Mike Butler: Extra time for constitution scrap

You now have to the end of next month to tell the Constitutional Review Panel whether you agree/disagree/ don’t care whether New Zealand entrenches a system of government that could split the country into “Maori” and “the rest”. The panel this week extended the closing day for submissions, from July 1 to July 31.

Rob Paterson: Constitutional Change in New Zealand

Introduction: New Zealand is reviewing its constitution but the panel set up to do this review is comprised, not of constitutional experts or representatives of a fair cross-section of the people of New Zealand, but an appreciable number of Maori studies academics, some with strident anti-colonialist views. Discreet and separate Maori and non-Maori consultation is a feature of this review. It is the second constitutional review in seven years and is being undertaken in the absence of a constitutional crisis. The review is being driven at the behest of the Maori Party, a political party that captured just 1.4 percent of the party vote in the 2011 general election.

Karl du Fresne: Debasing Debate

Once again, Radio New Zealand has debased the word “debate”.

It’s currently broadcasting what it calls a series of “debates” on the current review of New Zealand’s constitution. But they are nothing of the sort.

Chris Trotter: Not Debating the Constitution

I DON’T GET ANGRY very often. I’ve been around too long, seen history repeat itself too many times, for all that malarkey. Just occasionally, however, I stumble across something that truly infuriates me. Like discussions billed as debates where everybody is actually on the same side. No, I’m not talking about TV3’s “The Vote”. What’s got my dander up is a four-part series being hosted by the NZ Centre for Public Law (NZCPL) entitled “Debating the Constitution”. All four encounters to be broadcast subsequently on Radio NZ National.

Mike Butler: Historian twists voting history

An historian who wrote an op-ed piece titled “Maori focus on constitutional moves”, (1) published in the Wanganui Chronicle on Saturday, claims the way the government introduced voting spawned a legacy of disempowerment for Maori.”In an article that previewed a visit by the Constitutional Advisory Panel to Wanganui on Thursday, Danny Keenan wrote: “As most Maori are aware, their 19th century forebears had to wait 27 years after the 1840 treaty before being granted the vote in 1867. The franchise came to Maori 15 years after it was awarded to Pakeha. Inequalities like these have spawned a legacy of disempowerment for Maori.” He added that the Maori seats “were established as an act of denial”. Are these claims correct?

ICRP: Independent constitution group invites submissions

Independent constitution group invites submissions

Submissions on New Zealand’s constitutional future may be made to the Independent Constitutional Review Panel, chair David Round said today. The independent panel has opened submissions because the government’s official Constitutional Advisory Panel (CAP), which begins receiving public submissions this week, has consulted mainly with Maori, with the general public largely unaware of its existence.

Tom Johnson: All Blacks model a united NZ

Iconic All Black captain Sir Wilson Whineray wrote of our top rugby team that “No other institution has done so much to cross social, religious, racial, cultural and economic boundaries so comprehensively and with so little pretence…where else do Pākehā and Polynesian find such natural affinity…what has the game meant to the pride of Maori people whose people have always played the game so magnificently.”(1) It is amazing how a cultural artifact like rugby can achieve racial tolerance and goodwill that the stupidity of successive governments and the greed and hegemonic aspirations of elite groups tear asunder in their blind obsession for power and privilege.

Elizabeth Rata: The treaty is not New Zealand’s founding document

I was surprised to read in Deborah Coddington’s recent Herald column that the Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document. Of course some New Zealanders mistakenly believe that is the case. Where the belief becomes a problem is when a member of the government appointed and funded Constitutional Advisory Panel such as Deborah Coddington states that this is so. In describing the treaty as our founding document she has jumped the gun somewhat in anticipating the Panel’s recommendations about the status of the treaty. And she is certainly premature in gauging New Zealanders’ opinions on the subject.

Muriel Newman: Bicultural constitution threatens race relations

As a result of MMP politics, a new ‘written’ Constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi as superior law, may well be imposed on New Zealand. Such a bicultural constitution would enshrine Maori privilege, turning non-Maori New Zealanders into second class citizens in their own land. It would give un-elected Judges supreme power over our elected Members of Parliament, ensuring that no future Parliament could ever remove the Treaty from our constitution. New Zealand would forever be locked into a divisive race-based future.

This plan to give the Treaty of Waitangi constitutional status is being driven by the Maori Party representing the tribal elite. After the 2008 election, they not only demanded ownership rights to New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed - in return for supporting a National-led government - but they set in train a constitutional review as well.

ICRP: BULLETIN 1 - Written, treaty-based constitution puts judges above MPs

A written constitution overrides parliamentary sovereignty and gives un-elected judges the final say on all the line-drawing choices related to abortion, same-sex marriage, how to deal with those claiming to be refugees, where tobacco companies can advertise, and myriad other such debatable, highly disputed issues, constitutional law expert James Allan has warned.

Karl du Fresne: Wide concerns over Maori Party's constitutional review

IT MAY be happening largely out of the public gaze, but that doesn’t mean the review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements isn’t being closely watched.

Critics of the constitutional review accuse it of working towards a predetermined outcome that will see the Treaty of Waitangi entrenched as supreme law and judges given powers to strike down any law deemed to be in breach of Treaty “principles”.

Elizabeth Rata: New Zealand Constitution - why iwi have got it wrong

*The NZCPR WEEKLY newsletter is delivered free each week - register here. This week's Guest Commentary extract:

There is deep disquiet throughout the country about iwi claims for water rights. However by focussing on the resource itself; previously the foreshore and seabed, this time water, next time airwaves, geothermal energy, and so on, we are in danger of overlooking the source of the issue, of overlooking why such claims can be made in the first place. To find the fundamental flaw in the tribes’ case for the ownership of  public resources such as water we need look not only at what is to be owned but at who is claiming ownership. The essence of the tribal claim is that iwi represent a separate ‘public’ – the Maori people - and are therefore entitled to own the resources of that ‘public’... Read More

Denis Hampton: Treaty Myth Persists

In December 2010 the Government confirmed that it would conduct a wide-ranging review of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.  An advisory panel co-chaired by Emeritus Professor John Burrows and Sir Tipene O'Regan of Ngai Tahu has since been appointed.  The panel will consider a wide range of topics including whether New Zealand should have a written constitution and the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.

In recent years there has been considerable debate – often heated – on what the principles of the Treaty are.  Little thought, however, has been given to what the words of the Treaty actually mean, or more to the point, what the good folk of 1840 had in mind when they put their marks on those early documents.

Mike Butler: Be careful with the constitution

The constitution is not broken, there is no urgency for change, and any change should be done carefully with widespread support, an inquiry to review New Zealand’s existing constitutional arrangements in 2005 concluded. That review is a logical starting point to analyse the current review, which is a a joint initiative of the Maori Party and National.

The 2005 panel, which received 66 submissions and heard from senior jurists and academics, recommended that parliament should designate a select committee to identify and deal with changes with constitutional implications as they arise (page 5)