Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3427] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Was New Zealand represented at the United Nations negotiations towards an international statement of indigenous rights at a Geneva meeting from 2 to 13 December 2002; if so what was the position that New Zealand took? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The answer is yes. New Zealand strongly supports the development of a constructive and widely applicable declaration that would allow indigenous people who in many parts of the world are severely disadvantaged a basis to assert their rights. However New Zealand has difficulty with aspects of the current draft that would have to be changed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that this minority Government supported the right of indigenous people to self-determination at that conference as inferred in the  
Age 
 a Melbourne newspaper on 26 December 2002 and if that is the policy being asserted abroad is it the policy the Government intends to implement back home here in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking on behalf of a party enjoying 50 percent of the vote and of a minority Government I point out that from his comments the member is probably not aware that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights agreed to many years ago by this country and by Governments that he has been a member of there is a right to self-determination. New Zealand has qualified that right in terms of this document in terms of not impinging on the integrity and sovereignty of a country and it shares that position with many like-minded countries at the meeting. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Could the Minister further clarify the approach that New Zealand is taking to help achieve agreement with other countries on a declaration? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The working-party consists of both States and indigenous peoples and there is a vast gap between the positions of those two groups. New Zealand’s approach has been to work with like-minded countries and examples of those would be Canada and Norway. We are trying to find wording that would be broadly acceptable both to States and indigenous peoples. The nature of this working-party is that its outcome can only be achieved by consensus. We are helping to find that consensus. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: What status would a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples have under New Zealand law and would the Government regard it as a binding document? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We are talking about a declaration and not a convention. That means that it cannot contain legally binding commitments. The instructions we have given to foreign affairs officials there is that the outcome should be consistent with New Zealand laws and the New Zealand constitution. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that the Norwegian situation is for a separate Parliament for its indigenous people and is it not also a fact that what has been pursued by this Government implies clearly a separateness and a separate sovereignty and are we to have that back in this country if we are to be consistent? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Once again no the member is not asserting facts. What Norway wants to do within its own law and constitution is up to Norway. That is certainly not the path that New Zealand is taking or would take.