21 August 2006

Constitutional Reform

In a recent Listener article Tim Watkin has done a good, thoughtful job of explaining the need for constitutional reform. It’s a shame that so many other New Zealanders find the subject too boring to think about, or else take the complacent ‘if ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ approach. Worse still, MPs are clearly too scared to tackle the problem, and produced a very lame reporton the matter. I think we need more debate about this.
I disagree with Watkin in his assumption that the Treaty is an essential part of any future constitution. The Treaty is a poorly drafted and ambiguous document, and some of its wording is now simply irrelevant (‘British subjects’? The Crown’s ‘exclusive right of Preemtion’ in land transactions?). It has become a source of division, rather than unity; and its two versions appear to mean quite different things.
Certainly, it does have an historical constitutional role, in that it signifies the formation of the British colonial government here, and it purported (at very least) to protect Maori property rights. So, a constitution may note the historical place of the Treaty. But surely we could come up with wording that would better reflect the future status of sovereignty and indigenous peoples’ rights than what the Treaty offers us. We need to think creatively about this, and not just assume that the Treaty has an unquestionable place as some kind of constitutional bedrock.
Naturally, the status of the Treaty will become one of the biggest debating points in any future constitutional reform process. But, the place of the British monarch as head of state, and the possible powers of any new head of state, are equally significant and emotive issues for us. I think it’s time we ordinary New Zealanders took the lead over politicians and began this debate.

4 Comments:

At 3:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good point, Jean. I agree with the evolutionary approach, but, no matter how you approach it, the debate will get nasty. We may as well have the debate anyway, as the conflicts come up from time to time, regardless. I felt that the 'do nothing much' resolution of MPs was because they didn't want to take ownership of such a load political contention. The public would do well to press the need on government, rather than the other way around.

 
At 4:57 PM, Blogger Idiot/Savant said...

Part of that debate should already be happening, with the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion bill currently before the Justice and Electoral select committee. But this seems to have attracted no real interest from the media or wider public at all.

There's also a "Head of State Referenda Bill" in the member's ballot, which could pop out at any time, which would force us to talk about the monarchy vs a local head of state (or at least, talk about talking about it).

People are talking about these issues, but its not a large conversation. I recommend the Holden Republic blog; there's some very interesting draft legislation there.

 
At 11:18 PM, Blogger Idiot/Savant said...

Mark: that "bollocks" on human rights is an important limit on the actions of government. And we have only to look at the Ahmed Zaoui case, where a man was kept in jail for two years without trial, and still looks like he may not receive a fair and public hearing, in order to see how necessary those limits are.

 
At 9:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, yes it surprises me just how casual NZers can get about human rights. The country has a fairly good record in this regard, but public opinion is often very hostile to human rights, and people are often very willing to deny basic rights to unpopular individuals. But, if we want to be treated with dignity ourselves, we can't go denying it to others, regardless of what they may have done. Anyway, parliamentarians are too prone to public opinion, so should not be trusted always to respect human rights, and a constitution would help to assure this.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home