Mr key is playing a pretty tricky balancing act. there'll be tears before lunchtime...

You have to remember that the UN declaration is not *really* about the indigenous culture at all.

It is really all about the (primarily) western European cultures that colonized other parts of the world, and the sense of our modern cultures that this colonization process (which created our modern cultures) was unjust and that this injustice should be redressed and minimized.

So whether or not a particular "indigenous" culture is really indigenous (or merely an early invader) or whether or not the indigenous culture is "deserving" are irrelevant. What is important is whether or not a culture was steam-rolled (totally or partially) by the expansion of European cultures.

The declaration is about the morals and beliefs of the people *making* redress for past injustices. It is not (mostly) about the people who are receiving redress for past injustice.

@ Rangi #55. Let me get this straight. You think the UN are correct when they labelled the FS&SB act as "manifestly racist" and in the next sentence state that ‘Double standards & ineffectiveness is rife at the UN’.

the votes for this declaration were something like 143 for, 4 against. the four were Australia, Canada, America and New Zealand. The first 3 have had the dreadful indigenous rights records, so what does that make us look like?

Also, reading the actual declaration helps to clarify the real issue, which is about recognition and protection from discrimination and assimilation...not about the finger-pointing and name-calling that goes on in our petty government.

NZ is markedly different to other nations in how colonisation has taken place. This UN declaration is beneath us. NZers should not have to feel the ire or guilt of other nations such as Australia or America in how we have treated 'indigenous' people. This declaration starts from the assumption that indigenous people have been grossly maltreated. Gross maltreatment can be seen in Australia- Aboriginals were considered part of the nations fauna until 1967. ie. NOT HUMAN. Maori people have significant opportunities in NZ. Therefore, John Key is a buffoon.

"Redress and justice, ah 4 goodness sake #50 - get on with y' life and stop bleating."

That's rich coming from us Kiwis - hand wringing apologists to the world!

@ Emma #52 - tell that to the BNP party which is gaining popularity in the UK with there, as well as the cries of "British jobs for British workers" that were common statements when I was living there last year. Especically considering to many of these people you are only British if you are white.

We all came from somewhere and we were all subjugated by another race or culture at one time or another. If ever there was a race in NZ put upon it was the Chinese. Do you hear them bleating about the injustices of the past ? No you don't. Maori need to stop bleating and holding out their hands and look at how they can narrow the gulf that exists between their race and the rest of NZers. We are a multi-cultural society not a bi-cultural society.

"The adjective indigenous has the common meaning of "from" or "of the original origin". Therefore, in a purely adjectival sense any given people, ethnic group or community may be described as being indigenous in reference to some particular region or location"

I was born in New Zealand therefore I am indigenous to New Zealand. I am a Kiwi and always will be no matter what my skin colour and neither Mr Key, The Maori Party or even the mighty UN can ever take that away from me.

Our Waitangi treaty resolution process basically defines much of how we address indigeneous rights issues. And so it should; our treaty tribunal process is more advanced, detailed, and practical than any guiding non-binding international declaration can be. Saying that, not signing the Convention has opened NZ up to a fair bit of criticism overseas, often because those criticizing are not aware of our quite unique efforts (the tribunal) to redress wrongs of the past. This is about our image overseas, and signing probably will not, and should not, change how we are going about these issues. Personally, I think our efforts for 'justice and redress' are miles better than what I have seen nearly everywhere else in the world, including many other signatories of this declaration. We should all be proud of this. And we should be ashamed that so many people in our country ignorantly think addressing the wrongs of the past is divisive and not in our overall interest. Its only divisive because of their narrow-minded attitude.