Proceeding Without The People: Labour’s Gift To The Right.

By
Chris Trotter
-
77
2113

BY THE SECOND HALF of 2022 the right-wing assault on the Treaty policies of the Left will be raging.

At the level of local government, candidates known to support the Government’s Three Waters scheme will be targeted for electoral destruction. The local government elections will be repurposed as a national referendum on the Three Waters proposal. If its supporters are voted out, then the Government will face increasingly angry demands for the scheme’s abandonment.

On the broader political front, NZ First, finally free of the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation, will be terrifying rural and provincial audiences with tales of rampant, government-supported Māori separatism hellbent on destroying New Zealand democracy.

With contrapuntal precision, Act’s David Seymour will be reassuring the people Winston Peters has been terrifying that the price of Act’s participation in any coalition government of the Right will be the effective nullification of the Treaty of Waitangi.

National, with less venom and vitriol than its potential allies, will, nevertheless, have re-positioned itself on Treaty issues. Christopher Luxon’s argument will be that what “normal” New Zealanders want more than anything in 2023 is a restoration of “social cohesion”. National’s position will be that social cohesion is impossible while three of New Zealand’s parliamentary parties are promoting racially-charged and undemocratic policies calculated to drive New Zealanders apart.

- Sponsor Promotion -

Labour’s, the Greens’ and the Māori Party’s ability to successfully counter the Right’s attack will be fatally undermined by its deafening silence on the key issue of whether or not it they are willing to obtain formal popular authorisation for their radical (some would say revolutionary) proposals.

To date, however, the te Tiriti-driven policies and plans of all three left-wing parties offer no opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their say on the profound constitutional changes being promoted.

The Left’s refusal to abide by the long-established conventions for validating and effecting significant constitutional change in New Zealand will leave them wide open to the charge that they are conspiring to brush aside their country’s democratic traditions.

The most damaging aspect of the Right’s charge will be that it is true.

The te Tiriti-driven constitutional transformation proposed by the parties of the Left makes no provision for popular ratification. The radical changes proposed – like Three Waters – will either be imposed by statute, or achieved by judicial fiat. No heed will be given to the venerable notion that it is unacceptable for a government in possession of a temporary parliamentary majority to fundamentally change the rules of the political game. The convention that significant constitutional reform – like altering the way parliamentarians are elected – must be put to a referendum, will simply be over-ridden.

Labour and the Greens have “form” in this regard.

The Labour-led government of Helen Clark established the New Zealand Supreme Court and abolished the right of New Zealanders to appeal to the Privy Council in London by simply passing a law to that effect. In spite of the radical reformation of the New Zealand judiciary proposed by the law’s supporters, New Zealanders were given no opportunity to vote the reforms up or down.

Labour’s parliamentary caucus has not grown any more supportive of New Zealand’s democratic political culture in the years since the Supreme Court Bill was came into force in October 2003. Indeed, the venomous scorn poured upon the defenders of freedom of expression by some Labour and Green MPs strongly suggests that the rights and freedoms granted to all New Zealanders by the Bill of Rights Act (and, for that matter, the Treaty of Waitangi) are regarded as irritating obstacles to the imposition of a new te Tiriti-based political order.

The process adopted by the Clark Government in relation to the Supreme Court Act is, however, instructive.

According to the Department of Courts own historical summary:

The issue re-emerged in early 2000, when the Labour/Alliance Government agreed to review the role of the Privy Council. In December 2000 Cabinet approved the release of a discussion paper entitled Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure. It invited public comment on three options to replace the Privy Council. Submissions were evenly divided on whether appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished or retained. There was a clear consensus however that if appeals to the Privy Council ended, a replacement stand-alone court sitting above the Court of Appeal should be established. 

Further public consultation culminated in the report of a Ministerial Advisory Group. This formed the basis of a Supreme Court Bill. The bill was introduced in 2002, and passed by Parliament on 14 October 2003. The Act came into force on 1 January 2004, officially establishing the Supreme Court, and at the same time ending appeals to the Privy Council in relation to all decisions of New Zealand courts made after 31 December 2003. 

Remember that sequence: A “discussion paper” is released. Public “comment” is invited. In spite of expert opinion being “evenly divided”, “further public consultation” takes place. Eventually, a “Ministerial Advisory Group” presents a report. This report becomes a government bill. Public submissions on the bill are invited by a Select Committee of the House. The shape of the bill remains essentially unchanged. Despite strong representations from four of the seven parties represented in Parliament, the call for a referendum is rejected. The bill passes, 63 votes (Labour, Greens, Progressives) in favour, 57 votes (National, NZ First, Act, United Future) against.

That is how easily our constitution can be changed – if a government is sufficiently resolute in its determination to do so.

 

77 COMMENTS

  1. Chris. Agree 100% . I’m not sure how many NZ’ers are aware of what the Ardern govt is up to here, or of it’s implications, but I could go out and vote right for the first time ever – just when I’d more or less decided not to vote again. Don’t like the Nat candidate and I loathe Luxon, but that’s how it is. Cheers.

    • Fair point Snow White.
      My recommendation is to not let any party ‘own’ you. Vote on the issues and be as fickle as you please.
      I know lot’s of people who are ‘tribal Labour’ and I suppose a few who are lifelong Nat voters although the Nats are quieter about it. It’s a mistake because politics isn’t a football game where you can be a Hurricanes fan win or lose, thick or thin. Vote for whatever policies work for you, your family and New Zealand

    • Agreed, Snow White. Despite being a lifelong Lefty, I will never again vote for them. I didn’t at the 2020 election, either. I hear tell that NZF and Winston will be contesting the next election: they might well garner enough electoral support to change the government. Surely Peters wouldn’t put Labour into government again?

      • D’ Esterre I voted ‘ right ‘ in the last WCC mayoral election, and will likely do so again, for Andy Foster has a solid track record on environmental issues, and the only other candidate I’m aware of appears to pose like a pin up the way the Green femmes are wont to, and I dumped the Greens permanently, forever, after their disgusting racist contributions to the Auckland Muslim vigil, and half of them seem to be juvenile sex obsessives – as well as racist- or both.

        I cannot remember when I last voted Labour, but one thing I do believe is that there is no one in their ranks who has ever been acquainted with the debilitating effects of poverty, so they can go to Hades too.

        I previously voted Values, and have been interested in TOP mainly because of their high calibre candidates. On the whole I’ve voted for candidates, rather than parties, even when I knew it might be a “wasted” vote, but there’s never been a party good enough for me.

        I voted the NZFirst candidate in error at the last general election, because the polling booth was crappy, with queues outside in the hot sun, and I wanted to get in and out as quickly as I could. As I cannot trust myself not to err again, perhaps I should not vote again.

        Peters won’t put Labour in again, he’s been snipping at them lately, and NZ First doesn’t have the best track record the way it treats its own ladies. I have respected Winston Peters as an elder statesman, and as one of the best performers in Parliament, and for wearing a suit as well as any Italian, but that’s not quite enough for me.

        If I liked the Nat candidate I might be able to vote National, but I don’t, so I won’t, and most of the Nats are so awful that they make mediocre look enticing, and that’s not good enough either. My dad said Social Credit wasn’t feasible, the Maori Party are off the planet, and that just leaves Mana, who had good social policies, but can be a bit racist too, and I’m bone weary of divisive racist issues.

        All these voters in search of a party – the buggers may have to introduce compulsory voting, but if need be I can spoil my ballot paper and who’s to know ?

        • Snow White: with regard to the upcoming local elections, it looks as if there’ll be a few independent candidates, at least for the mayoralty, and for some wards as well. I’ll be voting for independents: nobody with any party affiliation will get a look-in, as far as I’m concerned.

          I’m not sure whether Foster will be standing again; he won’t be getting my vote if he does. Nor will that Green party candidate, on account of, as I said above, I’ve sworn off voting for anybody from a political party.

          Maybe there’ll be a plethora of independent candidates to vote for at the next general election? One can but hope: I certainly won’t be voting for the Natz: Luxon isn’t to my taste, being too milquetoast. In truth, I’d have preferred Collins, though even she had been beaten down by the woke media in recent times.

          What is it with our pollies? Too timid by half: say what you think robustly. You might be surprised at how the polls react. Where’s Lavrov when we need him? I laughed at how he set up Liz Truss for a fall. And boy! did she have it coming….

          • I’ll probably vote Foster, although there’s one sitting councillor, white male, Sean, lawyer, who looks good, but it’s unclear who’s running for mayor, and I’m surprised that anyone would want to. Andy Foster is not exactly charismatic, but he deserves a medal for putting up with a quarrelsome coterie, and he seems to be a decent man, and there’s a lot to be said for being decent nowadays.

            Andy Foster was involved with saving the Wellington Town Belt from when he first came onto Council, and back in 1987 when developers initially tried to commercially exploit it, the WCC was in bed with the developers; the developers reared their greedy heads again in 1994, and could do so again; the continuity of knowledge Foster has is a positive, although Nicola Young’s MP dad was also an active supporter of the city’s green lungs, and local politicians of stature like Fran Wilde,
            seem to be few and far between – there are two or three good women on the WCC, and some better not described at all.

            Luxon is quite repulsive and thinks he’s the cats’ pyjamas; it seems to me that a protege of John Dirty Politics Key can’t be good news for New Zealanders – Luxon’s “ ordinary man” pr stunts were cringingly pathetic -even worse than his big black car scenario, but he’s good for making granny chuckle, bless him.

    • Having followed your imput to this blog I realize what a big call this statement is . I am by inclination a National voter and certainly know how hard it is to see your party stuffed up by poor leadership. I have voted Labour when Helen showed a way to get the country moving again.
      Both major parties rely on those that accept their actions without question and this leads them to some badly thought out policies. that panders to what these people expect .

  2. An excellent analysis Chris. You nailed it with:

    “The most damaging aspect of the Right’s charge will be that it is true.”

    (Although of course few of us are really ‘right’, we’re mostly just antiauthoritarian liberals.)

    As regards the removal of the Privy Council, I thought this was absolutely bonkers at the time because it was a free service, it provided some of the best legal minds in the English speaking world, but most importantly it was truly independent. As we’ve seen with some action in the courts in recent years (here I’m thinking of the Ellis appeals), it’s hard to find a truly independent judiciary in a country where half the population are either related or old school chums. So what was Clark’s motivation other than to populate the supreme court with angry, menopausal feminists? LOL

    • Andrew. Agree about the Privy Council, that was another leap backwards for absolutely no good reason. And ironically I’m pretty sure that the first case New Zealand ever advanced to the Privy Council, was a Maori entity v The Crown, concerning land advanced to the crown for philanthropic purposes, not being correctly returned when the relevant time came.

      I don’t know the purpose for dumping a world class service which we were fortunate enough to be able to avail ourselves of, but if it was Clark, she was seen by some as very controlling, and the Privy Council in London would be well and truly beyond her sphere of influence. I hope it’s not true that Ardern phones her on an almost daily basis.

    • Andrew: “….few of us are really ‘right’…”

      Indeed. I’m irritated by that characterisation being applied to me. I regard myself as a disillusioned former Lefty. I don’t like many right-wing policies, but I sure as hell am alarmed by the current government’s political trajectory.

  3. All true Mr Trotter.
    Those who are pushing or supporting this unmandated co governance are literally destroying democracy in New Zealand (Aotearoa being a made up name for the North Island).
    No more one person one vote.
    They should be honest.
    The fact they are not honest tells us much about their intent.

  4. I’m not convinced by this article and recent polling evidence – Acts 8% plunge immediately following David Seymour’s word for word copy of Don Brash 2004 “Orewa” speech – suggests that NZ voters have moved on from the “sacred cows” that the article enshrines. I hope I’m right and that we are more mature as a nation and have a more nuanced understanding of our history and the place of Maori governance and participation in shaping our future. Many NZer’s don’t see this as the big bogey man threat that the author does – hopefully enough of us to get the “left” over the line at the next election.

    • “NZ voters have moved on from the “sacred cows”.
      Sacred cows like fundamental principles of democratic participation?
      I’ve no idea what circles you move in, Peter, but from what I see, once people understand the implications of the implementation of He Puapua (helpfully covered in the link from Magit) there will be widespread and overwhelming opposition that would see it’s protagonists, justifiably, away from the levers of power for a very long time. Perhaps Chris is more concerned with that than “co-governance” itself but he is dead right about the abuse of democratic principles and where their abandonment can lead.

      Of course there is the weapon of guilt fostered on the gullible by tax payer propaganda to contend with. The shameless three waters propaganda an indication of how far the government is prepared to go on that front with their lies. Green water coming out of the taps? We have the equal second best drinking water in the world.

      I’m reminded of Chesterton and his metaphorical “Chesterton’s Fence”, one of JFK’s favourites.

      “There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

      • I did read the article and some background on it’s author. What the author does is make the assumption that the way she view’s the world and the benefits she and others like her have received from current settings are universal. Western Democracy has been a big bonus to the majority voting block for at least the last 30 years – it looks great if you’re white and middle class and you get to dictate policies and economic settings that enrich you and your family at the expense of your fellow NZers.
        Western Democracy doesn’t look that great if you’re a voting minority and your economic welfare is completely ignored and the history of your people is one of long-term poverty with no access to significant economic access.
        This obsession with the “constitution” and “democracy” and our “water assets” is just overblown fear mongering. The reality is, that a progressive, forward thinking, liberal democracy should be perfectly capable of handling co-governance.
        It’s something unique in the world and we should be very proud of the direction we are going in as a country.

      • D’Esterre. Government counts on people being too lazy or too indolent to bother reading docs like He PuaPua. I offered Hager’s “ Dirty Politics” all over the place when it came out, and got zilch takers – that’s why little smartarses like Key could get away with talking rubbish about conspiracy theorists, and gullible media believe him.

        He Puapua does need to be widely read, or at least precised, and promulgated or discussed, the constitutional issues are major, and I don’t know whether I can refer to social issues without being dubbed racist.

  5. With Snow White on this. I’ve devoted most of my life to conservation projects working with NGO’s and have always been a green party supporter. I’ll likely vote Act at the next election. The left are so obsessed with identity politics that they’re doing little with regards to climate change and the biodiversity crisis. I honestly believe the right would do a (slightly) better job in this regard…

  8. This from Chris’s post stands out in neon:

    The te Tiriti-driven constitutional transformation proposed by the parties of the Left makes no provision for popular ratification. The radical changes proposed – like Three Waters – will either be imposed by statute, or achieved by judicial fiat. No heed will be given to the venerable notion that it is unacceptable for a government in possession of a temporary parliamentary majority to fundamentally change the rules of the political game.   The convention that significant constitutional reform – like altering the way parliamentarians are elected – must be put to a referendum, will simply be over-ridden.

    Labour’s, the Greens’ and the Māori Party’s ability to successfully counter the Right’s attack will be fatally undermined by its deafening silence on the key issue of whether or not it they are willing to obtain formal popular authorisation for their radical (some would say revolutionary) proposals.

    To date, however, the te Tiriti-driven policies and plans of all three left-wing parties offer no opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their say on the profound constitutional changes being promoted.

    The Left’s refusal to abide by the long-established conventions for validating and effecting significant constitutional change in New Zealand will leave them wide open to the charge that they are conspiring to brush aside their country’s democratic traditions. (That we all believe in, even when we stray from them at times. This will demolish the foundation of the country which has been crumbling. The protests seen now supposedly against Covid19 requirements actually have been building for some time as the gap between government rhetoric and lack of performance and veritas and people’s expectations has grown wider and may become unbridgeable. Then what the hell does a basically goodand honest person do?)

  9. An exanple of twisted political rhetoric ithat people will scoff at is this one to the latest protesters.
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/461193/politicians-decry-protest-disruption-say-restrictions-will-end-eventually

    The protesters are addressed as if their concerns are about Covid19 only,when underlying their despair and anger is the knowledge that things were bad before. Therefore they will just ease from worse back to bad. It’s hardly going to soothe the savage breast is it and government if it was half-awake and not high on dreams of omniscence and high living would at least have some commonsense to address the problems of say housing as one. This would be done in a way that showed an interest in people’s wants and not just their needs for something better than cardboard box slums, or being in a motel room box – out of sight, out of mind. If we have a 5 million cohesion moving together for real, the protesters want to see it, empirically

  10. Agree with all this, and most comments.

    The disappointing thing is that by running roughshod over the fabric of our liberal democracy we lose sight of the intertwining and mixed ethnic fabric NZ has – and should – have.

    I quite enjoy a Maori perspective on public policy – but it should be just that – a perspective. Not an override, not a trump card, and not a destruction of political equality.

    As always, Chris (and Martyn for that matter) wish to blame Act for having to pushback. Im grateful Act are actually attempting some pushback, even if I’m not all onboard with their economic policies.

    Why doesn’t Chris take some responsibility for the state of HIS left? And yes, they are HIS Left. Ethno-nationalism in NZ, CRT in schools, and identity politics everywhere is the ideological hegemony right now are all the product of the Left in NZ. They flow the Leftist collective belief that ‘the greater good justifies anything’ – including justifying overriding democracy. We see it played out right now as NZ continues a crash-course in soft Authoritarianism under the guise of “public health” as countries across the world pull-back on control but we double-down on an unbelievably stifling group-think on Covid-19 and vaccination.

    This is why I stopped reading TDB – Martyn and Chris are a cesspool of “it’s neo-liberalism” as the one true cause of all evil. They would never admit “the Left is wrong on this and we hold part responsibility for letting this state of affairs occur as these ideologies infiltrated all Leftist institutions and there is danger when Leftist ideas run untramelled”.

    Instead, they snipped from the edges, and when the Left went crazy, tried to disassociate themselves and blame Act and other Libertarians for pushing back.

    Too little, too late. Pathetic and disingenuous.

  11. Funny you mention the supreme court, I remember the concerns at the time about abuse of govt power and how the privy council kept us honest. Then into the CCPT? thing, another horrific over reach. Is it any wonder that the chickens have come home to roost? So few people listened when these issues arose without seeing how they were building a bridge to a more authoritarian less democratic future and here we are.

    Democracy is being touted as something that doesnt work and soon we will have endoctrinated generations that believe that too. It is hugely depressing. I love this country but it is becoming unrecognisable.

    At first I thought I was just getting old but now I know it comes down to political systems that are not fit for purpose in an age typified by greed and self interest where politicians can do whatever they like and get away with it.

Comments are closed.