PETER COLLINS: Civil War? Can MFAT use UNDRIP to destroy us?

I 'identify' as a New Zealander though I came here fleeing Europe in my mother's arms during the 1930s. I have no indigenous blood though many of my friends have.

I think I understand that the proposed India Free Trade Treaty has an UNDRIP problem - much has been written about that by better pens than mine.

The issue is not mine, however, it hits all of us. There are two excellent references that predate most of us: "But Now We Want the Land Back: A History of the Australian Aboriginal People" by Hannah Middleton (1977). "Sleeping Dogs": movie (1977). At least watch the movie - this land, riven by its factions.

Is the issue as simple as it seems? Does some government department believe that we all want the Europeans to treat us fairly, as if we had just been invaded and we were still in a state of "Them versus Us", separate and distinguishable?

But it's not like that at all. The land might indeed have been effectively stolen from us by a pretence that it was worth only a few muskets, steel axes and blankets. If that had been last week it would make sense to say "Now we want it back. We want back our tribal councils, we want back our forests and rivers, undespoiled. We want back our language. We want back our tribal wars."

Fortunately this debate is not about territory. The debate is not "Give us back the land. We will give back the axes, alphabet and airports. We will give back the blankets, buses and businesses. We will give back the muskets, microwaves and multiculturalism. We will tear up the houses, hospitals and hotels; the telephones, TVs and trains; medicines, motorways and motels; roads, roofs and refrigerators. Begone, with all your tawdry flim-flam. Give us back the land."

This debate is about governance. By governance based on race. It may not be obvious, but that is most assuredly the issue.

We are lucky that there is little "Them versus Us". For it is useless to say "Will the last full-blood please turn out the light" even though there may be many with pure indigenous genes, as there are many with purely non-indigenous genes. Useless because we cannot separate out the genes that are mixed, as very, very many are.

So the question turns on whether the country should be run by two, separate bureaucracies, with their own rules, taxes, laws and penalties? To what extent would speeding fines vary according to your genetic proportion? This is a far from trivial issue. Separation of fishing rights are already dealt with on this basis. However, in due course, as our population genes become further mixed, we may need to modify such legislation.

If there is an idea that there be some separation of rights or obligations, based on having any indigenous gene whatsoever, should there not also be a similar separation based on having any nonindigenous gene whatsoever? We cannot separate out the genes. We cannot tear up the factories, railways and shopping centres.

We already have a treaty. We are gradually winning the struggle to achieve the fairness that was envisaged centuries ago. Is it appropriate for us to consider discarding that for a "Declaration" drafted to include countries with no such treaty as ours?

We are an "Us". There is no "Them" any more.

Do we really want a race-based apartheid, regardless of which 'race' is uppermost?

Peter Collins is a pilot and former Management Consultant and Technical Writer