Nat's MMP referendum: the republican question
Panic-stricken lefties are already organising the resistance: the Campaign to Save MMP will have its inaugural meeting in Auckland on Thursday:When: 19:00, Thursday, 13 November
Where: Auckland University Students Association executive chambers, AUSA building, Auckland
Contact: aotearoa.guy@gmail.com
This was a beautiful win-win move by National. If they adjust the timing of the referendum to precede the 2011 general election it could be even more evil. A potentially expensive and draining campaign will be fought by the left just to keep the system we have (that has hitherto advantaged the left). I think it was used as a gimmick to attract the conservatives and a sop to the old guard of the party more than anything else. But it has nefarious potential.
This could be a great distraction tactic by National who might time controversial measures to coincide with it to capitalise on the diversion. If they reverse the stated order (one on MMP yes/no then one on a replacement) to give alternatives to MMP first then they really cannot lose. Is Steven Joyce, or whoever fixes these things in National that evil?If you look at the policy document as released there is plenty of scope to do whatever the hell they like. They haven't promised a royal commission like the one that recommended MMP - just a straight vote "without further consideration". I expect MMP will win in a straight vote - which is why they might try to change it to better suit themselves.
I supported MMP in the first round of referenda in 1992 and again in the final round at the general election a year later. Not because it was perfect but because it was fairer and had a more proportional outcome than the First past the post system. But the arbitrary and high threshold of 5% is a major defect - as a political studies student at the time I remember that was my major concern. Although when the Christians and their pedophile leader failed to clear the threshold despite getting over 4% in '96 you didn't see many people complaining. Thank God! The other disadvantages - the only ones I can think of - is the "need" for parliament to be 120 - it doesn't have to be - and the related issue of the overhang seats.
Technically parliament could blow out to over 170. Those extra 20+ MPs add little value, they just fill up seats and keep the baublage numbers up. The reason given for having 120 (from what I recall) is to avoid overhangs. Well that didn't work.
If we are going to have a debate about the merits of MMP - and the other systems - then let's widen the scope with a view to our inevitable republican future.
I've canvassed some of these issues before, but to re-cap on the basics:
A 99 MP House of Representatives
Capping total MPs at 120
Checks and balances in the parliamentary system
A President supported by two Vice Presidents (Speakers)
An element of tikanga Maori to balance the tikanga Pakeha
Community devolvement of democracy
The Presidency needs 2/3 to make a decision, that allows the Speaker of the Legislative Council (who is a Vice-President) to follow their chamber's dissent and not sign without causing a constitutional crisis.
The communities have an election in the vacant year between general elections and the current local body elections. Communities are the fundamental units of local government and apart from their local functions they will elect delegates to attend an annual meeting, or General Assembly (Hui-a-motu), which in turn elects a standing committee, the Legislative Council, which holds the mana of the assembly until the next meeting when there will be another election. The council has no sub-committees, every member is treated like a backbench MP of the House. 3 members to sit on every House select committee (meaning all select committees are joint committees). The council cannot block legislation unless it is a unanimous vote - although it may delay it for a set maximum time. The council can introduce its own bills and send them to a select committee. Councillors can become ministers etc, just like MPs in the House.
I would like to see a series of quotas used in the election process for the council so that it is broadly representative (gender/Maori/South Island/rural etc.), including independents and at least two lawyers who are independents (as I believe a republican constitution should have a provision that the office of Attorney-General must be offered to an independent MP with some legal qualification or experience - and given that an independent is unlikely to be elected to the House the council will provide them).
These are all things that will be asked in the distant future, but formulating concepts and models is something we ought to be doing now - now that the National party have committed themselves to an MMP referendum.
[UPDATE: Lewis Holden and the republican movement have done wonderful job at providing information on other countries and their systems: Republican Models. ]
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 1:21 PM
21 comments
21 Comments:
The big problem with your suggested structure as far as I can see is that it breaches the Treaty in at least two ways:
"Article First:
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country."
Moving to a republic would breach the first article of the treaty.
"Article Third:
In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them."
The treaty is very clear that all citizens are to have the same rights. The Maori translation is actually far more clear on this point. If you are to institute a constitution that formally separates the representation of Maori and non-Maori in government this goes entirely against the spirit of the Treaty, which was designed to unite two peoples into one under one government, not maintain such divisions. This would be a major step backwards in race relations.
Furthermore, there is no reason for separating the government in this way. Maori are perfectly capable of being represented in a 99 member house of representatives, as they are at present. If you were to institute a Maori sector you would have to either say the House of Representatives was for non-Maori only (which would be very racist), or both were to represent everyone (which removes the purpose of having two separate branches in the first place). Otherwise you would have Maori being able to be represented in both branches, and non-Maori only in one, severely breaching the third article of the treaty (and basic human rights) as one group would be favoured over another.
Now, the Treaty is just another agreement between men, and can be broken later by men. Some day we may choose to become a republic and breach it. But our government generally tries to at least pretend to honour the Treaty, so if you are proposing to breach it it is important to be clear about exactly what you are proposing, and the fact that the new arrangement would supersede the Treaty.
I would agree that it is time to have the debate about becoming a republic. That is a debate we should be having instead of what voting system we need. In regards to mrdennis's comments, I would suggest that any new constitution needs to both recognise and be based on the Treaty of Waitangi.
Such revolutionary ideas...
Be careful, you may become the first man to be convicted of sedition when it is reinstated in the Crimes Act!
Mr. Dennis: Your assumptions and reasoning are faulty on some counts, most of it caused because I have not gone through all of the details properly.
Moving to a republic would breach the first article of the treaty.
- Yes, the removal of the Queen does, but the Treaty is being breached right now in many ways so it's not as important as you make out. Any move away from the monarchy ought to be by democracy (ie. a referendum) and any republican constitution ought to mention the status of the Treaty and that it is being superseded in some respect (which we agree on having read your last paragraph).
The treaty is very clear that all citizens are to have the same rights. The Maori translation is actually far more clear on this point.
- No. It says that Maori have the same rights as British subjects. NZ citizenship did not exist, nor was it contemplated to exist. It came into existence in 1947 when the British told Peter Fraser that we were no longer British and that they were winding up their Empire, so we had to establish our own citizenship - this was surely a breach of the Treaty.
If you are to institute a constitution that formally separates the representation of Maori and non-Maori in government this goes entirely against the spirit of the Treaty, which was designed to unite two peoples into one under one government, not maintain such divisions.
- Newsflash, we've had this since 1867 and the establishment of the Maori seats. I am not promoting this position. I am silent in my post on where the current maori seats stand. The spirit of the Treaty is that Maori communities retain a great deal of internal self-governance and autonomy from the government. That is the spirit of the treaty. My concept is that the Maori communities that have mana whenua (like the ones whose leaders signed the Treaty) be recognised via "communities". These communities will then recognise the other natural communities in their districts, ie everyone else (along the lines of the community boards I suppose). These communities will elect the General Assembly etc. There will be equality between communities - some will be Maori, but most will not be.
Everyone is represented in both chambers, but the Legislative Council runs along Maori lines because that will be its heritage, and the House runs along Pakeha lines because that is its heritage. Both chambers must recognise the mana of the other at some point. Earlier attempts have failed because the Crown was run by militant anti-Maori Pakeha and Maori had only 4 seats, which is how the British ran Rhodesia.
... both were to represent everyone (which removes the purpose of having two separate branches in the first place).
- The purpose is not merely to have a form of Maori representation, it is to have representation of independents and other groups from a wider range of candidates than the House would ever have put up, it is also a check on the House, and an alternative avenue for legislation to be introduced as well as some other functions that are normally associated with upper houses in other jurisdictions.
"so we had to establish our own citizenship - this was surely a breach of the Treaty."
Maybe you could go to court in the UK and claim redress for this breach.
Well Labour abolished appeals to the Privy Council, so that's a NO.
If John Key has any guts he will scrap the stupid fucking Treaty.
Anon 6:02pm.
How? Why? What is "stupid" about it?
The Treaty is probably the most bloated piece of unnecessary bureaucracy this country has. Parekura Horomia is the Treaty personified.
Unfortunately we, the pakeha did sign it and it would be dishonourable to repudiate the treaty.
Sure it has its shortcomings but maori have been loyal servants of the Crown.
Notwithstanding nutjobs like Tim here who have a half assed self-taught knowledge of treaty and constitutional issues with gaps in logic bigger than you'd get in a german fisting porn movie the treaty does deserve a place as a foundation document not as was found in Te Haoni Te Heuhe as an enforceable legal document.
The Moriori didn't get a Treaty, so Maori shouldn't get one either.
You 'tard the maori already have one.
The moriori question is seperate and despite what Tim and other maori revisionists say to sweap the murder of an entire race under the carpet is an important part of their history which should be recognised for what it is: genocide.
I don't know whether to delete the last two comments because they are off-topic or let them stand because they illustrate the infantile mindset of many Pakeha who cannot and will not hold a conversation about the Treaty without resorting to inane attempts at moral equivalence over one tribe invading and killing and enslaving another at a time when the British Empire itself would spend many more years invading and killing other much weaker peoples and had itself only just abolished slavery.
So to reduce the incidence of 'tardism I would not recommend pursuing said lines of 'tardation.
It was Mr Dennis who raised the issue of the Treaty - not me. My post doesn't mention it - not once. The ideas I put forward are independent of the treaty. And given the heat whenever it is mentioned it was wise not to, but when we discuss the constitution it will inevitably come up. But it is of limited value when discussing future arrangements of the nuts and bolts nature that I laid out in the post.
So, anyway...
For anyone who knows their way around the internet I have started an agenda on the constitution at the top of the html of this blog. I intend to update it from time to time as things arise. If you want to view it open the source code. At the moment it's just bullet points/subject headings.
So the genocide committed by maori is excusable in relative terms, but the colonisation by the British isn't?
Right.
No, it's not excusable by anyone - but that's not the point. For starters, the Taranaki Maori invasion of the Chatham Islands occurred five years before the Treaty was signed (1835). Secondly, there was plenty of inter-tribal violence (Despite the popular myth, Moriori are an offshoot of Maori - they've got the same genes) and "genocide" at this time - cf Te Rauparaha and the north of the South Island / Te Wai Pounamu - so you could hardly use Moriori vs Maori as a yardstick; thirdly, as has been pointed out, there was no Treaty between Maori and Moriori, whereas there was one between the British Government and Maori iwi.
"Moving to a republic would breach the first article of the treaty."
No it wouldn't. Firstly, the Sovereign as an entity has changed once before - in 1947, when New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster. The Statute created legal separation between the UK and its self-governing colonies, making New Zealand's head of state the "Queen of New Zealand".
Secondly, the new head of state in a republic would acquire all of the responsibilities like any new head of state would, just as the new government would acquire the responsibilities of former governments on other international treaties. Same for Sovereign debt.
Third, from a symbolic sense, it's always been the New Zealand government which has provided restitution to Maori, not the Queen. The Queen's role in Treaty settlements is limited to acting a rubber stamp. I'm sure a New Zealander would be more than capable of doing that job.
"There was no Treaty between Maori and Moriori"
Genius! I must remind the lawyers for Nazi war criminals of this clause. Or maybe use it as a silver bullet for Israelis defending their actions against the Palistinians.
So, ignore the rest of my comment and focus on one point which you clearly didn't understand. Way to win an argument.
Anon asked why Maori treatment by the British matters more to us today than Maori treatment of Moriori. The fact is the Brits specifically created a Treaty with Maori. The example of Nazi Germany is irrelevant.
Of course the example of Nazi Germany is irrelevant; It is devestating to your argument!
Do the Aussies have no issues with Aborigines since they didn't sign a Treaty? Of course not, which shows how hollow your argument is.
"Of course the example of Nazi Germany is irrelevant; It is devestating to your argument!"
It's irrelevant - we're talking about the actions of one party against another *after* signing a Treaty with them. That is not the same factual situation we're discussing here, it is irrelevant; it's not devastating in any way.
"Do the Aussies have no issues with Aborigines since they didn't sign a Treaty? Of course not, which shows how hollow your argument is."
Ok, this makes no sense. You're arguing now Maori only cause "issues" because of the Treaty? Or that the Brits never killed any Aborigines?
The point is there would be issues with Maori whether a Treaty was signed or not. Hence why Abbos have similar problems to Maori despite not signing a Treaty.
Right, well that actually makes sense.
Post a Comment
<< Home