I look at the racist hatefest that the issue of co-governance and 3 Waters has degenerated into and then I look at the intellectual effort redesigning our Constitution would require and I honestly don’t believe that we as a culture have the maturity required to meet the challenge.
Māori would rightfully be highly dubious of any new power system that bypassed the obligations of the Treaty while those who fear Indigenous political power would strive to dilute and undermine any of the current hard fought political rights Māoridom currently have.
This is a tragedy because I believe one of the most powerful unexplored parts of the Treaty is the State’s implied obligations to protect our collective rights, be they Māori or Pakeha. Self-sovereignty is the agency of the individual – a cherished and protected value in Western Democracy, as is property rights!
I believe an Upper House with a 50-50 Māori/Pakeha split that acts like the House of Lords in overviewing legislation which impacts the Treaty would be a means of bringing both sides of the Treaty into the political partnership promised by the Treaty.
We would need to acknowledge those obligations and empower society to fulfill them, but that is a deep conversation beyond the shallow scope of the current dialogue, I just don’t believe we are anywhere near a place where we could discuss a new Constitution in good faith.
We still have an enormous amount of bridges to build to get to that space as a nation., and that fact is sadder than the passing of the Queen.
First published on Waatea News.
Not even close to mature enough.
Unless we can get people to get over their selfish, racist, fear of someone getting an advantage attitude that is currently being pushed by y NatActs we will be just pushing shit uphill with a fork.
How can you have a rational discussion when you do not have any understanding of the tikanga Maori concept.
The world does not have to be made up of winners and losers but should be a place of consensus and for the good of all. This means decisions take time and compromise is required.
NZ is no where close to reaching that level of maturity as you illustrated by mentioning 3 waters and co governance. I would add the furore over changes to GST on Kiwi Saver fees and the social insurance scheme. One designed to help people, the other to bring equity to a tax anomaly. Both railed against by those that believe in the privilege of the advantaged.
How are we ever going to get a independent unbiased head of state if we can’t get fairness in our legislation.
We need a common goal where multi ethnic societies like New Zealand speak multiple languages. Very rarely do we find something working from the ground up like The Daily Blog working to bring people together in common goals particularly convincing rural areas and areas where woman work without the hijab especially in rural areas. It’s a very difficult area of study because of someone like seemore would destroy everything of democracy that is left.
Quite right Mike.
If you look at the immature posts by Bob, he fits into the categories you have stated.
Biased, privileged, selfish, racist and entitled.
You cannot have a mature debate, if people like that live in our country.
Certainly won’t brr we debated in public, what with Robertson earnestly dodging lammingtons – a first for him no doubt, but unable to be seen with the great unwashed/river of filth.
There is no way a republic can be debated in good faith while we have imaginary interpretations of the treaty like “partnership” or 50/50 co governance- with a government refusing to debate or even consult in good faith on that.
In the past we did have an upper house,The Legislative Council, where members were nominated by political parties. It included nominated Maori members.
It could block legislation passed by parliament. It twice prevented women from voting in the period before 1893.
If it is not broken do not fix it. I am not a fan of monarchy but if we are going to replace with a republic we need to think carefully about balances and checks on power.
One of the most obvious example of what I say is the USA. The Supreme court is supposedly to protect the constitution and protect citizens from injustice. Judge whether the overturning Of Roe versus Wade achieved that.
Does anyone remember Helen Clark’s reaction when Chief Justice Elias challenged her over the legality of the Foreshore and Seabed Act? When officials are appointed by the crown politicians cannot fire them at will.
No saying we should not be a republic if the that is what the majority of people want. Just that we should think about it.
I blame the three year term. MPs just aren’t getting enough time in the hotseat to learn anything meaningful rather letting the judiciary to run everything.
The reason is that the media give the impression that they give the views of all points of reflection. That’s the kind of things people need to be educated against. If we have a controversial issue like three waters where everyone is against it we need to have a good look at that so that we can get everyone working together.
Certainly not whilst we are all awash with the elite’s divisiveness.
Imo, no we are not mature enough yet. But it is a good time to begin discussing it. It won’t gather pace until many more of the boomer generation have departed and our younger ones have learned the pros and cons. We also need to see how KCIII behaves with his new role. I suspect it will be an extremely short reign for him (6-12 months). The paradigm is shifting, but it will take a good 40 years yet to solidify. So we sew the seeds now and hope others will nurture them when we are gone. Jmo
40 years oh cynically do I cast my mind forward to whatever will be, will be. 40 years is two generations hence. We are on our way down helped by people who have no compunction about society now. Before 40 years is up they, climate change and people who are prepared to puncture others, will not be sitting down and calmly working out laws on how to be fair to each other on a daily basis, perhaps who is prepared to make sacrifices for others.
And in the meantime we need a Frodo and friends to carry the Ring of Good Humanity towards the distant hills of The Good World. Read John Wyndham and John Christopher in the meantime as they are apparently simple stories for Young Adults where people are adjusting to a world irrevocably changed and forming groups of like-minded, trustworthy people who are committed to each other, working togethe, and being trustworthy. Start now I suggest.
Good question to raise, Martyn. It set me off to look up google and see what informative stuff I might find about constitutions. As I fear the weeds that push up between the cracks of political change, I looked first at what was said about Germany and its Weimar Republic that failed.
Why was Weimar Republic formed?
The Weimar Republic was announced following the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II in November 1918. The removal of the Emperor left an apparent power vacuum, with no Head of State the political structure of the Second Reich was obsolete, and an alternative form of government would have to be established.
Forming of the Weimar Republic | Schoolshistory.org.uk
https://schoolshistory.org.uk › weimar-nazi-germany › for…
(Get the feelings of the time of Weimar Republic:)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40962728
Weimar Germany and its Histories
Eric D. Weitz
(JStor seems to be a worthy site as they say ‘for the intellectually curious’.)
(And this says something about the difficulty of setting up the framework of the German republic so it would function in the way it was intended. Which should be instructive to any other considering and trying to implement similar changes to a polity)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26219879
Hugo Preuss, German Political Thought and the Weimar Constitution
Peter Stirk (Dr Peter Stirk, Durham University – Member of the Centre for the History of Political Thought)
(Condensed Extract of abstract which I think would be of value to those interested in constitutional change.)
Abstract: The reputation of Hugo Preuss has been tainted by the failure of the Weimar Republic, whose constitution he drafted…..some have seen him as trapped in the conceptual world of the German monarchical state….This article argues against that view…and that the later problems with the German presidency were a product of subsequent reinterpretation of the role of the president, which was contrary to Preuss’s intentions.
(These advisory words from Encyclopaedia Britannica are sound and clear and cautioning I think.)
Constitutional change – Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › topic › Constitutional-cha…
Unwritten constitutions tend to change gradually, continually, and often imperceptibly, in response to changing needs. But when a constitution lays down …
…But when a constitution lays down exact procedures for the election of the president, for relations between the executive and legislative branches, or for defining whether a particular governmental function is to be performed by the federal government or a member state, then the only constitutional way to change these procedures is by means of the procedure provided by the constitution itself for its own amendment. Any attempt to effect change by means of judicial review or interpretation is unconstitutional, unless, of course, the constitution provides that a body (such as the U.S. Supreme Court) may change, rather than interpret, the constitution.
Many constitutional documents make no clear distinction between that which is to be regarded as constitutional, fundamental, and organic, on the one hand, and that which is merely legislative, circumstantial, and more or less transitory, on the other. …
(And this is a publication which is a close look at the NZ Constitution as it has formed.)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/764302<
journal article
A Theory of Constitutional Change 1987
Philip A. Joseph and Gordon R. Walker
There is much to think about objectively and subjectively I imagine. When the Constitutional Conversation was held in Nelson I was amazed at the many vociferous white-haired male pakeha who held the floor with their negative views. Not enough intellectual discussion went on as a consequence. This was in 2013. The biased can orate to fill the time and intellectual space allotted every time and I think this would have happened frequently throughout NZ. There would be final reports put in by the participating mentors at the end>>
And here is the 2020 report from government last updated on 17 December 2013 of the ‘Constitutional Conversation’ held throughout NZ. https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/report-now-available-on-the-constitution-conversation/
Here are some reference links relating to our Constitution:
2011 Lecture by Chief Justice Sian Elias – http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/WkoLawRw/2011/1.pdf
2013 https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Constitutional-Advisory-Panel-Full-Report-2013.pdf This is a document from the Constitutional Advisory Panel
which followed on from a 2011 document put out by The Hon Bill English, Deputy Prime Minister and Dr Pita Sharples, Minister of Maori Affairs, with very nice poetic sentiments in Maori and English as an introduction.
2013 https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/our_stories/the-constitution-question/
https://maorilawreview.co.nz/2013/06/the-treaty-in-the-constitution-conversation-craig-linkhorn-2/
2005 Continuing Legal Education under aegis of NZLaw Society – https://www.lawyerseducation.co.nz/shop/Books/New+Zealands+Constitutional+Arrangements+where+are+we+heading.html
(PDF format book on our constitution from lawyers. 272 pages )
2022 APNews – Associated Press – https://apnews.com/article/queen-elizabeth-ii-king-charles-iii-new-zealand-government-and-politics-ad3dd4985a6e2fb34da48a80ab9be5b2
So many have had a go at this. There is room for lots of discussion and meetings while the practical points and results and sensible framework, and explanations of why and how, methods of delivery and expected results and limits on amendments, can get quite overlooked.
But there is obviously money to be made here, and good reason for those in positions of eminence, to get stuck in while there still is a nation with money available, and an appetite to advance even at great cost. Outcome possibly, recrimination and resentment, dismay, chagrin etc, so more negatives likely than positives I should think. And then everyone equal in dissatisfaction. Hollow hoorays for us I fear.
More and more I just see this woke wave as people without problems, creating them. It’s a “nice to have” to be more inclusive of diversities etc and be free to identify as a donkey if that floats your boat and do let’s try not to be overly offensive on purpose most of the time etc. Is it just a symptom of wanting to be heard in a world that measures your self worth in terms of how many ‘likes’ you can garner? With internet and social media being relatively young in the grand scheme of things, and the first generation of those born into it are now young adults, hopefully wokeism is a teething issue of sorts and will mature before too long. Hopefully. It’s just there really are urgent problems all around us we must tackle now. Priorities is all. We could all try to be nicer too, nothing wrong in that as well. Just don’t cancel fun.
“Are we mature enough to debate a Republic and new Constitution?”
Well certainly not Tom Hunter.
Comments are closed.