Is the NZ Government a "Pākeha Government"?

And is the system entirely riven with conflicts of interests?

Te Pāti Māori’s co-leader Rawiri Waititi ruffles some feathers.

Rawiri Waititi has said: “It’s now time for us to step comfortably into our rangatiratanga and to not give too much to this Pakeha Government with their Pakeha Budget for their Pakeha economy”.

This led Newshub’s Lloyd Burr to ask if such a statement is acceptable, and some discussion followed on air.

How we judge Mr Waititi’s words depends on what was meant by “government”. Was Mr Waititi referring pointedly to the coalition government of the present day? Or was he alluding to the whole system of government from a historical perspective?

If the latter, then it can make sense to call it a Pakeha government, or, more formally, a Westminster-style system of government. And, if that’s the case, then what’s the problem with it?

In 1840, te Tiriti o Waitangi granted the government (kawanatanga) of the country to Queen Victoria. But it didn’t specify any form of government. So the British reproduced the kind of system that, in their wisdom, they thought best. The UK parliament passed an Act in 1852 that constituted New Zealand’s House of Representatives. It allowed for elections (from 1853) and then responsible government (from 1856), meaning that ministries would be formed by elected members of parliament who would, in turn, be accountable to the House.

Although there were periodic elections, only males who owned or leased titled property were initially eligible to vote, so the system wasn’t democratic.

In 1867, the parliament of settlers granted Māori the right to elect their own representatives in four reserved seats.

In 1879, universal male suffrage was granted, and in 1893 universal adult suffrage, with an age qualification of 21. The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1974. So, a system that was originally designed to represent property (rather than “the people” as a whole) was democratized over time.

It’s fair to say, though, that it’s a Pakeha system of government, given its British origins – noting also that the earliest recorded uses of the word pakeha, referring to those of European origins, date back to before 1840 (according to the OED).

Is there any problem, then, with this “Pakeha government”? Well, Mr Waititi plays an active role in that system as an MP, and his party supported a previous National-led government on confidence and supply. But no system of government is problem-free. Moreover, the indigenous peoples have suffered injustices, from first contact up to within living memory, and are now relatively disadvantaged, based on social and economic statistics. Mr Waititi does have cause, then, to criticise the actions of governments past and present – especially while he’s on the opposition benches.

A Westminster-style government with a representative assembly and a universal franchise is not the worst kind, however. It differs from the American presidential/congressional system – a constitution that needs an overhaul. NZ’s system is completely different from the Chinese one-party state, moreover, and I don’t recommend that alternative.

NZ’s system of government is, of course, imperfect. Calling it a Pakeha government may sound to some people’s ears like an insult, but then a serious critic would suggest an alternative. TPM have indeed talked about constitutional changes. They don’t seek to overturn the basic principle of representative government, but a proposed bi-cultural upper house would introduce an aristocratic element, not unlike the House of Lords. There seem to be aspects of a Pakeha system of government that TPM rather like.

And are all MPs conflicted?

Questions of conflicts of interests have been prominent lately. The newsworthy example is the Parliamentary Undersecretary for Health, Todd Stephenson, who’s under pressure to sell shares in pharmaceutical companies. Arising from this, Bryce Edwards argues that “we need to get much more serious about creating rules and procedures to avoid such problems in the first place”.

I’ve written about vested interests and conflicts of interests before (with Simon Chapple in 2021). Guidelines for cabinet ministers and public servants do need to be sharpened up, I’ve argued, although the Office of the Auditor-General does have a comprehensive guide. It states:

“A conflict of interest is where the responsibilities you have as an employee or office holder in a public organisation are affected by some other interest you have in your private life. That other interest could be a relationship, a role in another organisation, or a business interest. Having a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean you have done anything wrong. If the conflict is handled well, it does not have to be a problem.”

So we already have some rules. We needn’t get puritanical about conflicts of interest – but we do need to be open and realistic about them. Sometimes a decision-maker may need to step aside or to divest of an asset – but not always.

One of the problems with a Westminster-style constitution is that it embeds the biggest conflict of interests imaginable. The parliamentarians who approve budgets and pass laws have all kinds of related private interests. They own homes and rental properties, have business interests, send their kids to schools, drive vehicles on public roads, and so on, just like other members of the public.

The very ministers who spend taxpayers’ money are the same people who will introduce the appropriations bill (“the Budget”) into a parliament in which they have a majority that’s already promised their votes. The country’s biggest spenders get to approve their own budgets.

The adage that governments propose while parliaments dispose is affected by an infinite conflict of interests for those wearing two hats: cabinet ministers, especially the prime minister and minister of finance, who are simultaneously members of the executive and of the parliament. They could tax and spend in their own interests. The American separation of powers was supposed to overcome that problem, although it created its own difficulties: the administration gets shut down by Congress from time to time. In NZ, on the other hand, if the legislature won’t approve the Budget, then the government must resign.

And that, for another day, is how politics happens!