It’s true that much Māori jurisprudence is a result of court cases and Bureaucracy rather than legislation, and this will need to be codified at some point to maintain constitutional legitimacy. We are governed by rule of law not rule of lawyers. I’m not saying this bill solves this problem but it is asking a legitimate question.
Personally I don’t think our constitution needs to be changed. Maori in my opinion would be better off aspiring success in our existing political and economic institutions and through this they can exercise tino rangatiratanga, rather than creating constitutionally and legally messy parallel rights.
Focus on our health system to improve the health of all New Zealanders, and Maori will be disproportionately advantaged, and good job.
Focus on reducing the cost of housing for all New Zealanders and Maori will be disproportionately advantaged.
Focus on education for all New Zealanders and again, Maori will be disproportionately advantaged.
Focus on increasing socioeconomic outcomes for less advantaged New Zealanders etc
These actions move us in the direction of improved outcomes for our community overall. I think they include a positive vision for our community that most people can get behind, in an inclusive way.
Be warned by the recent Australian referendum on whether to introduce an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. This proposal of a merely advisory body, much desired by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (84% of them voted Yes) became a political football, was the subject of much disinformation, and - shamefully - 60% of Australians voted against - a crushing blow to the hopes of Indigenous Australians for better consultation on policies that affect them. The forces of racism and reaction seem strong at the moment, so it would be risky to attempt even sensible constitutional reforms towards indigenous government at this time. Wait until the winds of fairness and justice are blowing more strongly again.
The Voice was an awful idea and rightly rejected. What’s fair about giving a race-based selection a status and input that nobody else gets? Australia already has indigenous councils and committees; all governments of all persuasions know what indigenous Australians think and what the problems are. Australia doesn’t need any more. And neither does New Zealand. We both need solutions to the manifest problems indigenous people have but a voice isn’t it.
I stand by my previous description of the Voice proposal and the shameful behaviour of those who opposed it. It was an excellent, moderate idea, supported by the great majority of Indigenous people, to try to "close the gap", something Australian governments have failed to do for many decades - because of the lack of such a mechanism. It was a great opportunity lost because of the Coalition's decision to turn it into a political football - in effect, to legitimise the racist voices online - a la Trump. A terrible step towards greater polarisation of politics, and a great shame that such a sensible, moderate idea was the lamb they decided to sacrifice.
It changed the Australian constitution, Kai, and was opposed by many indigenous leaders. It was indeed a political football but the racists were not only on the right. It was a bad idea and set back race relations in Australia. I assume you’ve lived there? It’s not NZ. Although NZ is becoming more like Australia and not in a nice way.
No, Max - it was opposed by A FEW indigenous leaders. The great majority of them supported it - just enough to muddy the waters and lead to people making the kind of statements you’re echoing. It would probably have gone through if the Coalition hadn’t decide to oppose it as a political opportunity. By doing that they breathed new life into the old Australian racism and did indeed set back race relations. Labor was trying to do the right thing. I’ve lived in Australia since 2004, am an Australian citizen and watched the whole thing closely.
I suspect that you vote Labor and I don’t any more. Two perspectives, both valid. I have a mixed race family, I am opposed to the sort of separation you favour, but I see your pov.
Good point, thanks Kai! From an NZ perspective, the Voice proposal looked quite modest. There's a political lesson, though, similar to Brexit, not to hold such a referendum unless it's really called for, as it may backfire. On the other hand, if Seymour's Bill were to pass, it has to go to a referendum for ratification, and at least one opinion poll indicates that it could win. The other comments on this column are indicative of middle-NZ opinions.
The highest ‘upper house’ in New Zealand is us, the voters. As you note, New Zealand voters do not currently have appetite for these kinds of constitutional change.
I am optimistic that a way forward can be found, but it cannot be by means of finagles like making reference to 19th century laws. The one sure way forwards is to persuade the majority of voters with an inclusive view of the future where diversity has a true home here and where we are all equal.
Thanks your article is informative well written in plain English with insights I wasn't aware of.
A missing point is that Maori gifted us a treaty where two peoples could build a nation together. Wouldn't it make sense for them to be consulted and inform, if you like lead, the debate?
I would say it's not Act voices who are being drowned out, rather they are appealing to middle NZ's ignorance on constitutional matters, and pure and simple racism. It's also simplistic to think that complex constitutional matters, relating to a minority of but very significant people, can ever be resolved by a bullet point act followed by a general vote.
So the underlying questions are, how can you resolve these matters so that two peoples can live in peace and co-operation? And, crucially, what happens when you get this wrong? I think your article addresses the first question well, but perhaps should also look within NZ and overseas to see what happens when you get it wrong.
It would perhaps explain why the hikoi resonated with so many, while the danger of ill informed and prejudicial discussion by the majority, fuelled by politicians with a cynical eye on the popular vote to win power, at best polarizes a nation and at worse declares civil war.
Those are great points you make, Anthony. I'll take your questions as rhetorical, as I can't answer them at the moment. There is a lot of ignorance and racism out there, but it won't help us reach a consensus if we characterise the problem that way: it only alienates people. To be legitimate, constitutional transformation needs to be carried out in a democratic manner that brings people along with it. Seymour's Bill hasn't achieved that, but other efforts haven't either.
Personally I like the idea of an upper house and I think the recent withdrawal of the Australian 'disinformation' bill because it couldn't pass their senate demonstrates the value of an upper house in providing oversight to new legislation.
My preference would be to do this without substantially increasing the number of politicians, but by splitting list and electorate MPs into different houses. Maybe electorate MPs in the lower house and list MPs (senators) in the upper house? This would probably lead to more politicians, but hopefully it would also encourage more votes for independent electorate MPs who are attuned to local issues and force parties to nominate better list candidates with knowledge and experience for the upper house? The upper house would need to have no ability to create new legislation, only to approve legislation from the lower house.
I don't know how viable my idea would be, but I'm sick of the see-saw where every new government spends most of its time undoing the work of the previous government and some kind of upper house would probably prevent radical legislative changes after each election.
Interesting idea, thanks Stephen. An upper house might also prevent legislative changes that you do like! And note that the Key government (unlike Luxon's) did not undo much of the work of its predecessor, but retained most of the reforms that they had voted against while in opposition. So, sustainable moderate change is possible in NZ's unicameral system.
It’s true that much Māori jurisprudence is a result of court cases and Bureaucracy rather than legislation, and this will need to be codified at some point to maintain constitutional legitimacy. We are governed by rule of law not rule of lawyers. I’m not saying this bill solves this problem but it is asking a legitimate question.
Personally I don’t think our constitution needs to be changed. Maori in my opinion would be better off aspiring success in our existing political and economic institutions and through this they can exercise tino rangatiratanga, rather than creating constitutionally and legally messy parallel rights.
I agree.
Focus on our health system to improve the health of all New Zealanders, and Maori will be disproportionately advantaged, and good job.
Focus on reducing the cost of housing for all New Zealanders and Maori will be disproportionately advantaged.
Focus on education for all New Zealanders and again, Maori will be disproportionately advantaged.
Focus on increasing socioeconomic outcomes for less advantaged New Zealanders etc
These actions move us in the direction of improved outcomes for our community overall. I think they include a positive vision for our community that most people can get behind, in an inclusive way.
Fair comment, thanks Tom!
Be warned by the recent Australian referendum on whether to introduce an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. This proposal of a merely advisory body, much desired by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (84% of them voted Yes) became a political football, was the subject of much disinformation, and - shamefully - 60% of Australians voted against - a crushing blow to the hopes of Indigenous Australians for better consultation on policies that affect them. The forces of racism and reaction seem strong at the moment, so it would be risky to attempt even sensible constitutional reforms towards indigenous government at this time. Wait until the winds of fairness and justice are blowing more strongly again.
The Voice was an awful idea and rightly rejected. What’s fair about giving a race-based selection a status and input that nobody else gets? Australia already has indigenous councils and committees; all governments of all persuasions know what indigenous Australians think and what the problems are. Australia doesn’t need any more. And neither does New Zealand. We both need solutions to the manifest problems indigenous people have but a voice isn’t it.
I stand by my previous description of the Voice proposal and the shameful behaviour of those who opposed it. It was an excellent, moderate idea, supported by the great majority of Indigenous people, to try to "close the gap", something Australian governments have failed to do for many decades - because of the lack of such a mechanism. It was a great opportunity lost because of the Coalition's decision to turn it into a political football - in effect, to legitimise the racist voices online - a la Trump. A terrible step towards greater polarisation of politics, and a great shame that such a sensible, moderate idea was the lamb they decided to sacrifice.
It changed the Australian constitution, Kai, and was opposed by many indigenous leaders. It was indeed a political football but the racists were not only on the right. It was a bad idea and set back race relations in Australia. I assume you’ve lived there? It’s not NZ. Although NZ is becoming more like Australia and not in a nice way.
No, Max - it was opposed by A FEW indigenous leaders. The great majority of them supported it - just enough to muddy the waters and lead to people making the kind of statements you’re echoing. It would probably have gone through if the Coalition hadn’t decide to oppose it as a political opportunity. By doing that they breathed new life into the old Australian racism and did indeed set back race relations. Labor was trying to do the right thing. I’ve lived in Australia since 2004, am an Australian citizen and watched the whole thing closely.
I suspect that you vote Labor and I don’t any more. Two perspectives, both valid. I have a mixed race family, I am opposed to the sort of separation you favour, but I see your pov.
Good point, thanks Kai! From an NZ perspective, the Voice proposal looked quite modest. There's a political lesson, though, similar to Brexit, not to hold such a referendum unless it's really called for, as it may backfire. On the other hand, if Seymour's Bill were to pass, it has to go to a referendum for ratification, and at least one opinion poll indicates that it could win. The other comments on this column are indicative of middle-NZ opinions.
The highest ‘upper house’ in New Zealand is us, the voters. As you note, New Zealand voters do not currently have appetite for these kinds of constitutional change.
I am optimistic that a way forward can be found, but it cannot be by means of finagles like making reference to 19th century laws. The one sure way forwards is to persuade the majority of voters with an inclusive view of the future where diversity has a true home here and where we are all equal.
Fair comment, thanks John!
Thanks your article is informative well written in plain English with insights I wasn't aware of.
A missing point is that Maori gifted us a treaty where two peoples could build a nation together. Wouldn't it make sense for them to be consulted and inform, if you like lead, the debate?
It doesn't take much research to see that other forums are active in this area (for example https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/law/our-research/research-centres/te-puna-rangahau-o-te-wai-ariki/constitutional-transformation.html). So what does David Seymour see is the problem with building on these other ideas?
I would say it's not Act voices who are being drowned out, rather they are appealing to middle NZ's ignorance on constitutional matters, and pure and simple racism. It's also simplistic to think that complex constitutional matters, relating to a minority of but very significant people, can ever be resolved by a bullet point act followed by a general vote.
So the underlying questions are, how can you resolve these matters so that two peoples can live in peace and co-operation? And, crucially, what happens when you get this wrong? I think your article addresses the first question well, but perhaps should also look within NZ and overseas to see what happens when you get it wrong.
It would perhaps explain why the hikoi resonated with so many, while the danger of ill informed and prejudicial discussion by the majority, fuelled by politicians with a cynical eye on the popular vote to win power, at best polarizes a nation and at worse declares civil war.
Those are great points you make, Anthony. I'll take your questions as rhetorical, as I can't answer them at the moment. There is a lot of ignorance and racism out there, but it won't help us reach a consensus if we characterise the problem that way: it only alienates people. To be legitimate, constitutional transformation needs to be carried out in a democratic manner that brings people along with it. Seymour's Bill hasn't achieved that, but other efforts haven't either.
Personally I like the idea of an upper house and I think the recent withdrawal of the Australian 'disinformation' bill because it couldn't pass their senate demonstrates the value of an upper house in providing oversight to new legislation.
My preference would be to do this without substantially increasing the number of politicians, but by splitting list and electorate MPs into different houses. Maybe electorate MPs in the lower house and list MPs (senators) in the upper house? This would probably lead to more politicians, but hopefully it would also encourage more votes for independent electorate MPs who are attuned to local issues and force parties to nominate better list candidates with knowledge and experience for the upper house? The upper house would need to have no ability to create new legislation, only to approve legislation from the lower house.
I don't know how viable my idea would be, but I'm sick of the see-saw where every new government spends most of its time undoing the work of the previous government and some kind of upper house would probably prevent radical legislative changes after each election.
Interesting idea, thanks Stephen. An upper house might also prevent legislative changes that you do like! And note that the Key government (unlike Luxon's) did not undo much of the work of its predecessor, but retained most of the reforms that they had voted against while in opposition. So, sustainable moderate change is possible in NZ's unicameral system.