A Case for Constitutional Reform
History shows that since the first settler government the political system has never represented Maori effectively and that Maori have never had any real political control or authority.
This history will continue unless there is major constitutional change, which ensures Maori self-determination as promised in the Treaty of Waitangi.
We accept that the Treaty of Waitangi is the foundational document for this country. This makes it an ideal starting place for a constitution that belongs here in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Constitutional reform would involve negotiation between Maori and all others to work out the implications of the Treaty for a constitution.
The Conference of Churches in Aotearoa New Zealand has prepared study material on constitutional reform. This will help us see the issues more clearly as possible forms of Treaty based constitutional arrangements emerge…
The Case for Constitutional Reform
Since early 1995 there have been indications that Maori protest action is reviving. So what’s at stake? An underlying theme is a call for a new structuring of political relationship between Maori and Pakeha: a call for Constitutional Reform. What is wanted is Constitutional Reform which will take as its starting point te Tino Rangatiratanga o te Iwi Maori. It is Tino Rangatiratanga which is the central fact affirmed in the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and upheld in Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. Neither the Declaration nor the Treaty is in any doubt that Maori exercise absolute authority over their own land and destiny.
In this country, the establishment of Westminster-style Government in the 1850s unjustly and progressively deprived Maori of the right to control their own land. The English Parliament, sitting in London, imposed the 1852 Constitution Act, in the name of the Crown. By this means, they transferred what they saw as their right of absolute political power to settler interests in this country.
In 1990, after more than a decade of discussion, research and careful monitoring of Government action, Te Runanga Whakawhanaunga i Nga Haahi o Aotearoa (the Maori ecumenical body) called on Maori and all people of goodwill to boycott the elections. As an alternative, Te Runanga suggested that people sign a Tino Rangatiratanga Register. This call was located solidly within a 150-year understanding that the Treaty, far from ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, in fact confirmed the Tino Rangatiratanga of Maori.
Te Runanga’s call also reflected the clear awareness that the imposition of Settler Government in the 1850′s by a Pakeha minority was in direct contravention of the Treaty. Given that our political system is poisoned at its source, the Runanga’s forbearance in proposing a Constitutional Conference to the two main Parties in 1990 is even more remarkable. This proposal received scant attention in the media, who were busy dismissing the boycott call, claiming it was the result of manipulation by ‘radicals’. It was rejected out of hand by both the then Prime Minister Mike Moore, and the Leader of the Opposition Jim Bolger. Their letters of response to the proposal were completely devoid of respect for the Runanga, or of any sense that they had anything to learn from the opportunity being offered them.
By contrast, the Executive of CCANZ and the then leaders of some of its member churches were very supportive of Te Runanga’s stand. They also called on their church constituencies to give serious consideration to the boycott call, and the reasons for it. Early in 1990 ten Church leaders had issued a joint statement on the sesquicentenary celebrations, which acknowledged the need for Constitutional Reform as part of the quest for a just future, based on the Treaty and on Maori status as Tangata Whenua. This imperative to do what is right is therefore not new. Nor will it go away.
The Royal Commission on the Electoral System, reporting in 1986, noted that the present system of Government effectively deprives Maori of a political voice. It recommended a process of consultation and dialogue to seek a solution to this. Te Runanga’s 1990 proposal for just such a dialogue was, like the Commission’s recommendations, steadfastly ignored by both Government and opposition.
The Maori Congress and the Wellington Maori Legal Services have both been calling for negotiation between Maori and the Crown to work out a new Treaty-based constitutional relationship and different options have been forthcoming. The Whanganui Iwi who re-occupied Mautoa Gardens in Whanganui clearly spelt out that their argument was with the Crown and was an issue of Maori sovereignty. They have called for Constitutional Reform.
The Anglican Church in New Zealand created a Constitution in 1857 based on the English Parliamentary system. That constitution was revised in 1992. The changes expressed a commitment to a Treaty based partnership in this country and partnership with the Anglican Church in Polynesia. This action shows that constitutional change is possible and that it can be invigorating to all involved. The Anglican model is one possible way forward.
The Methodist Church has been making changes in its decision-making committees in order to reflect a partnership between Taha Maori and Tauiwi. It now has a Council of Conference with ten Maori and ten Tauiwi meeting three times a year between national conferences. The Council is a policy- making body.
As we come to this discussion, it may be helpful to remember that the Westminster system of Government which we follow in this country has no natural claim to a place here. Indeed, many former British colonies which imported the same system have since abolished it. It is salutary also to observe that ‘our’ system of representative government doesn’t even represent us satisfactorily. The launching of a petition calling for 50:50 female : male political representation is a recent example of a group beginning to recognise this inadequacy.
In 1993 the Pakeha electorate in a reaction to an inadequate First Past the Post electoral system voted for Mixed Member Proportional representation. This modification of the Westminster system of government may well have been an improvement for the Pakeha electorate but did not address the underlying need for a new constitutional relationship which guarantees Te Iwi Maori their Tino Rangatiratanga.
A discussion of Constitutional Reform offers much to Pakeha, not only with respect to Treaty partnership with Maori. The more fundamental questions of how we are governed, by whom, for whom and why, should be on our agenda. It is time they were. It is time to “do justice, and walk humbly with God”.
A Tiriti Analysis of Proportional Representation:
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the primary constitutional document of Aotearoa. The Maori version of Te Tiriti confirmed te tino rangatiratanga over all things Maori. It granted to the Crown kawanatanga, or limited power, for the exercise of control over new settlers. However, on the basis of the English text of Te Tiriti (or their own unilateral proclamation of sovereignty), successive governments have maintained that Maori ceded their sovereignty to the Crown. This has been the basis on which they claim their legitimacy. It is however incorrect, for Maori never relinquished their tino rangatiratanga, rather it was taken from them. Governments throughout our history have denied Maori their tino rangatiratanga.
The acid test of any constitutional reform in Aotearoa is whether it is Tiriti based, and in particular whether it recognises and confirms tino rangatiratanga. Clearly the present parliamentary system does not. Advocates of the change in the early 90’s to proportional representation argued that Maori would have more seats in parliament, but this still does not directly address the question of Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga. Under proportional representation the principle of ensuring that there is always a Tauiwi (all non-Maori people living in Aotearoa) majority in control will not be altered. For Maori, proportional representation only means more of the same.
Given the expressions of commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi made by our Churches, we are called to judge the adequacy of proportional representation in terms of Te Tiriti. When this is done proportional representation is found to be wanting, because it is not Tiriti based and does nothing towards restoring tino rangatiratanga.
Comments via Facebook