Category: Constitutional Reform
We have come to be divided by a new racial bitterness that will soon be incurable. A vocal racial minority continues to make increasingly extreme demands upon what remains of our national resources and possessions, and even the appeasement of those demands does not satisfy the appetites of those who see every act of generosity as a sign of weakness, and who then demand yet more. To continue in these courses is very short-sighted, for that path leads inevitably and all too swiftly to an apartheid nation, national bankruptcy and civil strife.
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.
In spite of the dedication and hard work of tens of thousands of New Zealanders - and the support of hundreds of thousands - sadly, we have been unable to gather enough signatures to trigger a nation-wide referendum on restoring Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed.
Though our Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) has failed narrowly to get to its target, the Coastal Coalition will continue to campaign strongly against National’s Marine and Coastal Area Act (the 2011 Act). So I ask that all Coastal Coalition members stay in touch, and help us with this fight.
Next week the Waitangi Tribunal will be hearing the Maori Council’s claim for the ownership of New Zealand’s freshwater. To most people, water, like air, is part of a natural cycle and is regarded as a ‘common good’ –managed by the Crown on behalf of us all, through Regional Councils.
The political nature of the Maori Party's constitutional review 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.
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.
There is a growing consensus amongst western leaders that policies and practices that divide citizens along ethnic and cultural lines are immensely damaging to societies and nations. British Prime Minister David Cameron, along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and former Prime Ministers - John Howard of Australia, Jose Aznar of Spain, and Yves Leterme of Belgium - have all condemned multiculturalism as a failed policy that undermines national identity, promoting separatism and extremism
I have been thinking about ‘culture’, my friends, and am trying to get a handle on this most important matter. Culture is jolly important. We hear a lot about Maori culture, and hear all the time that we are a ‘bicultural nation’, although this is of course disputed by those who insist that we are actually multicultural.
One of the key concerns about MMP is the existence of the race-based Maori seats. Introduced in 1867 as a temporary measure for a five year period, they are an anachronism from the past.
Loading ...
