|
ACT is
again in the political spotlight, but for all the wrong
reasons. The controversy surrounding John Banks and his 2010
Auckland Mayoral campaign donations is not subsiding. Somewhat
ironically, the future of John Banks, ACT and to a lesser
degree the National government, hangs off the evidence that Mr
Dotcom provides to the Police. It will be up to the Police to
decide whether any local body electoral spending rules were
broken and whether a prosecution is warranted.
John
Banks has told the Prime Minister he has done no wrong. The PM
has quite rightly taken him at his word. If however, John
Banks is forced from Parliament and a by-election held in the
seat of Epsom, it is likely the electorate would return to
National. While the Conservative Party could emerge as a
new partner to replace ACT, National may well accept the
likely reality that Epsom voters have had enough of minor
parties spilling their cups of tea. In addition, given the
controversial nature of some of the law changes that are on
the government’s agenda - such as asset sales – National
may see winning the seat back and gaining an additional MP as
a pragmatic move for now.
While
the Banksie distraction drags on, other more important
concerns progress unnoticed under the radar. One of these,
namely, the Constitutional Review, has the potential to
fundamentally change the place New Zealanders occupy in their
own country.
As I
have detailed in previous columns, the Constitutional Review
is the creation of a back-room deal between the Maori and
National parties. Such is the influence the Maori Party has on
the review that they have set the terms of reference, the way
it will operate, and they have stacked the membership with
Maori.
That in
itself, should signal what lies ahead.
What is
especially concerning is that they are doing this with the
blessing of the National Party. The public meanwhile remains
largely unaware of this looming threat.
The
Maori Party’s game plan was set in motion through their 2008
Confidence and Supply Agreements with National. It stated,
“Both parties agree to the establishment (including its
composition and terms of reference)… of a group to consider
constitutional issues including Maori representation. The
Maori Party will be consulted on membership and the choice of
Chairperson, and will be represented on the group.” Their
2011 agreement continues the process - “to progress the
review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and the
advisory panel established to lead public discussion on
relevant issues. The advisory panel is to deliver its
recommendations to the Government in September 2013.”
At the
launch of the Constitutional Review, Pita Sharples, indicated
there will be a ‘special’ focus on working with Maori:
“An important part of the review process will be
consultation with Maori, particularly on the place of the
Treaty of Waitangi in our constitution. The members of this
group are well placed to seek out and understand the
perspectives of Maori on these important issues.”
The
political nature of this Maori Party advisory panel is in
sharp contract to the way in which a major constitutional
review should normally have been implemented – through an
independent Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by
constitutional law experts. Instead we have ended up with a
politically appointed panel, heavily weighted in favour of
former politicians and Maori academics, but light on legal and
constitutional expertise.
This
week’s Guest Commentator, NZCPR Research Associate Mike
Butler is deeply concerned about the impact on our democracy
of the dangerous bias that can be seen to underpin the
constitutional review panel and process:
“One
unchanging political reality is that review panels are set up
to get the outcomes of the interested party. I suggest that
the current constitutional advisory panel has been carefully
set up with focussed terms of reference, and carefully vetted
panel members, to achieve the Maori Party goal of ensuring
that the review gives effect to the treaty, and entrenching
separate Maori seats. Therefore, I did a search for quotes
from each panellist.”
Mike
found, “Since one co-chair and five panellists are or were
Maori studies academics with vehement anti-colonialist views
and only two have legal backgrounds, it would appear that the
focus will be on Maori issues, especially the treaty.”
He also examined the report of the 2005 Select Committee
convened to review New Zealand’s Constitutional
Arrangements. He concludes, “there was no constitutional
crisis and the only people pushing for change were Maori
interests. So, just seven years later, without any urgent
constitutional matters arising demanding attention, there is a
whole new constitutional advisory panel that was set up on the
bidding of a special-interest political party - the Maori
Party.” To read Mike’s article, click here
>>>
As well
as wanting to incorporate Treaty principles in a new
constitution, the Maori Party also wants to entrench Maori
seats at central and local government level.
Parliament’s
Maori seats were created in 1867, when the right to vote was
based on being male and owning or renting freehold property:
New Zealand’s ‘franchise’ was awarded to any male
British subject aged 21 years or older who owned freehold
property worth £50 or more; or paid at least £10 a year to
lease property; or lived in a house with an annual rental
value of at least £10 (in a town) or £5 (outside a town).[1]
With most Maori land being communally owned, Maori were not
eligible to vote under the ordinary rules. The Maori seats
were therefore established as a temporary measure for five
years to give the Native Land Court time to convert communal
Maori land tenure into Crown grants so that Maori men could be
enfranchised under the standard property-ownership provisions.
The problem was that the free-holding of Maori land took
longer than expected and the four seats were retained for a
further five years, and then indefinitely - even though
universal suffrage was declared in 1893!
The 1986
Royal Commission of Inquiry that was set up to investigate the
Electoral System recommended that the Maori seats should be
abolished if MMP was adopted. They had reached the conclusion
that the Maori seats were an anachronism and that separate
representation had proved to be largely ineffective. Taking
that into account, the original 1993 Electoral Act to
introduce MMP had no provisions for Maori seats. But as a
result of strong lobbying from Maori, the Select Committee
re-inserted Maori seats into the legislation using a formula
based on the Maori electoral option. That meant that the
number of Maori seats increased from four to five in 1996, to
six in 1999 and in 2002 to seven, where they presently remain.
With
persons of Maori descent represented in all levels of decision
making these days - on their own merits - the need for special
race-based seats and a parallel electoral system that favours
Maori, can no longer be justified. Further, the Treaty of
Waitangi, which is often used by proponents as an excuse for
special rights, actually guarantees Maori the same rights and duties of citizenship as the rest of us. That means
that there
is no justification at all for separate Maori electorates or
separate Maori wards at central or local government level.
This
view has been strongly reflected in two recent public polls,
where a binding referendum on the establishment of Maori wards
by the Waikato District Council was defeated by a resounding
80 percent of voters, and a Colmar Brunton survey which showed
over 70 percent of the public were opposed to separate Maori
representation. Full details can be found here
>>>
Over the
last couple of years, the Race Relations Commissioner Joris de
Bres has been crossing the line from advocacy to activism by
pressuring councils to introduce separate Maori seats -
despite the vast majority of New Zealanders not wanting them.
That led the Nelson City Council and the Waikato Regional
Council to announce that they were going to introduce Maori
seats at the 2013 local body elections. However, the Nelson
decision was challenged by ratepayers, who used the provisions
in the 2001 Local Electoral Act to gather signatures from 5
percent of Nelson electors and demand a binding poll on the
issue. That poll, which is presently underway, closes on 19
May.
While
the Waikato Regional Council’s decision to establish 2 Maori
Wards remains unchallenged at this stage, the Waikato District
Council’s referendum indicates that Maori Wards on the
Regional Council would also be strongly rejected, should the
Regional Council’s decision be challenged. While the
deadline for the next election has now passed, a successful
challenge would lead to the removal of Maori Wards the
election after next.
Maori
representation on local bodies comes at a huge cost - as
Auckland residents are finding out. The Auckland Statutory
Board, with its unelected representatives with voting rights,
was established under the legislation that gave rise to the
Auckland super city - as an alternative to Maori Wards. While
the Board costs ratepayers over $3 million a year to run, they
are now demanding that $300 million should be spent on Maori
initiatives over the next 10 years for such things as
facilities for Maori, significant land and sites,
strengthening the culture and environmental work. At present
the Board is running a series of hui to determine other issues
local Maori want the council to address. To date their list
includes lifting incomes, education and workplace skills,
health and representation on public bodies, the use of Te Reo
Maori, high quality and affordable housing, and co-governance
of natural resources.
If New
Zealand ends up with a Constitution that enshrines Treaty
rights, such demands are likely to escalate. There will be
even more calls for special treatment for Maori at every level
of New Zealand’s governance arrangements, than there already
are.
A great
deal of work needs to be done to alert that public to
the threat that this Constitutional Review process poses. That
includes helping people to understand that New Zealand already
has a constitution that works well. It consists
of a collection of statutes, conventions and treaties. The
advantage of our present flexible arrangement is that changes,
such as removing the Maori seats, is a relatively simple
process. All that is needed is to repeal the sections that
deal with Maori representation in the relevant Acts of
Parliament – the 1993 Electoral Act for the Parliamentary
seats and the 2001 Local Electoral Act for local body seats.
It is for this reason that the Maori Party wants to enshrine
the seats within a new Constitution.
As the
Select Committee of Parliament reviewing constitutional
arrangements in 2005 concluded, there is no crisis and no need
to change the general way our constitution works. What is now
needed instead is the abolition of special Maori
rights and privileges - not their entrenchment. If you would
like to join our campaign to fight against the Maori Party’s
plan to hijack our Constitution, please support us here
>>>
This week’s poll asks: Do
you think John Banks will be forced to resign from Parliament?
Click here for poll >>>
Footnotes:
1. Elections
NZ, The
Right to Vote
Skip to top  Skip
to this weeks poll
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the
NZCPR Forum page click
to view >>>
Skip to top Skip
to this weeks poll
Send
to a friend:
|
