\u201cThe inclusion of UNDRIP is contrary to the coalition agreement with National in the current Government. Politicians, not officials, should determine what is appropriate under coalition agreements,\u201d Peters added.<\/p>\n
The United Nations agreement was adopted in 2007, with New Zealand expressing formal support in 2010.<\/p>\n
Trade Minister Todd McClay told Newstalk ZB, \u201cUNDRIP was first included in the UK FTA, and then the EU FTA and UAE CEPA, both of which were passed under this Parliament\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs I mentioned in my third reading speech on the India FTA, its inclusion does not impose any obligation on New Zealand law or policy, and the reservations that New Zealand expressed remain in force,\u201d McClay said.<\/p>\n
Official advice shows Peters was told the reference to UNDRIP \u201cdoes not create any legal obligations or otherwise change or expand New Zealand\u2019s position on UNDRIP\u201d.<\/p>\n
Newstalk ZB has obtained a note described as \u201cfor Minister of Foreign Affairs\u201d from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials, under the Official Information Act.<\/p>\n
The note said the reference had no binding legal effect on New Zealand, \u201cin accordance with page 10 of the Coalition Agreement\u201d.<\/p>\n
Page 10 states \u201cConfirm that the Coalition Government does not recognise the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as having any binding legal effect on New Zealand\u201d and an agreement to \u201cstop all work on He Puapua\u201d.<\/p>\n
Peters had previously claimed the reference to UNDRIP was \u201csnuck in\u201d and said the UN framework \u201ccreated He Puapua and co-governance being embedded in our country\u201d.<\/p>\n
Winston Peters was told the reference does not have any binding legal effect on New Zealand, “in accordance with page 10 of the Coalition Agreement”.<\/p>\n
Further advice, given to Trade Minister Todd McClay in late June about the FTA\u2019s reference to UNDRIP, referenced previous agreements.<\/p>\n
McClay was told the UK and EU agreements both \u201cnote\u201d UNDRIP and reference the Parties\u2019 national\/respective positions, while the UAE agreement \u201crecognises the importance\u201d of UNDRIP and the India agreement \u201caffirms\u201d it \u201csubject to their respective positions\u201d.<\/p>\n
Officials told Todd McClay the India FTA did not create new obligations around UNDRIP.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no difference between \u2018notes\u2019, \u2018recognises\u2019 and \u2018affirms\u2019 in terms of the legal effect of these provisions with regard to the status of UNDRIP,\u201c officials said.<\/p>\n
McClay was told UNDRIP was not legally binding.<\/p>\n
During the bill\u2019s first reading, McClay spoke about the inclusion of the UN declaration: \u201cthe inclusion of reference of UNDRIP to the India FTA do not and does not impose, and are not intended to impose, any obligation on New Zealand law or Government policy. We reaffirm the reservations that were made by the New Zealand Government to the United Nations in 2010\u201d.<\/p>\n
In 2010, then-Prime Minister John Key said New Zealand had \u201calways supported the overall aspirations\u201d of UNDRIP.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile the declaration is non-binding, it both affirms accepted rights and establishes future aspirations.\u201d<\/p>\n