>>>
Flagging Away the Substance
Of my many failures none has disappointed me more than my failure, over more than a decade, to convince any politician or political party to champion the idea of a process to consider New Zealand’s wider constitutional arrangements. A proposal I wrote recently for our MP’s about this under the title, "Is it NZ’s destiny to become just another two big Pacific islands?" got few replies.
Every now and again an attention-seeking politician or a bored talkback host grabs a headline with yet another worthy idea to advance our journey towards nationhood. Why not a new flag? The most pathetic argument, based on an inferiority complex, is that our flag looks like the Australian flag. Too bad, let them change theirs.
Next it will be "Let’s change the name of our country." A serious politician said Aotearoa will put us at the top of the UN alphabet, ahead of Australia, big deal, so what? What next? A new national anthem? Australia will become a republic so it will be fashionable and, in an expression of superficial independence, we could follow them. This is the opposite of what a self-confident, self-determined New Zealand road to the future should be.
A bill will go before Parliament next year on becoming a republic. What sort of republic, what powers will our head of state have? An American or French presidency based on a popular vote, or a mainly ceremonial Presidency like Israel, Ireland or Germany, where their parliaments elect the President? Once it’s decided to have an elected head of state, I suspect the people will want to make that decision and not leave it to our Parliament. These are not small issues, conflict between the Parliament and a Presidency needs to be thought through. How many hands do we need on the steering wheel in Wellington? MMP already means the smallest coalition partner can grab the steering wheel from time to time to reward their supporters.
The strength of a monarchy and a Governor General is not the powers they have but the powers they deny others. And by the way, when people throw around the words ‘Tino Rangatiratanga’, just think what that means. It’s translated directly as "absolute sovereignty", the power to make and enforce laws. Do we mean that when we so easily accept these slogans and flags?
I’m for change but I oppose a new flag and a referendum on the future of MMP because it’s opportunist, random, simplistic and the process lacks depth, breadth and coherence. There is no process, its ad hockery that makes a mockery of consensus-based nation building and our parliamentary system. Thus it’s dangerous, because change made in haste cannot be easily unmade.
We have abolished our rights of appeal to the Privy Council, established a semi state government for Auckland, abolished then bought back our honours system, abolished the position of QC’s and bought them back, someone, not Parliament or you decided we are officially a bi-cultural nation not a multi-cultural society. A flag that represents Maori sovereignty now flies with equal pride to the NZ flag which was enshrined in legislation. It will be on government buildings; does that mean our embassies overseas? We may have to pay a copyright commission very time we use this flag to a certain hapu; that will be a world ‘first’ when someone can charge you for the use of a flag. As a North Aucklander, we have our own pre-Treaty flag representing the United Tribes so we are naturally suspicious. Watch how schools and local government buildings will be ‘encouraged’ to use this flag, which is a party logo. This is not new, party flags often become countries’ flags, especially in the worst places in Asia and Africa. This appeasement is part of coalition politics, MMP, and hopes to promote unity. Does any of this make you feel more a New Zealander? These changes may be right but were you ever asked about any of this at an election or any other time, and on what mandate are they working from?
It is not meaningless, it is important because there are consequences. In adolescent anger, we reject our parentage, European heritage and the gift of parliamentary democracy too easily and at great risk. Our history and Institutions reflect the lessons of The Enlightenment; the Sermon on the Mount, the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are our history too, because no one came to NZ without a memory and we were all boat people at one time.
The Treaty of Waitangi is central to the peace, progress and tranquillity of our nation. If we didn’t have it we would have to invent it. But it’s gone from being called a fraud to assuming biblical perfection in a life time. Some realism is necessary. In 1840, Alaska was part of Russia, Germany and Italy did not exist as Nation states, and slavery was not to be abolished in the United States for another quarter of a century.
We do need to address all these issues but they need to be folded together in a process that goes beyond the passions and life of any one temporary Parliament, beyond economic and opportunistic political cycles.
It should start with a leadership council of all the political leaders in Parliament who, by consensus, appoint an Eminent Persons Group who canvas these ideas and present them to constitutional convention, if so decided by the parliament. The delegates to this special convention would, in the main, be directly elected but political parties already elected and serving in Parliament would also be delegates. On the agenda should also be our unique constitutional relationship with some Pacific Island nations. They too would have representatives who, alongside other eminent people, would not have a vote but a voice and enjoy the privilege and power to persuade. Then the people must decide on their new constitution by a referendum.
The major parties say we should settle the injustices of the past through our Treaty process by the year 2014. It would be a splendid gift to future generations if we began a process to consider these other great constitutional matters in parallel. It could take ten years and that’s why we don’t have a day to waste, and shouldn’t be diverted by all these smaller issues that together are matters of great moment and substance.
