There is nothing wrong with asking whether democracy can be improved. Better public participation, longer-term thinking and greater accountability are legitimate subjects for debate.
But there is a much bigger question that deserves to be asked:
Is this about improving our democracy — or changing the constitutional foundations on which it rests?
‘Re:Shape’, initiated by Ngāti Toa chief Helmut Modlik, openly says that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the “founding and guiding framework” for the democratic system it wants to develop. It also describes its purpose as reimagining how New Zealand makes decisions.¹
That matters because Re:Shape’s 2040 horizon sits alongside a wider constitutional-transformation movement in New Zealand.
The Matike Mai Aotearoa report was not simply about improving consultation or encouraging more people to participate. Its stated purpose was to develop an inclusive constitution based on tikanga, He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The report explicitly describes its objective as “constitutional transformation” and sets out alternative constitutional models.²
Its proposed models include separate Māori authority and Crown government spheres, together with a relational sphere for decisions requiring cooperation between them. Matike Mai describes these as the rangatiratanga sphere, where Māori make decisions for Māori; the kāwanatanga sphere, where the Crown makes decisions for its people; and a relational sphere where the two work together as equals.³
That is not simply a minor adjustment to the machinery of government. It is a fundamentally different constitutional proposition.
So the obvious question is: Is Re:Shape simply proposing better democracy — or is it another vehicle through which the constitutional-transformation agenda is being advanced?
If constitutional change is contemplated, New Zealanders are entitled to know exactly what is being proposed.
Would political authority remain the same for every citizen? Would different constitutional rights or powers apply according to ancestry? Who would exercise Māori authority? Who would elect those exercising it, and who would have the power to remove them? Where would Parliament fit within the proposed arrangement?
These are not unreasonable questions. They go to the heart of what kind of country New Zealand would be.
Our present system is far from perfect, but it is a recognisable representative democracy. The House of Representatives is elected by New Zealanders, governments must retain the confidence of Parliament, and the MMP system provides proportional representation. Parliament’s select committees scrutinise legislation, government spending and activity, and provide opportunities for members of the public to make submissions.⁴
There is certainly room to improve how our democracy works. But “improving democracy” should not become a euphemism for quietly replacing its constitutional foundations.
And there is another important point.
No small gathering of academics, activists, iwi leaders, politicians or community organisations has the democratic authority to decide the constitutional future of more than five million New Zealanders.
If a fundamentally different constitutional system is being contemplated, then the public deserves to see the proposal in full and debate it openly.
If constitutional transformation is what is being contemplated, then let’s have the courage to call it what it is — put the proposed constitution on the table and let every New Zealander see exactly what is being proposed.
Because democracy isn’t just about giving people a voice.
It is also about giving every citizen an equal voice.
References
1. https://www.re-shape.org.nz/
2. https://matikemai.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/MatikeMaiAotearoa25Jan16-1.pdf
3. https://matikemai.maori.nz/matike-mai-aotearoa/
4. https://www3.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/our-system-of-government/
https://www3.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/about-select-committees/
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
‘Re:Shape’, initiated by Ngāti Toa chief Helmut Modlik, openly says that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the “founding and guiding framework” for the democratic system it wants to develop. It also describes its purpose as reimagining how New Zealand makes decisions.¹
That matters because Re:Shape’s 2040 horizon sits alongside a wider constitutional-transformation movement in New Zealand.
The Matike Mai Aotearoa report was not simply about improving consultation or encouraging more people to participate. Its stated purpose was to develop an inclusive constitution based on tikanga, He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The report explicitly describes its objective as “constitutional transformation” and sets out alternative constitutional models.²
Its proposed models include separate Māori authority and Crown government spheres, together with a relational sphere for decisions requiring cooperation between them. Matike Mai describes these as the rangatiratanga sphere, where Māori make decisions for Māori; the kāwanatanga sphere, where the Crown makes decisions for its people; and a relational sphere where the two work together as equals.³
That is not simply a minor adjustment to the machinery of government. It is a fundamentally different constitutional proposition.
So the obvious question is: Is Re:Shape simply proposing better democracy — or is it another vehicle through which the constitutional-transformation agenda is being advanced?
If constitutional change is contemplated, New Zealanders are entitled to know exactly what is being proposed.
Would political authority remain the same for every citizen? Would different constitutional rights or powers apply according to ancestry? Who would exercise Māori authority? Who would elect those exercising it, and who would have the power to remove them? Where would Parliament fit within the proposed arrangement?
These are not unreasonable questions. They go to the heart of what kind of country New Zealand would be.
Our present system is far from perfect, but it is a recognisable representative democracy. The House of Representatives is elected by New Zealanders, governments must retain the confidence of Parliament, and the MMP system provides proportional representation. Parliament’s select committees scrutinise legislation, government spending and activity, and provide opportunities for members of the public to make submissions.⁴
There is certainly room to improve how our democracy works. But “improving democracy” should not become a euphemism for quietly replacing its constitutional foundations.
And there is another important point.
No small gathering of academics, activists, iwi leaders, politicians or community organisations has the democratic authority to decide the constitutional future of more than five million New Zealanders.
If a fundamentally different constitutional system is being contemplated, then the public deserves to see the proposal in full and debate it openly.
If constitutional transformation is what is being contemplated, then let’s have the courage to call it what it is — put the proposed constitution on the table and let every New Zealander see exactly what is being proposed.
Because democracy isn’t just about giving people a voice.
It is also about giving every citizen an equal voice.
References
1. https://www.re-shape.org.nz/
2. https://matikemai.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/MatikeMaiAotearoa25Jan16-1.pdf
3. https://matikemai.maori.nz/matike-mai-aotearoa/
4. https://www3.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/our-system-of-government/
https://www3.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/about-select-committees/
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
5 comments:
"No small gathering of academics, " etc is exactly what Ardern did with her He Puapua document !!!
It is exactly what is happening right now, ably assisted by the reluctance of Luxon and colleagues to stop it.
You lose me as soon as you quote Maori organisations that I don't have a clue who or what they represent, therefore irrelevant to NZ.
I only know they are recidivist grifters and bleeders of taxpayers funds for no purpose .
Am i the only one who keeps "seeing" the words Matiki Mai and thinking that they look as though they sound an awful lot like "My Takey My" as in I'll just take everything thanks.
The treaty of Waitangi is a beautiful document to start this country off with:
The Crown (Parliament) runs the joint. Property: you own your stuff, I own my stuff and we are both free to trade in good faith with each other...and finally
Equal rights for all!
The TPB looked an awful lot like a modern interpretation of Te Teriti - what wasn't in it to love? What is still not in it to love?
Its as though the activists want to ignore the treaty entirely and rewrite the whole thing in line with the fictious principles - and the non activist folks are too ignorant of what the treaty actually says to be bothered fighting back properly - and so we get hikois and te partly maori and thousands of people with a single distant Maori ancestor claiming to be disadvantaged by their maoriness and everyone else is a racist - NZ is seriously broken.
If we could truly be guided by our treaty (not the fake made up modern principles) instead of perpetually fighting over who ceded what - we'd be an unstoppable wee nation.
The interesting part is how the Maori separatists are never interested in paying for their separate system. Maori for Maori, paid for by non-Maori seems to always be the answer.
The Treaty was correctly read and understood by everyone for 180 years.
Why are we listening to radicals who are insisting that their re- interpretation should be the truth ?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.