Luxon could suggest we have co-deputy prime ministers, if that’s an issue for ACT and NZ First – but tossing a coin is another idea
While Point of Order waits for a new bunch of ministers to be appointed and start posting their announcements, proclamations and speeches on the government’s official website, we are keeping an eye on media reports on coalition negotiations.
One report set out these key points ….
- National leader Christopher Luxon has been meeting senior figures from his party in Auckland, after marathon negotiations with ACT and NZ First.
- Tax, budgeting and Te Tiriti o Waitangi are understood to be the key issues of contention in negotiations.
- Luxon said there had been some “directness” in negotiations, which was a sign of process. This came after a highly dramatic start to the week, where NZ First’s Winston Peters and Luxon attempted to remain silent as the National and ACT leaders jetted across the country after Peters refused to meet in Wellington.
But what about the question of who gets which job(s) and who is perched where in the pecking order?
A Newshub report said ACT leader David Seymour had given the biggest indication yet that a government could be formed by the end of the week
“… but said who might be deputy Prime Minister remained a talking point. “
A New Zealand Herald report echoed this:
Act leader David Seymour says the position of Deputy Prime Minister is being discussed as part of the coalition talks but is yet to be finalised as the three parties are the closest they’ve been to a deal.
And:
The role of Deputy Prime Minister was also yet to be settled, he said.
It was Seymour’s expectation that Act would be inside Cabinet and he suspected NZ First expected the same.
The matter of deputy prime ministership was raised at this week’s meeting of the august Point of Order Brains Trust.
One proposal advanced for discussion was that Prime Minister-elect Christopher Luxon consult the Green Party and Maori Party on their experience with co-leadership.
The Maori Party co-leadership model is gender-sensitive: they have a wahine co-leader and a tane co-leader.
The diversity challenge for Luxon might be that both Seymour and Peters are Maori (a big plus), but both blokes.
What about the Greens’ experience? They have abandoned gender-based co-leadership in favour of a race-based system. A change in party rules early last year removed the requirement for a male leader and introduced a new requirement that at least one co-leader be Māori.
The Greens are dead keen on Treaty-based co-governance, which presumably explains this arrangement. They would rather have co-governance than democracy, should they have to choose.
The Maori Party is dead keen on Treaty-based co-governance, too, come to think of it, but they are not so keen on promoting non-Maori into leadership jobs.
In contrast, ACT is promising to end co-governance, which it claims comes at the expense of universal human rights.
RNZ reported on September 18:
At the party’s campaign launch at Auckland’s Civic Theatre this afternoon, party leader David Seymour said ACT would legislate that the principles of the Treaty were based on what the Treaty actually says rather than “revisionist interpretations”.
“We can ensure Māori language and culture are preserved, that every child has equal opportunity, and that the wrongs of the past are put right. Attributing separate rights through co-government will never achieve this, it only causes more division,” Seymour said in a statement.
“There is nothing in any of the three Treaty articles that suggests Māori should have special rights above other New Zealanders. The Treaty itself guarantees that ‘all the ordinary people of New Zealand … have the same rights and duties of citizenship’.”
And so ACT campaigned for a referendum on co-governance.
It proposed that the next government pass legislation defining the Principles of the Treaty, in particularly their effect on democratic institutions, and then ask the people to vote on it becoming law.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters – largely on the same wavelength – is unwilling to bother with a referendum. He has said “Co-Governance Must Be Stopped Now – Not 2026
“The insidious creep of the racist, separatist, secretive co-governance agenda must be stopped now – we simply cannot wait for a referendum in four years’ time,” says Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First.
“The only future for New Zealand is one of unity, one law for all, under one flag. Any dilution or delay of that fundamental democratic foundation will be disastrous for our nation.”
And:
“There must be no underestimating the importance of stopping the underhanded, destructive, and divisive move towards co-governance in our country being pushed by the Māori elite and their fellow cultural travellers. We cannot afford to wait for a referendum in 2026,” says Mr Peters.
“The only real referendum on this decisive issue will be kiwis voting next year at the 2023 election – any alternative will be far too little, far too late.”
More recently, the New Zealand Herald reported:
Senior New Zealand First MP Shane Jones made supportive remarks about Act leader David Seymour’s approach to the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi this morning, saying there would be a “reset” in Māori policy under the new Government.
Seymour has been pushing for Act’s policy of a referendum that redefines the Treaty principles in a far narrower way than they have been defined in recent history. Labour’s Willie Jackson has described the idea as “nonsensical” and argued it could lead to unrest.
Jones, speaking to Radio Waatea, said he can “totally understand why David Seymour wants to tidy this area up”.
Jones’ complaint is that the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have liberally interpreted the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and have gone beyond what was intended by Parliament when it began including references to Treaty principles in legislation decades ago.
But you get the message. Seymour and Peters are not too strong on co-governance and may not be readily persuaded to agree to a Seymour-Peters co-leadership arrangement which might be likened to a Treaty-based co-governing arrangement even though both co-prime ministers in this partnership would be Maori.
Another question to challenge the brains trust, if objections to co-prime ministers were overcome, is who would be Acting Prime Minister when Chris Luxon is overseas or indisposed.
One solution is co-Acting Prime Ministers.
Another is that Seymour and Peters could take turns.
Or Luxon could toss a coin on each occasion.
Come to think of it, tossing a coin might be the answer to resolving the deputy prime ministership issue – if it is an issue- in the first place.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
A Newshub report said ACT leader David Seymour had given the biggest indication yet that a government could be formed by the end of the week
“… but said who might be deputy Prime Minister remained a talking point. “
A New Zealand Herald report echoed this:
Act leader David Seymour says the position of Deputy Prime Minister is being discussed as part of the coalition talks but is yet to be finalised as the three parties are the closest they’ve been to a deal.
And:
The role of Deputy Prime Minister was also yet to be settled, he said.
It was Seymour’s expectation that Act would be inside Cabinet and he suspected NZ First expected the same.
The matter of deputy prime ministership was raised at this week’s meeting of the august Point of Order Brains Trust.
One proposal advanced for discussion was that Prime Minister-elect Christopher Luxon consult the Green Party and Maori Party on their experience with co-leadership.
The Maori Party co-leadership model is gender-sensitive: they have a wahine co-leader and a tane co-leader.
The diversity challenge for Luxon might be that both Seymour and Peters are Maori (a big plus), but both blokes.
What about the Greens’ experience? They have abandoned gender-based co-leadership in favour of a race-based system. A change in party rules early last year removed the requirement for a male leader and introduced a new requirement that at least one co-leader be Māori.
The Greens are dead keen on Treaty-based co-governance, which presumably explains this arrangement. They would rather have co-governance than democracy, should they have to choose.
The Maori Party is dead keen on Treaty-based co-governance, too, come to think of it, but they are not so keen on promoting non-Maori into leadership jobs.
In contrast, ACT is promising to end co-governance, which it claims comes at the expense of universal human rights.
RNZ reported on September 18:
At the party’s campaign launch at Auckland’s Civic Theatre this afternoon, party leader David Seymour said ACT would legislate that the principles of the Treaty were based on what the Treaty actually says rather than “revisionist interpretations”.
“We can ensure Māori language and culture are preserved, that every child has equal opportunity, and that the wrongs of the past are put right. Attributing separate rights through co-government will never achieve this, it only causes more division,” Seymour said in a statement.
“There is nothing in any of the three Treaty articles that suggests Māori should have special rights above other New Zealanders. The Treaty itself guarantees that ‘all the ordinary people of New Zealand … have the same rights and duties of citizenship’.”
And so ACT campaigned for a referendum on co-governance.
It proposed that the next government pass legislation defining the Principles of the Treaty, in particularly their effect on democratic institutions, and then ask the people to vote on it becoming law.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters – largely on the same wavelength – is unwilling to bother with a referendum. He has said “Co-Governance Must Be Stopped Now – Not 2026
“The insidious creep of the racist, separatist, secretive co-governance agenda must be stopped now – we simply cannot wait for a referendum in four years’ time,” says Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First.
“The only future for New Zealand is one of unity, one law for all, under one flag. Any dilution or delay of that fundamental democratic foundation will be disastrous for our nation.”
And:
“There must be no underestimating the importance of stopping the underhanded, destructive, and divisive move towards co-governance in our country being pushed by the Māori elite and their fellow cultural travellers. We cannot afford to wait for a referendum in 2026,” says Mr Peters.
“The only real referendum on this decisive issue will be kiwis voting next year at the 2023 election – any alternative will be far too little, far too late.”
More recently, the New Zealand Herald reported:
Senior New Zealand First MP Shane Jones made supportive remarks about Act leader David Seymour’s approach to the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi this morning, saying there would be a “reset” in Māori policy under the new Government.
Seymour has been pushing for Act’s policy of a referendum that redefines the Treaty principles in a far narrower way than they have been defined in recent history. Labour’s Willie Jackson has described the idea as “nonsensical” and argued it could lead to unrest.
Jones, speaking to Radio Waatea, said he can “totally understand why David Seymour wants to tidy this area up”.
Jones’ complaint is that the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have liberally interpreted the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and have gone beyond what was intended by Parliament when it began including references to Treaty principles in legislation decades ago.
But you get the message. Seymour and Peters are not too strong on co-governance and may not be readily persuaded to agree to a Seymour-Peters co-leadership arrangement which might be likened to a Treaty-based co-governing arrangement even though both co-prime ministers in this partnership would be Maori.
Another question to challenge the brains trust, if objections to co-prime ministers were overcome, is who would be Acting Prime Minister when Chris Luxon is overseas or indisposed.
One solution is co-Acting Prime Ministers.
Another is that Seymour and Peters could take turns.
Or Luxon could toss a coin on each occasion.
Come to think of it, tossing a coin might be the answer to resolving the deputy prime ministership issue – if it is an issue- in the first place.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.