NO internationally accepted definition of ‘indigenous’ people exists

THE UNITED NATIONS: According to the UN  rather than defining ‘Indigenous’ they would rather identify ‘Indigenous’. They base this on a number of Human Rights documents, the criterion of self-identification’

CENTRAL AUTHORITIES AND THEIR POWERS TO DETERMINE ‘INDIGENOUS’: For example those seeking Co-Governance and Partnerships. A Cultural Marxist Class System through the shaping of policies. Where one class of society is more privileged, have more recognition than the majority population 

THE DIVERSITY OF INDIGENOUS: Understanding the term “indigenous” Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. The system has developed a modern understanding of the term ‘Indigenous’ peoples, where there is a strong link to territories and natural resources, Cultural language and beliefs that form a minority population but a dominant group within society.

THE TERM ‘INDIGENOUS: In some countries preference may be made to tribes, first nations, ethnic groups, nomads etc., The term ;indigenous’ can be used for practical purposes and be interchangeable. ‘Indigenous’ is referred to in ‘sustainable knowledge’ and belief systems and refers to ‘natural resources’, a special relationship to the land. (A practice of management of natural resources). Identity Rights which Socialist Marxist authoritarian governments use so called ‘Indigenous’ peoples in a process of co-governance’. Institutionalized racism-Critical Race Theory, Identity Politics, A Two Tier Society. namely ‘Apartheid’. Only certain members of the so called ‘Indigenous group are favoured by the Authoritarian State (privileged member NOT ALL Iso called Indigenous)

Indigenous (adj.) Born in or originated in a place, native to a country, sprung from the land, literally ‘in born’ or born in a place. Old Latin-Indu-Within, in. Gignere is to ‘beget’, produce. Gene-to give birth, beget,

Gene– Offspring, child, person (Greek). Genus- Race, stock, kind, family, birth, descent. Genius- procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality. Old Irish ‘rogenar’ – I was born. Welsh- to be born. Armenian ‘cnanim’ I bear, I am born.

‘En’  Indo- European root meaning ‘in’ existed from ‘interior;” Greek en “in,” eis “into,” endon “within;” Latin in “in, into,” intro “inward,” intra “inside, within;” Old Irish in, Welsh yn, Old Church Slavonic on-, Old English in “in, into,” inne “within, inside.”

https://www.etymonline.com/word/indigenous

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/indigenous-peoples-and-minorities/Sami-people/midtspalte/What-Defines-an-Indigenous-People/id451320/    https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf

 

 

...

‘Refers to Horomia’s speech in Parliament’; \

‘Parekura Horomia ‘Minister Maori Affairs’ Speaker of the House’ (15^th September 2007).

‘UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION FOR RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’ (UNDRIP)

Parekura Horomia. announced that the “Mâori Party have their head in the clouds over non-binding UN Declaration-for Rights of Indigenous People”. He stated that “The Mâori Party is full of hollow talk over the government’s decision not to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and contrary to a number of misleading claims by the party’s co-leaders today, the New Zealand government did not vote against a move at the United Nations to outlaw discrimination against indigenous peoples”.

Horomia said “Nor does the government accept Tariana Turia’s ridiculous claim that this government believes indigenous people are “sub-human with only sub-human rights” – which I, and no doubt my Mâori caucus colleagues, frankly find offensive. The declaration adopted in the UN yesterday is in effect a wish list which fails to bind states to any of its provisions, this means it is toothless” and added “I’m actually more than a little surprised the Mâori Party is prepared to back something which effectively offers indigenous peoples no more than aspirational statements.”

Horomia added “our government has worked extremely hard over a number of years to help forge a declaration which protects and promotes the rights of indigenous peoples in a meaningful way – and which states could actually implement. The declaration adopted does neither and while we are proud of our efforts, we are deeply disappointed with the final result which we could not support.” He also pointed out that there are “four provisions we have problems with, which make the declaration fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements and established Treaty settlement policy” and he explained they are:-

“Article 26 of the UN Declaration (UNDRIP) states that indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. For New Zealand this covers potentially the entire country. “It appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous. This ignores contemporary reality and would be impossible to implement. The declaration also implies that indigenous people should have a right of veto over parliamentary law-making.” and……..

“The government strongly supports the full and active engagement of indigenous people in democratic decision-making processes. But these articles imply different classes of citizenship, where indigenous peoples have veto rights not held by others. Indigenous rights in New Zealand are of profound importance. The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of this country and we have an unparalleled system for redress. Nearly 40 per cent of New Zealand fishing quota is owned by Maori and claims to over half of the country’s land area have been settled. We also have some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world, where the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including the principle of informed consent, are enshrined in resource management law”.

Horomia concluded  “The Labour-led government is focused on pursuing goals which achieve real results for real people. It’s about time the Mâori Party got its head out of the clouds and focused on achieving some real milestones, rather than pie-in-the-sky talk which won’t make a lot of difference in our peoples’ lives”

RESEARCHED INFORMATION AND LINKS:

NZ CONSTITION & UNDRIP: The Green, Maori and Labour Parties are intent on  introducing the UNDRIP throughout NZ’s Constitution.  An UN News Media Report states ‘Eugene Sage stated  “It’s time to introduce the UNDRIP into NZ’s Constitution”. There is no concrete written constitution. Unlike many other nations New Zealand has no single constitutional document. It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an ‘unwritten constitution’. It is an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources https://bpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/8/776/files/2022/11/The-Constitutional-Korero-Conference-Handbook-2022.pdf 44 pages pdf

PARTNERSHIP (Co-governance): Nanaia Mahuta refers to “refining aspects of the proposed new system as well as mechanisms for transition through continued partnership with the local government sector, iwi/mana whenua and industry” (NZ Water Conference-Expo 2022).. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/water-new-zealand-conference-and-expo-2022 .

HE PUAPUA, THREE WATERS & MAORI HEALTH AUTHORITY: Are all in the lead up to namely ‘NZ’s Vision 2040’ ( Crown (Govt) collaborating with the Iwi Chairs Forum.). Hence the pre-planning of the removal of the  Resource Management Act ) 2021 (RMA), replacing this with three new legislations that will accommodate the road to entrenching the UNDRIP into New Zealand’s economy. Infrastructure, education, health etc., (Co-governance)

SIGNING OF UN DECLARATION FOR RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (UNDRIP): New Zealand does a U-Turn on UNDRIP as Pita Sharples Minister of Maori Affairs secretly travels to New York UN Assembly to sign UN Declaration for Rights of Indigenous People. UNDRIP is known as an ‘aspirational document’. Labour stated that the signing of the UNDRIP by NZ would create ‘two classes of citizenship in NZ’ and would give “indigenous Maori ‘veto rights over the laws made in Parliament”. John Key assured NZr’s the UNDRIP is “non-binding” https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3599153/NZ-does-U-turn-on-rights-charter

RIPPLES FROM THE ‘DRIP’ (UNDRIP) Stuff NZ reported 1^st May 2010. Refers to the  advancement of Maori Sovereignty and the Maori Party advanced its agenda of apartheid of two peoples in one land. Maori to hold an especially privileged place in NZ. High Court Judge Eddie Durie noted that the ‘UN declaration will influence all future law and policy practice, and spoke of a ‘tax payer funded jaunt to New York’  The damage will be considerable. “The Right to Self-determination is to(Art 3) ‘freely determine their political status’ (Art 4) UNDRIP. Maori activists will see this as ‘seperatism’. John Key stated that the UNDRIP is merely an ‘aspiration’. (Art 19) UNDRIP ‘The Government & it’s Successors give the ‘right of veto’ to Maori upon policies they consider may not be in their best interest’. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/columnists/3619989/Ripples-from-this-DRIP-will-be-far-reaching

MY PERSONAL OPINIONS: The UNDRIP ‘Self Determination of Indigenous people’. That ‘Self-determination’ only applies to certain Iwi Elite (Individuals, Organizations, Corporations etc). The aspect of all New Zealanders lives are determined in far away places. New Zealand is the outpost of the UN/WEF (NZ is the WEF Guineapig State). UN-WEF Strategic Partnership signed 13/6/2019. UNDRIP is an advancement, an integral process towards ‘co-governance’ namely a two tier class of citizenship namely ‘Cultural Marxism’                                                                      UNDRIP (Non-binding) Agreement:  ‘Non-binding’ does not mean the government is not committed action this because it’s classified as ‘non-binding’. All UN ‘non-binding’ agreements sit in Parliament as a ‘Soft Law’ also known as ‘Grey Matter’. Hence can be entered into legislation by entering this into ‘Domestic Policy’, therefore becoming ‘Hard Law’ (Legislation). Legal but not necessarily ‘Lawful’. Non-binding UN agreements require no consensus in Parliament therefore are automatically accepted by all political parties. This is dangerous and ‘un-democratic’, the sovereign peoples of NZ have no decision making rights, neither do any political party member.

LINKS: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/m%C3%A2ori-party%E2%80%99s-head-clouds-over-non-binding-un-declaration         

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/columnists/3619989/Ripples-from-this-DRIP-will-be-far-reaching

Carol Sakey  https://wakeupupnz.org

 

...

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources in New Zealand.

1.2 Many New Zealanders are taking action to conserve the environment. Throughout New Zealand, iwi, hapū, and community groups are working to monitor, protect, and enhance the health of their environment.

1.3 Some natural resources are “co-governed” – the work to restore or conserve them is led as a result of negotiated decision-making arrangements between iwi and/or other groups, central government, and/or local government. Many of these arrangements have come about after long negotiations, including Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The arrangements have many legal forms and include statutory bodies, trusts, and other relationships.

1.4We looked at a selection of these arrangements to identify what works well and what does not. We wanted to identify factors that need to be considered when setting up and maintaining effective co-governance arrangements.

What we looked at

1.5 We looked at eight examples of co-governance and how co-governance is being used for environmental projects (see Figure 1). The examples are:- Waikato River Authority;- Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Auckland); – Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement (Lake Ellesmere, Canterbury); – Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group; – Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao (Tauranga); – Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust (Waikato);- Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board; and Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Locations of the co-governance examples we looked at

1.6 All the examples involved iwi and local authorities. Some also included community groups. Some arose out of Treaty of Waitangi claims settlements. Others were voluntary, including one that was later formalised through a Treaty settlement.

1.7 We reviewed participants’ experiences and perceptions and used that information to identify what helps to set up and operate co-governance arrangements successfully.

1.8 Although our main interest was in co-governance, we looked at examples that were sometimes a mixture of co-governance and co-management. We identified principles that apply generally to both co-governance and co-management.

1.9 In resource management work, the terms “co-governance” and “co-management” are both used to describe negotiated arrangements between iwi, central government, local government, and/or local groups to achieve effective management of an environmental or conservation resource.

1.10 These terms are sometimes used interchangeably because their definitions are not well understood. Governance focuses on strategic matters, while management is concerned with day-to-day operational responsibilities. When used correctly, the terms can describe the extent of decision-making powers (see Figure 2).
Comparing co-management and co-governance

CO- MANAGEMENT: The collaborative process of decision-making and problem solving within the administration of conservation policy

CO-GOVERNANCE: Arrangements in which ultimate decision-making authority resides with a collaborative body exercising devolved power – where power and responsibility are shared between government and local stakeholders

1.11 Where natural resources are managed as part of or after a Treaty settlement, co-governance often means that there are equal numbers of iwi representatives and council members involved. Usually (an exception is the Waikato River Authority), councils retain final decision-making powers over the management of natural resources. This is in keeping with councils’ responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002.

1.12 In the examples we looked at, some were about governance and others more about management. In some, people’s roles included elements of both governance and management.

1.13 The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 set up the Waikato River Authority as a co-governance entity. The Waikato River Authority sets the direction for managing the Waikato River in its “Vision and Strategy” document. This document is considered to be part of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. It is binding on all national, regional, and district policy and decisions for the management of the river.

1.14 The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority is also a co-governance entity. Auckland Council is responsible for managing the Maunga, under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority.

1.15 The Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group is charged with providing leadership in putting into effect its vision and strategy for the Rotorua lakes and their catchments. As the governance group, it provides the direction, vision, and strategic oversight for the lakes programme. The strategy group needs to approve any decisions about funding under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme.

1.16 Local authorities usually control the creation, membership, and disestablishment of joint committees. However, when they are part of Treaty redress, the creation and membership of these committees are agreed between councils and iwi and provided for in Treaty legislation. This is the case for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group. The Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act 2006 provides for the establishment of a permanent joint committee that can be disestablished only with the agreement of all parties. This means that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust is an equal member with the regional and district councils.

1.17 As we have mentioned, some of the examples we looked at contained elements of co-governance and co-management. The parties to the Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement told us that their arrangement was “one step away from true co-governance”. However, the partners were clear that they wanted an arrangement that allowed for some form of co-governance:

Ngāi Tahu own the lake bed via the treaty settlement, which must mean something. It’s at the least a very powerful symbol, but not just symbolic. [You] can’t dismiss their view, even though they have no [Resource Management Act] powers.

1.18 Importantly, in this instance, the parties are clear about their limits but also clear about where they want to get to: “[It’s] not quite co-governance … The arrangement starts at co-management, with the mechanism to move to co-governance.” The parties’ agreement confirmed their commitment to “strive toward appropriate vesting of decision-making powers in the Parties as co-governors over the Te Waihora catchment”.

1.19 The members of Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao are clear that they are co-managers. The Mauao Trust, as the owners of the historic reserve, are the governors.

1.20 In the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust’s case, the Trust has a co-governance structure, where the board is co-chaired by a mana whenua representative and a 3).landowner representative. The Trust members maintain that the co-governance regime ensures that tikanga Māori is incorporated in governance and day-to-day management decisions.

1.21 Responsibility for managing the scenic reserve rests with Waipa District Council. The Council has a working relationship with the Trust to deliver the desired outcomes. For the land within the fenced perimeter but outside the reserve, it is intended that the Trust will manage the land as though part of the scenic reserve. Landowner covenants would cover this management arrangement.

What we did not look at: We did not look at the effectiveness of the co-governance arrangements in achieving environmental outcomes because, in most instances, it was too early to assess effectiveness. However, we have reported their achievements to date, where these are publicly available (see the Appendices).

How we carried out our work 1.23 To carry out our work, we:  Reviewed co-governance literature and material relating to the examples that we chose; visited Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty (Tauranga and Rotorua), and Canterbury to meet the people involved and to understand their projects well; and interviewed 54 people in central government, local authorities, iwi, and community groups, most with governance and/or operational roles.

1.24 Because each co-governance arrangement was different, we had lines of questioning to guide our conversations. Basing our questions on our expectations of good governance and leadership, we focused on:-clarity of purpose; roles and responsibilities; capability; accountability and integrity; information and reporting; and financial sustainability.

Structure of this report

1.25- In Part 2, we discuss the importance of effective relationships when setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.26 In Part 3, we discuss how parties need to build and maintain a shared understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

1.27 In Part 4, we discuss how parties need to put in place the processes and understandings about how they will work together to achieve their purpose.

1.28 In Part 5, we discuss how important it is to involve people with the right experience and capacity in setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.29 In Part 6, we discuss how parties need to plan for accountability reporting and financial sustainability.

1.30 Appendices 1-6 provide background information about six of the co-governance examples.

INTERESTING LINKS:-

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf  Summary of our report Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources – Controller-Auditor General  2 pages pdf Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources February 2016  68 page pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/co-governance-amended.pdf (Co-Governance Amended Report)  The Purpose of this Report:–

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/part1.htm (This report)

4.NZ GOVERNMENT MADE A REFERENCE TO IN THIS REPORT: Source: Dodson, G. (2014), “Co-Governance and Local Empowerment? Conservation Partnership Frameworks and Marine Protection at Mimiwhangata, New Zealand” in Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal (2014) Volume 7, Issue 25, available at www.tandfonline.com.

https://store.thomsonreuters.co.nz/waking-the-taniwha-maori-governance-in-the-21st-century-ebk/productdetail/126608 Thomsonrueters.co.nz

https://www.boardroompractice.co.nz/files/96/file/NZ-govt-owned-companies-pdf 21 pages PDF

http://my.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202210/t20221026_10792358.htm  A series of new ideas, new thinking, and new strategies on national governance, and achieved a new breakthrough in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of our times. We have endeavoured to use this new theory to arm ourselves intellectually, guide our practice, and advance our work. This theory provides us with fundamental guidance for advancing the cause of our Party and our country in the new era. A global network of partnership. Comrades. The great achievements of the new era have come from the collective dedication and hard work of our Party and our people. Here, on behalf of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, I express our heartfelt gratitude to all of our Party members, to the people of all ethnic groups, to all other political parties, people’s organizations, and patriotic figures from all sectors of society, to our fellow compatriots in the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions, in Taiwan, and overseas, and to all our friends around the world who have shown understanding and support for China’s modernization drive

Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and our country are founded and thrive. Our experience has taught us that, at the fundamental level, we owe the success of our Party and socialism with Chinese characteristics to the fact that Marxism works, particularly when it is adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of our times. The sound theoretical guidance of Marxism is the source from which our Party draws its firm belief and conviction and which enables our Party to seize the historical initiative.

Please feel free to share any of the links I have researched.. https://wakeupnz.org   Carol Sakey.

...