United Future
Hon Peter Dunne

Strewth mate, what are they doing to our country?

New Zealand is changing. Sometimes incrementally and almost unnoticed and at other times with ground-shaking impact, but the one reality is that New Zealanders are not controlling that change - and that should be of immense concern to us all.

However, it does not appear to be of great concern to enough Kiwis.

If it was, then there would be stronger calls for what this country needs - a constitution to bridle, to control, to shape the forces that are changing our nation; to ensure that New Zealand shapes New Zealand; that our values prevail; that what we hold dear forms our future.

"Your Honour, it’s the vibe, it’s Mabo, it’s the Constitution!"

In an odd way that classic line by the Kerrigans’ bumbling lawyer in the Australian comedy film, The Castle, resonates loudly when I think about the Kiwi state-of-mind today.

On the one hand ‘the vibe’, if you will - our popular ideals, have been set back after our expectations of sporting success were once again laid low by an earlier than expected exit from the Rugby World Cup.

Meanwhile, the Government and the non-sporting public wrestle with our very own Mabo - the extent of indigenous Maori rights over the foreshore and seabed.

And, unfortunately, despite recent events such as the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, our national consciousness has yet to turn to any real thought of a Constitution. The continued failure to do so is, I believe, to our collective detriment.

Recently, the Government removed the top court from our judicial branch of government and replaced it with a local Supreme Court. Short of any formalised arrangements for changes of such constitutional proportions, it did so with a bare majority of Parliament.

Consider again, our Mabo; inherent in the foreshore and seabed litigation was a set of assumptions about the constitutional status of the Treaty of Waitangi and the extent to which it ought to influence modern law.

Although I do not share the assumptions of the particular litigants, I am certain that it is not the courts that should be single-handedly defining the extent of our Constitution in respect of the Treaty.

Both of these issues firmly convince me that it is time to initiate a more fundamental review of our constitutional arrangements. Despite our collection of ‘constitutional documents’, how much longer can we carry on with what has been essentially a "look, no hands" approach to our constitutional arrangements?

However, the need to define our constitution goes beyond these present dilemmas, and right to the heart of the question of our nationhood.

Supreme Court advocates such as Lord Cooke of Thorndon (one our finest ever jurists) and the Prime Minister argued that establishing a local top court was necessary if New Zealand was ever to take control of its own legal destiny.

I then ask the question, are we ready to define our own national destiny?

We are a young country. We are no longer, if indeed we ever were, a mirror image of Britain at the opposite end of the world. Today we are one of the most multi-cultural societies in the South Pacific, fast developing our own practices and traditions that make us unique.

Yet what symbols do we have that reflect this emergent nationalism?

As New Zealanders, we are in chronically short supply of defining symbols and icons. Buzzy Bees, the All Blacks and our nuclear free status are the few that spring to mind.

A live Constitution would do more than simply clarify the relationship between us and the State, or define how its powers are to be separated - it would provide New Zealanders with an important source of identity.

A nation’s Constitution is far from a stark legal document - it is a living charter, a fundamental proclamation of nationhood. That is why the American Constitution remains essential to the life of that nation over two and a quarter centuries after it was written. It embodies the ideals that all Americans hold dear. By contrast, here in Godzone, we have little that truly represents our collective ideals, our national ‘vibe’.

Unfortunately there is little to be heard in this respect from the present Government.

One criticism that has been levelled at the Helen Clark has been her refusal to really utilise the rhetorical function inherent in the role of Prime Minister. She has had many an opportunity to expound her view on what no doubt would be the pivotal issue in any constitutional debate - the normative role of the Treaty, and how she views the future relationship between Maori and Pakeha.

Yet she refuses to interpret our past, or to articulate a serious vision of our collective future.

She cites David Lange as an example of rhetoric’s failure to ultimately effect positive, lasting or genuine change. So instead we hear about what kind of economy we need, the new industry sectors that need to expand, or how the Government is attempting to make housing and education more affordable. These are all important, but their focus remains on activity. None of it speaks of our identity, of who we New Zealanders really are.

Not withstanding this lack of a clarifying leadership call with which we can agree or disagree, there is a very real sense - indeed a fear - that this Government has a very real and unspoken agenda for constitutional change.

Specific events such as the abrupt abolition of knighthoods, the determination to proceed with a local Supreme Court despite the lack of mandate, and the renaming of Queen’s Counsel as Senior Counsel confirm most suspicions. And upon New Year’s Eve, we have the announcement of a review of our public oaths and affirmations. Strewth!

However, thus far, these changes have been by stealth and without any sense of public endorsement. Many New Zealanders now believe this Government doesn’t even want the people involved - a prospect I find personally offensive.

An open review process, beginning with a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry into our present constitutional arrangements would be a good start, perhaps culminating in a referendum on constitutional change.

Not only would this be more in keeping with our democratic traditions, but it would mean that New Zealanders could make the issue their own. And who else does this issues belong to? The destiny and direction of this or any nation is not the plaything of any elitist force, but in the most basic sense it belongs to and must come from the people.

I believe that at the end of the day, it is not the All Blacks or even the Prime Minister that define our national ‘vibe’ - they can merely reflect them. Nor should it be left to the courts or ‘Mabo’ type cases to determine our fundamental legal rights. It can only be, the Constitution.

Ends.