. Many groups who identify as Indigenous do not claim to be first peoples and many of those who even came first do not claim to be indigenous.

NOTE: The IPETCA Partnership Council (Indigenous Peoples Economic & Trade Cooperation Arrangement) NZ Govt . Concluded in December 2021, the IPETCA brings together Australian, Canadian, Chinese-Taipei and New Zealand Indigenous peoples. A key feature of the IPETCA is the establishment of the IPETCA Partnership Council which consist of officials and Indigenous representatives that will jointly oversee and implement the IPETCA. (Endorsed by participating economies). NZ chairing the Partnership, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Associate Minister for Māori Development Nanaia Mahuta and Minister of Trade and Export Growth Damien O’Connor announced the conclusion of the IPETCA initiative on 10 December, and invited economies to declare their intention to join.

Researched By Carol Sakey

WakeUpNZ

LINKS

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/notohate_fact_sheets_en.pdf

https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech#:~:text=To%20provide%20a%20unified%20framework,person%20or%20a%20group%20on

Many groups who identify as Indigenous don’t claim to be first peoples; many who did come first don’t claim to be Indigenous. Can the concept escape its colonial past? Feb 20^th 2023 Manvir Singh Assistant Professor of Anthropology University of California

These guidelines are agreed upon by the Prime Ministers Cabinet, by all Ministers to use the  guide book in policy decision making in consideration of the Treaty Of Waitangi in policy development and implementation, the Te Tiriti o Waitangi is one of the major sources of NZ’s Constitutional Arrangements, There are differences included in the guidelines between English and Maori texts. The PM’s Cabinet report “therefore there are difficulties of understanding the meaning and implications in the modern day (Therefore they have adapted the Te Tiriti o Waitangi to fit whatever political purpose they want it to fit)

The texts of the Treaty used in political decision making are from interpretations used from the Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975, the translation by Sir Hugh Kawharu are included in the cabinets guidelines. Other sources in the Cabinets guidance manual includes The Constitution Act 1986, the prerogatives powers of the Queen, the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, the Senior Courts Act 2016, the NZ Bill of Rights 1990 and other relevant New Zealand, English and UK statutes,  decisions of the Courts and the Conventions of the Constitution (Cabinet Manual. P.2)

Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty Of Waitangi: Consists of a preamble and three articles. The influence of the Treaty on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements have fluctuated in the years since it was signed in 1840. Since 1975 reference to the Treaty has been included in may laws passed by Parliament and the courts also the Waitangi Tribunal; have developed a considerable body of Treaty jurisprudence. The PM Cabinet Guidance Manual : States that The Treaty Of Waitangi is regarded as the ‘Founding’ Document of Government in New Zealand, (Not New Zealand’s Founding Document- the Governments Founding Document). That ‘it may indicate limits in polity on major decision making, where the law may sometimes accord special recognition to Māori Rights and Māori Interests (Covered by Art 2 of the Treaty). In other cases the law and its processes should be determined by the general recognition in Article 3 of the Treaty that ‘Maori belong, as citizens to the whole community’. In some situations, autonomous Māori Institutions have a role within the wider constitutional and political system.

In other circumstances, the model provided by the Treaty Of Waitangi of two parties negotiating and agreeing with one another is appropriate, policy and procedure in this area continues to evolve (Cabinet Manual 2019. Page 2). For further information see the ‘Te Puni Kokiri booklet ‘Key Concepts In The Treaty Exchange. The PM Cabinet Guidance Manual also states that the Treaty of Waitangi creates a basis  for civil government extending over all New Zealanders on the basis of protections and acknowledgements of Māori Rights and Māori Interests within the shared citizenry. Any specific meaning of the Treaty, and its implications for particular issues, is not easy to specify in advance as it depends on circumstances and views that surround any issues as the time arises.  Prior to the 2019 PM Cabinet Guidance Manual the previous one was produced in 1989.

PART 2 OF 4:  THE PRIME MINSTER’S CABINET OFFICE 22nd October 2019 PUBLISHED BY CO (19) 5 : Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Guidance. Guidelines

: No article of the Treaty stands apart from others. Consideration of how the Treaty applies in any situation will require consideration of the applicability of all articles and the relationship each has to the others. There are sources of information about appropriate policy tools to use in the manual as to developing policy and the Treaty as to its place in New Zealands Constitutional arrangement that policy makers must be aware of, this includes the policy methods toolboc, the Cabinet Manual (The authorities guide to Central Government decision making for Ministers, their offices and those working within government and the 2018 Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s Legislation Guidelines

The government last provided a brad Treaty guidance to the public service in 1989 as to Treaty Settlements which have been negotiated between Maori and Crown. The judicial (courts) have recognized ‘tikanga’ as part of NZ Common Law, the precise impact on common law and stature will vary, rights of ‘tikanga’ being relevant in legal disputes independent of statutory incorporation of the Treaty

This includes Treaty settlements, claim relating to and providing redress (compensation) for historical acts and omissions of the Crown. The Maor/Crown relationship continues post settlement, and past conduct even if settles may inform what a Treaty partner will do in the future. A number of government agencies have guidance as to applying the Treaty and more commonly its principles in the course of their work. The NZ Productivity Commission reviewed 10 examples in 2014. More information can be found on the Commission’s report ‘Regulatory institutions and practices.

Guidance is provided by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal as to the body of the Treaty jurisprudence developed by the courts. The  Waitangi Tribunal focusses on principles derived from the Treaty. (More Info in Te Puni Kōkiri booklet) ‘The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal’ references that the NZ Courts have held that  Maori Rights   might be recognized by the common law, without statutory expression, and a decision maker may be required to weigh the Treaty rights/interest even where there is no Treaty reference in statute. The courts will generally presume that Parliament intends to legislate in accordance with Treaty principles

The Waitangi Tribunal plays an important role in providing advice to government on the application of Treaty principles in relation to acts or omissions of the Crown which Māori allege breach the principles of the Treaty. The Treasury is consistent with the government’s Treaty Of Waitangi obligation. The courts guidance has developed and has a focus on the texts of the Treaty, a glossary of Maori terms are used throughout the guidance. Provides guidance on how the terms and concepts in the texts of the Treaty should be applied by government officials in undertaking their work

Thus creating new legal obligations, processes and decision making by  Crown agencies relevant to issues or initiatives. The manual replace all previous government guidance on the Treaty (1989 Manual). It set out questions for policy makers to consider in policy proposals that recognizes the influence of thr Treat, what it should have in particular circumstances, resulting in the developing of policy in allowing policy makers to demonstrate an appreciation of kawanatanga, rangatiratanga and other key Treaty concepts and their applicability to their work.(another reference ‘Treaty guidance at a glance’ )

The courts will continue to have a role in interpreting laws where the Treaty is relevant to a matter. Specifically referring to the Supreme Court SS 66 (1) and 74 (3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016

SUPREME COURT:  Specifically, in relation to the Supreme Court, see ss66(1) and 74(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The translation of the Maori and English version of the Treaty and that of Sir Hugh Kawharu. ‘The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

Policy makers are to ask themselves or other political party members “what is the effect on Maori, if there is an effect, how and why?  Will proposals effect different Maori groups? What could the unintended impacts on Māori be and how does the  proposal mitigate them?  * How does the proposal demonstrate good government within the context of the Treaty?  *Have policy-makers followed existing general policy guidance?  * Are there any legal and/or Treaty settlement obligations for the Crown?  * What are the Treaty/Māori interests in this issue?  * How have policy-makers ascertained them?

THE TREATY OF WAITANGU MAY JUSTIFY DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF MAORI INTEREST OR INVOLVEMENT IN AN ISSUE. The questions asked are :- Do policy-makers consider whether, having properly assessed the Māori/Treaty interest in an issue, the proposal demands an approach/approaches for Māori that differs to the approach/approaches for other New Zealanders. If it does, then policy-makers should be able to articulate how and why. There is much more I want to add as to how policy makers process, implement policy decision making when interpretating the Treaty of Waitangi into policy making processes, therefore I will continue with two ore episodes of this (Episode 2-4)

PART 3 OF 4 PARTS:  THE PRIME MINSTER’S CABINET OFFICE 22nd October 2019 PUBLISHED BY CO (19) 5 : Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Guidance. Guidelines

BELOW” Is the text as laid out in the above named Manual.

The following is included policy maker guidelines in implementation and decision making as to policies in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi – Good Government means a government properly conducted with due regard to the range of obligation a government has to the people it governs, particularly  to Treaty obligations. Thus acknowledging the right of government to make laws with the right of Maori to retain authority over certain things. Throughout all phases of a policy project policy makers should assemble, review what they know about economic, social, technical, cultural and other important forces causing or perpetuating a policy problem, that the outcome has accounted for a Treaty interest to an extent.

Throughout all phases of a policy project, policy-makers should assemble and review what they know about the economic, social, technical, cultural and other important forces causing or perpetuating the policy problem. The question in paragraph 29.1 above asks whether the existing guidance referred to in paragraph 10 has guided policy development. If it has, then policy-makers can have some confidence that the outcome has accounted for a Treaty interest to an extent. Tools are available for policy makers to make them aware of whether existing legal obligations for the Crown to Maori in relation to many issues among them is the Settlement Portal (Te Haeta, which is an online recors of Treaty Settlement commitment which helps agencies and groups to search, manage settlement commitments

Even when Treaty Clauses are not present in legislation or regulations, the particular context may require the Crown to  have regard to the Treaty Statutes that have references to the Treat or Treaty principles which often contain regulatory provisions that create obligation on a range of parties that are not Crown such as Local Government entities, officers of Parliament and Body Corporates.

It is critical that Maori- Treaty  interests are taken into consideration, issues will vary from one issue to another. Cabinet guides also include:- Te Arawhiti’s engagement framework and guidelines will give policy-makers confidence that they have appropriately determined the Treaty/Māori interests in an issue.

The courts and Waitangi Tribunal have described the Treaty generally as an exchange of solemn promises about the ongoing relationships between the Crown and Māori with qualifications. By signing the Treaty, Māori expected the Crown to act honorably towards them; they expect the Crown to protect their interest in everything it promised to, and they expect the Crown to respect their right to make decisions over matters of significance to them. That the Māori Crown relationship is a continuing one, the Crown and Māori should act reasonably and in good faith towards each other, consulting with each other and compromising where appropriate. The courts have made significant decisions in relation to the application of the Treaty in New Zealand, particularly over the last 35 years. The Waitangi Tribunal is also an important forum where Treaty arguments may be made by Māori and the Crown. The Courts take particularcare about Maori Rights and Interests and these are raised in cases, including when interpreting laws passed by Parliament. Policy makers must conduct their work in such a manner as to make the Treaty consistent in decision making

THE PRIME MINSTER’S CABINET OFFICE 22nd October 2019 PUBLISHED BY CO (19) 5 : Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi Guidance. Guidelines  Includes Text in the context as below:-

Sir Hugh Kawharu’s translation sets out to show how Māori  Kawharu believed that Maori would have understood the meaning of the Treaty Of Waitangi text when they signed it (from his perspective). This was published in a book ‘Waitangi Revisited: Perspectives on the Treaty of Waitangi, edited by Michael Belgrave, Merata Kawharu and David Williams (Oxford University Press, 1989)

This interpretation included:  ‘Government’: ‘kawanatanga’. Sir Hugh’s view was that “there could be no possibility of the Māori signatories having any understanding of government in the sense of ‘sovereignty’: ie, any understanding on the basis of experience or cultural precedent.” This view is not universally held. For more discussion of the views and understandings of participants at 1840 see He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti / The Declaration and the Treaty: The Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, particularly chapter 10 (Waitangi Tribunal 2014).  * The legislation Guidelines (2018 Edition), Chapter 5.1, page 28, and Idac.org guidelines/ legislative guidelines 2018) Also Government documents, publications.

Also noted is that ‘the Treaty must justify different treatment of Maori interests or involvement of Maori in an issue but also adds does not confer greater rights on Maori than the government owes to all New Zealanders ( NOTE: Carols thoughts- Appears the Cabinet and Prime Minister in this text speaks with a forked tongue)

Even where “Treaty clauses” are not present in legislation or regulations, the particular context may require the Crown to have regard to the Treaty.

The courts have recognized tikanga Māori as part of New Zealand common law and as a value that informs development of the common law. The precise impact of tikanga Māori on the common law and statute will vary, however, tikanga may have a relevance in legal disputes independent of statutory incorporation of the Treaty

THE CROWN PROMISES THAT MAORI WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONA OVER RESOURCES AND TAONGA WHICH THEY WISH TO RETAIN

The scope of things that may be considered taonga, from a Māori perspective, are broad. At its most broad taonga can be said to be anything considered to be of value – including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques.   For more discussion of the views of the courts and Waitangi Tribunal on taonga see pages 60-64 of the Te Puni Kōkiri booklet ‘Key concepts in the Treaty exchange’. The Waitangi Tribunal report Ko Aotearoa Tenei contains important discussion of how laws have side-lined Māori and Māori cultural values from decisions of vital importance to their culture which have left Māori unable to fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki (cultural guardians) towards their taonga –obligations which are central to the survival of Māori culture

The scope of things that may be considered taonga, from a Māori perspective, are broad. At its most broad taonga can be said to be anything considered to be of value – including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques

The Treaty guarantees and promises apply to all Māori – as individuals, whānau, hapū and iwi. Depending on the issue, it may be appropriate for policy-makers to engage with Māori individuals, whānau, hapū or iwi, or a combination thereof.   Because the Treaty guaranteed Māori the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga, policy-makers must consider what responsibilities Māori already have in relation to the matter. Importantly, Treaty interests are not confined to resources and taonga that Māori have retained possession of. For example, even where land has been alienated Māori interests may still be engaged

CAROL SAKEY ‘S PERSONAL CONCLUSION: That the original Maori version of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been seriously corrupted in many ways, by way of interpretation and in which way the context has been portrayed. That the Waitangi Tribunal has been allowed a political over-reach as to policy decision making. Sir Hugh Kawharu was a Treaty Claimant and a key figure of the Waitangi Tribunal his believe of what Maori Chiefs believed at the time should never have been included in the Prime Minister Cabinet Guidance Manuel for Policy Makers nor should have all the different legislative Act that have been passed including that of papers concluded by the Judicial (Courts).  The one and only founding document of New Zealand is the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi and no other.  That the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a beautiful document. ‘He Iwi Tahi Tatou’ We Are All One Nation’. This certainly has the body, heart and soul of what one Nation should be .. God Save New Zealand.

Sir Hugh Kawharu was a Treaty Claimant and a key figure of the Waitangi Tribunal his believe of what Maori Chiefs believed at the time should never have been included in the Prime Minister Cabinet Guidance Manuel for Policy Makers nor should have all the different legislative Act that have been passed including that of papers concluded by the Judicial (Courts).

There are three parties in the original Maori Version Of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, they are the Crown, the Maori Chiefs that also include ALL the people of New Zealand. Sovereignty was ceded to the Queen (Crown). All peoples of New Zealand became subjects of the Queen of England.

Partnership was not created by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nor was what is called ‘Indigenous Peoples’. The coined phrase ‘Indigenous Peoples’ entered NZ in 1971 when George Manuel President of the Canadian Brotherhood visited NZ with a Canadian Delegation which was arranged with Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father. Manuel grasped the ‘Indigenous Peoples coined phrase from Moringe Ole Parkipuny a Tanzanian radical activist and a parliamentarian. During Manuel’s visit to NZ he spoke with some Maori Politicians about the phrase ‘Indigenous People’, then Manuel went on to visit the Northern Terrirories of Australia to speak with Aboriginals students at a university there. Manuel was a key person who helped draft the UNDRIP, he established the UN World Indigenous Council and was also President of the Council.

At one UN Assembly gathering over 100 natives, tribal peoples protested walked out of the UN Assembly because they were angry that they had never consented to being classed as ‘Indigenous People’ UN find it too difficult to define ‘Indigenous People’ therefore describe ‘Indigenous People’ as those people that define themselves as being ‘Indigenous People’

The one and only founding document of New Zealand is the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi and no other. That the original Maori Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a beautiful document. ‘He Iwi Tahi Tatou’ We Are All One Nation’. This certainly has the body, heart and soul of what one Nation should be .. God Save New Zealand.
WakeUpNZ
Carol Sakey

19^th May 2021 National Party opposed the Green Party motion on Israel Palestinian conflict. The National Party would not support a motion proposed by the Green Party regarding the violence between Israel  and the Palestian Authority HAMAS, said Gerry Brownless National’s Foreign Affairs Minister. National opposes Green’s motion on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nationals position being on a ‘two State system’. The Green Party is proposing a motion for Parliament to recognise and support the right of Palestine to self-determination and statehood and recognise the state of Palestine. The Palestian Authority being HAMAS

The Green Party use the HAMAS Slogan  as the NZ Jewish Council has condemned the inflammatory comments and incorrect statements made by two Green Party MPs, was reported as ‘risk stroking antimerism and endangering Jews in NZ (Report 19^th May 2021 www.jwire.com.au)

The New Zealand Jewish Council has condemned the inflammatory comments and inaccurate statements made by two Green MPs in recent days, which risk stoking antisemitism and endangering Jews in New Zealand. After an anti Israel rally Green MP was Ricardo Menendez March posted on Twitter and Facebook photo’s of himself and other Green Party MPs with the caption “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free”.This slogan is used by the HAMAS Terrorist Organization, the Islamic group that governs Gaza, whose charter calls for the elimination of Israel and murder of Jews everywhere, whose military wing is classed as a terrorist organization in NZ. But NZ is only one of the Five Eyes that have not designated HAMAS on the cabinets listed designated Terrorist List.

Despite an outcry on social media, Mr Menendez March has not removed the posts, and they have been shared by at least one other MP including co-leader Marama Davidson. NZ Jewish Council president Stephen Goodman said  “Taken at its most mild possible interpretation, this slogan erases the right of Jews to self-determination.  At its most pernicious (and in the way intended by Hamas), it promotes genocide and ethnic cleansing.  And that  “Its an outrage that a member of a political party in New Zealand would use this HAMAS slogan. Other members of the Green Party including its co leader endorsed it by re-tweeting it. ‘Its arguably incitement to violence” said Stehen Goodman

Green Party MP  Golriz Ghahraman about the conflict containing errors on facts and serious omissions which should have raised questions about her suitability as a Green Party Foreign Affairs spokesperson and her credibility . She has been reported as making incorrect statements about events that have happened. As it is recorded that rockets have killed Israeli children causing serious damage and significant trauma

The New Zealand Jewish Council’s president Stephen Goodman wrote to the co-leaders of the Green Party James Sha and Marama Davidson, accusing the Green Pary as having a “a significant problem of antisemitism.” He also pointed out that the Anti American Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt wrote  “when protesters chant Palestine will be free from the river to the sea,’ it is appropriately interpreted by most people as a call for the erasure of Israel – and it is anti- Semitic.”

Stephen Goodman referred to certain members of the Green Party promoted genocide and ethnic cleansing. Goodmans letter states that “Ms Ghahraman’s statement also incorrectly accuses Israel of “indiscriminate bombing”, whereas, as international media and observers confirm, Israel’s strikes are targeted, and include warnings to minimise civilian casualties.

Goodman has stated Ghahraman’s is clearly completely incorrect, hundreds of HMAS rockets have landed in high density areas in Israel, where there have been casualties and loss of life, forcing families, communities into bomb shelters. But she did not correct her statement even though her inaccuracy was bought to her attention. Goodman said “This is not the case of a simple error, she has ignored the loss of life on the Israeli side, that it fits her political narrative.Ms Ghahraman. Has been accused of making frequent errors of fact, distortions of truth and inflammatory and harmful rhetoric call into question her suitability in the role of foreign affairs spokesperson. The cumulative effect suggests a deeply entrenched bias, a lack of accountability, a recklessness with facts, and a callous disregard for the impact of her behaviour.”

Stephen Goodman ended by writing: “We ask for an apology and retraction regarding the “from the river to the sea” slogan, and in the light of that, a clear re-affirmation that the Party supports self-determination for the Jewish and Palestinian people and a right for them each to live in peace and security. We also ask that your party condemns the rocket attacks by Hamas, given its previous omission”. The Green Party failed to respond to the Jewish Council’s letter, as requested within 24 hours.

https://www.jwire.com.au/nz-green-party-mps-uses-hamas-slogan/

https://www.national.org.nz/national-opposes-greens-motion-on-israeli-palestinian-conflict