- Democracy Action is urging New Zealanders to continue lobbying MPs to remove Article 13.2 — the UNDRIP clause — from the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement before ratification.
- The clause has nothing to do with trade, and carries significant constitutional implications. It could be used to further embed UNDRIP principles into New Zealand law and policy.
- Importantly, the clause can still be removed or amended before ratification through the standard international treaty process under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention, without affecting the substance of the trade agreement itself.
- Take action - contact MPs and Ministers directly and insist that Article 13.2 — the UNDRIP clause – be amended or removed from the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement before ratification.
While public submissions on the New Zealand–India Free Trade Agreement have now closed, the issue is not over. Democracy Action is urging supporters to continue speaking out by contacting MPs directly and asking them to oppose the inclusion of Article 13.2 — the clause affirming the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
Democracy Action’s oral submission made it clear that we oppose the use of trade agreements to advance contentious constitutional change. We argued that the UNDRIP provision has nothing to do with trade and should be removed before the agreement is ratified.
We highlighted several major concerns, including:
- The agreement “affirms” New Zealand’s commitment to UNDRIP — wording that goes significantly further than previous trade agreements.
- India protected its own constitutional position by including an explicit reservation. New Zealand did not.
- International treaty commitments are frequently used by courts, officials, and policymakers as interpretive tools.
- UNDRIP has already been used domestically as the basis for constitutional transformation proposals such as He Puapua.
- Constitutional change should occur openly through democratic debate and public consent — not indirectly through trade agreements.
- The clause can still be removed or amended before ratification, with the agreement of India, through the standard international treaty process under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention, without affecting the substance of the trade agreement itself.
If you, too, are concerned, message:
- Your local MP. Click HERE for their contact details
- Prime Minister Christopher Luxon – email: [email protected]
- Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour – email: [email protected]
- Trade Minister Todd McClay - email: [email protected]
- Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters – email: [email protected]
Key points you may wish to raise include:
- Article 13.2 affirming UNDRIP should be amended or removed before ratification.
- As the clause is unrelated to the agreement’s trade objectives and removing it would not affect the substance of the FTA, the UNDRIP clause can readily be removed or amended before ratification, with India’s agreement, through the well-established international treaty process under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
- Trade agreements should focus on trade, not constitutional change.
- Constitutional matters should be debated openly with the public, not embedded in international treaties.
Even a short message can make a difference. Continued public pressure is important in demonstrating that many New Zealanders remain deeply concerned about the constitutional implications of incorporating UNDRIP into international agreements.
Further reading
- Democracy Action oral submission on India FTA
- Democracy Action written submission
- Gary Judd KC oral submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
- Overview of ‘He Puapua’ by Democracy Action
Commentary
- Gary Judd KC: India FTA: The Sting Beneath the Sting
- Brash & Mitchell: GRAHAM ADAMS: Why was UNDRIP ‘affirmed’ in the India FTA?
- John’s Substack: UNDRIP ON THE SLY - by John McLean
- Michael Laws interviews Gary Judd on The Platform: Why Is A Maori Sovereignty Clause In The India FTA?