This page modified 27 July 2000
Election Day provided a last chance to salvage something of New Zealand's proud heritage of egalitarian access to and enjoyment of public open spaces, and of citizen influence over its management. Through these pages our organisation did its best to present the often stark alternatives and choices faced by voters on November 27.
The election of a minority Labour-Alliance Government, being dependent on other party support to govern, in particular the Greens, was probably the best that could be realistically hoped for to advance changes compatible with PANZ's objects. These parties presented many policies that, if implemented, will move towards restoring New Zealanders' equal and open access to the outdoors. However our endorsement of the new Government's policies is made with a warning - that further uncritical advancement of Maori interests through misrepresentation of the Treaty of Waitangi will be at the expense of other citizens' rights, and of democracy as a whole.
PANZ will continue to strenuously oppose unlawful and unreasonable actions of racial preferment such as has occurred at Mt Hikurangi. This case is indicative of a much wider malaise that now permeates government and the public service. Unmandated moves by the new Government to change New Zealand's constitution to entrench current mythology about a 'living', forever changing Treaty, are a distinct possibility. We will endeavour to 'flush out' any such intentions before they are foisted upon us (see letter below)-
Tuesday, 8 February 2000
Hon Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Dear Ms Clark
Changes to New Zealand's Constitution?
I am pleased that you and your new Government "operates on a no-surprises policy" (Morning Report, 20/12/99). You earlier stated that the coalition's policies were "well signaled and considered" before the election (Radio NZ, 6/12/99).
In all the released policies before the election, no Labour policies signaled any intention for constitutional change, whereas the Alliance has.
On 17 December 1999 I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister [Jim Anderton] pointing out that the Alliance released two policies during the election campaign which appear in conflict, both in the scope of what will be recognised as the basis for constitutional change, and the processes to be deployed in developing and implementing such.
The Alliance 'Treaty of Waitangi' Policy proposes (my emphasis)
"To establish a constitution for Aotearoa/New Zealand based on the Treaty of Waitangi, the Treaty must be ratified through a legislative programme which recognises Crown and Mäori rights and identifies processes for protecting them. We propose a joint Crown/Mäori team to plan and implement a constitutional development programme. The constitutional programme should be fully implemented within ten years. Independent monitors selected by government and Mäori will ensure the programme remains on track and achieves the agreed goals. There may be opportunities for other countries to share in this innovative process".
Whereas the Alliance 'Constitution' Policy states (abbreviated)
"The Alliance is committed to the Treaty of Waitangi as one of the most important constitutional founding documents. That place in our constitution needs to be recognised...we will convene a Royal Commission to study and make recommendations on extending the Bill of Rights...its supremacy in a conflict of laws, the need for a more comprehensive written statement of our constitution than that contained in the current Constitution Act...we expect the outcome...to be subject to a referendum ".
Mr. Anderton has acknowledged my letter but has not commented on the discrepancies in policy or clarified which policy applies. However Sandra Lee [Alliance MP and Minister of Conservation and Local Government] is currently promoting "constitutional readjustment" in keeping with the Alliance's 'Treaty of Waitangi' rather than the 'Constitution' Policy. She states that "there will be a bold step forward to address the issue concerning tino rangatiratanga inside of what will be a 'new partnership' between Maori and the Crown. The policies and processes will be cooperatively designed by the partners to the Treaty of Waitangi" (NZ Herald, 20/1/2000). Such a process appears to preclude seeking a mandate from the electorate either through "well signaled and considered" policy, or by referenda.
I note that the Government's Coalition Agreement seeks the avoidance of surprises. No doubt this is essential for good government, but is equally important for maintaining public confidence in Government, particularly in an area that could impact on every citizen's civil and political rights.
I also note no signaled intent for constitutional change in Sir Michael Hardie Boys' [Governor-General] speech from The Throne.
I would appreciate your advice whether changes to New Zealand's constitution forms part, or will form part, of your Government's policy programme.
Yours sincerely
Bruce Mason
Researcher and co-spokesman
Prior to the PM's reply (see below), the following appeared in the news media.
Margaret Wilson's private secretary has advised that Cabinet papers are in preparation (PANZ will seek to obtain).
The Prime Minister has replied to our letter of 8 February --
In light of Ms Clark's reply, that Government's priorities for its first term, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, "will form the basis of our policy programme", it appeares that Ms Wilson's and Ms Lee's proposals will not be pursued by this Government. The PM's clear statement on Government's policy programme is most welcome, and if honoured, would mark a reassuring return to electorally-mandated government.
However can the PM's words be relied on, given early forewarnings of key yet-to-be-elected Ministers' intentions prior to the election, and subsequent events?
Also the 'National Business Review' revealed, on March 17 2000, that Government is partly sponsoring an invitation-only "Building the Constitution Conference" in Parliament on April 7-8 with the purpose: "to establish a written constitution for New Zealand". Thi is apparently with much emphasis on declaring what the Treaty of Waitangi is supposed to mean ('bi-culturalism', 'partnership', 'duel sovereignty') and embedding such reconstructions of the Treaty as supreme law in a new constitution.
Alarm at this course of events was well expressed by the Otago Daily Times...
It was reported on the eve of the conference, that Attorney-General Margaret Wilson told Parliamant that the Treaty "would be part of (a) new constitution" (ODT 7/4/00). Such an definitive statement by a leading Cabinet member could only be made on the basis that Government does not intend putting such matters to the electorate, either as re-election policy or by way of referenda. Going by the results of 'The Third NZ Study of Values' (Perry & Webster 1999), if the electorate were asked, there would be overwhelming rejection of such fundamental change. 33 percent of the population want the Treaty "abolished" and only 5 percent want it "strengthened and given the full force of law".
On 'Face the Nation', Television One on 27 July 2000, Alliance MP Willie Jackson boldly stated that Margaret Wilson, along with others in Government, are working on constitutional change.
So much for the Speech from the Throne being the basis of this Government's policy programme, and of a "goverment of no surprises" !
Visit PANZ's PDF LIbrary for a collection of publications selected to provide substantive, reasoned argument of alternative viewpoints to the current "politically correct" orthodoxy.