Post by Kiwi Frontline on Sept 22, 2016 8:43:30 GMT 12
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW – SUMMARY OF ISSUES (2013)
.
5. MAORI REPRESENTATION, INCLUDING MĀORI ELECTORAL OPTION, MAORI ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION, MAORI SEATS IN PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
.
(5.a) Should the Maori electoral option (separate Maori roll) be retained or abolished?
The Maori electoral option gives New Zealanders of Maori descent the opportunity to choose whether they want to be on the Maori electoral roll or the general electoral roll when they vote in the next two general elections. If New Zealanders want equality under the law with no race-based preferment and one electoral roll, the Maori Electoral option should be abolished.
.
(5.b) Should the parliamentary Maori seats be retained or abolished?
.
Four Maori seats were established as a temporary measure back in 1867. They should have been abolished in 1893, when universal suffrage extended voting rights to all New Zealanders. The 1987 Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended they be abolished if MMP was introduced, but through strong advocacy they were retained.
There are now 7 Maori seats, and during the last Parliament they were responsible for the 2 MP overhang and in this Parliament, an overhang of 1 MP. In the last Parliament there were 23 Maori MPs or 19% – the Maori seats led to an overrepresentation of Maori MPs.
It is time for the Maori seats to be abolished as New Zealand moves towards a single electoral franchise. The Maori Party wants the Maori parliamentary seats to be entrenched in law, and, like the Afrikaner Nationalists in apartheid South Africa, wants every New Zealander classified by ethnicity, with all 18-year-olds of even remotely Maori descent placed automatically on to the Maori electoral roll so as to increase it. More details here > breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/mike-butler-what-maori-and-non-maori.html
(5.c) Should local government Maori seats be retained or abolished?
.
Separate Maori representation was established by legislation in 2001 at Environment Bay of Plenty. In 2009, central government imposed a Maori statutory board on the new Auckland City Council. In 2011, Human Rights Commissioner Joris De Bres wrote to local government asking councils to consider setting up Maori seats. Nelson and Wairoa district councils polled ratepayers on the issue – the proposal was defeated. The Waikato Regional Council voted to introduce Maori seats – it did not seek a mandate from ratepayers. There is little public support for local body Maori seats – since Maori are seen to be able to get elected on their own account. The Maori seats should be abolished.
.
6. THE ROLE OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI WITHIN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
.
(6.a) Should the Treaty of Waitangi have a more central role in our constitutional arrangements?
.
If Treaty principles were enshrined in a new written constitution, it would be a death blow to democracy as we know it. Unelected judges could use it to argue why the law should grant special privileges to members of the ‘Maori race’, and why any law that does not do so is defective. Even if judges should dare to decide against Maori favouritism, the threat of challenge is always there. It would create a two-tiered society – a Maori elite, and non-Maori New Zealanders as second class citizens. More details here > www.nzcpr.com/a-treaty-of-waitangi-constitution/
.
7. BILL OF RIGHTS ISSUES (FOR EXAMPLE, PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENTRENCHMENT)
.
(7.a) Should the protection of property rights be included in Bill of Rights?
.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand setting out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law. Many people would like to see private property rights awarded the added protection of being included in the Bill of Rights.
.
(7.b) Should the Bill of Rights be entrenched?
.
The Electoral Act is the only New Zealand statute containing entrenched provisions, which means that it can only be changed through a 75% vote in Parliament or a majority vote in a public referendum. The argument is that the Bill of Rights does not need to be entrenched since by convention no government would change such a law without wide parliamentary support.
.
8. WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
.
(8.a) Should New Zealand retain our present flexible constitutional arrangements with the ultimate law-making power held by elected Members of Parliament, or should a new written constitution, which gives the ultimate law-making power to judges, be introduced?
A written constitution is framed by an elected representative, is promulgated on a specific date in history, and is regarded as superior law with unelected judges becoming the gatekeepers, usurping parliamentary democracy. New Zealand’s present constitutional arrangements consist of written statutes, conventions and common law rights, which give our elected Members of Parliament the ultimate law-making power. The main question is whether we want unelected judges or elected MPs having the last say on the laws of New Zealand – if we want to retain parliamentary sovereignty, a “written” constitution should be avoided at all costs.
.
Read the full summary here > www.nzcpr.com/nzcpr-campaigns/independent-constitutional-review/summary/
.
5. MAORI REPRESENTATION, INCLUDING MĀORI ELECTORAL OPTION, MAORI ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION, MAORI SEATS IN PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
.
(5.a) Should the Maori electoral option (separate Maori roll) be retained or abolished?
The Maori electoral option gives New Zealanders of Maori descent the opportunity to choose whether they want to be on the Maori electoral roll or the general electoral roll when they vote in the next two general elections. If New Zealanders want equality under the law with no race-based preferment and one electoral roll, the Maori Electoral option should be abolished.
.
(5.b) Should the parliamentary Maori seats be retained or abolished?
.
Four Maori seats were established as a temporary measure back in 1867. They should have been abolished in 1893, when universal suffrage extended voting rights to all New Zealanders. The 1987 Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended they be abolished if MMP was introduced, but through strong advocacy they were retained.
There are now 7 Maori seats, and during the last Parliament they were responsible for the 2 MP overhang and in this Parliament, an overhang of 1 MP. In the last Parliament there were 23 Maori MPs or 19% – the Maori seats led to an overrepresentation of Maori MPs.
It is time for the Maori seats to be abolished as New Zealand moves towards a single electoral franchise. The Maori Party wants the Maori parliamentary seats to be entrenched in law, and, like the Afrikaner Nationalists in apartheid South Africa, wants every New Zealander classified by ethnicity, with all 18-year-olds of even remotely Maori descent placed automatically on to the Maori electoral roll so as to increase it. More details here > breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/mike-butler-what-maori-and-non-maori.html
(5.c) Should local government Maori seats be retained or abolished?
.
Separate Maori representation was established by legislation in 2001 at Environment Bay of Plenty. In 2009, central government imposed a Maori statutory board on the new Auckland City Council. In 2011, Human Rights Commissioner Joris De Bres wrote to local government asking councils to consider setting up Maori seats. Nelson and Wairoa district councils polled ratepayers on the issue – the proposal was defeated. The Waikato Regional Council voted to introduce Maori seats – it did not seek a mandate from ratepayers. There is little public support for local body Maori seats – since Maori are seen to be able to get elected on their own account. The Maori seats should be abolished.
.
6. THE ROLE OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI WITHIN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
.
(6.a) Should the Treaty of Waitangi have a more central role in our constitutional arrangements?
.
If Treaty principles were enshrined in a new written constitution, it would be a death blow to democracy as we know it. Unelected judges could use it to argue why the law should grant special privileges to members of the ‘Maori race’, and why any law that does not do so is defective. Even if judges should dare to decide against Maori favouritism, the threat of challenge is always there. It would create a two-tiered society – a Maori elite, and non-Maori New Zealanders as second class citizens. More details here > www.nzcpr.com/a-treaty-of-waitangi-constitution/
.
7. BILL OF RIGHTS ISSUES (FOR EXAMPLE, PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENTRENCHMENT)
.
(7.a) Should the protection of property rights be included in Bill of Rights?
.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand setting out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law. Many people would like to see private property rights awarded the added protection of being included in the Bill of Rights.
.
(7.b) Should the Bill of Rights be entrenched?
.
The Electoral Act is the only New Zealand statute containing entrenched provisions, which means that it can only be changed through a 75% vote in Parliament or a majority vote in a public referendum. The argument is that the Bill of Rights does not need to be entrenched since by convention no government would change such a law without wide parliamentary support.
.
8. WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
.
(8.a) Should New Zealand retain our present flexible constitutional arrangements with the ultimate law-making power held by elected Members of Parliament, or should a new written constitution, which gives the ultimate law-making power to judges, be introduced?
A written constitution is framed by an elected representative, is promulgated on a specific date in history, and is regarded as superior law with unelected judges becoming the gatekeepers, usurping parliamentary democracy. New Zealand’s present constitutional arrangements consist of written statutes, conventions and common law rights, which give our elected Members of Parliament the ultimate law-making power. The main question is whether we want unelected judges or elected MPs having the last say on the laws of New Zealand – if we want to retain parliamentary sovereignty, a “written” constitution should be avoided at all costs.
.
Read the full summary here > www.nzcpr.com/nzcpr-campaigns/independent-constitutional-review/summary/