How we get a new Prime Minister – it’s a simple matter of vice-regal appointment without a swearing-in, apparently

The news media were at one ceremony by the looks of things. The Governor-General, the  Prime Minister and his deputy were at another.

The news  media were at a swearing-in ceremony.

The country’s leaders were at an appointment ceremony.

The New Zealand Gazette record of what transpired says:

Appointment of Ministers

Her Excellency the Governor-General has been pleased to appoint:

The Right Honourable Christopher John Hipkins to the Offices of Prime Minister and Minister for National Security and Intelligence;

The Honourable Carmel Jean Sepuloni to the Office of Deputy Prime Minister;

which took effect on Wednesday 25 January 2023.

Dated at Wellington this 25th day of January 2023.

By Command:
RACHEL HAYWARD, Clerk of the Executive Council

Courtesy is so important in politics

It is perhaps unfortunate that the UK’s Conservative party MPs have never thanked the party members for saving them from the disaster of Theresa May’s premiership.

Perhaps they weren’t even grateful, seeing how quickly they recoiled at the members’ choice of Liz Truss.  Truss – who announced on Thursday she would step down – wasn’t even given enough time to dig a shallow grave, in contrast to May, who was indulgently permitted to erect an elaborate mausoleum and find out that no-one else would join her there.

“Voodoo economics” is among Seymour’s objections to public holiday – Waititi’s grouches are rooted in a sovereignty challenge

Have all members of Parliament taken the day off, on this  Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day?

We ask because there were some objections to the Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill, when all stages were passed under urgency into law last Tuesday.

The legislation created a one-off public holiday to mark the end of the 70-year reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The holiday is taking place today, the day of New Zealand’s State memorial service for the Queen.

When a party vote was called for on the question that urgency be accorded the Bill, Labour (64 votes); National (33); the Green Party (10) and Gaurav Sharma voted in favour.

ACT (10) and Te Paati Māori (2) voted against.

The weight of numbers (and opinions) on the bench in Roe v Wade is instructive when we consider the meaning of “treaty partnership”

The way in which judges can grant rights – or remove them – has been glaringly illuminated by the leaked draft opinion of the United States Supreme Court that strikes down Roe v Wade.

A spokesperson for the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand said the ruling was a stark reminder that women’s rights – and reproductive rights more broadly – were “vulnerable to erosion”.

True.  Or, on another day in another court, those rights might be expanded.

Roe v Wade had been a landmark decision in 1973, when the US Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

As Wikipedia notes, this decision struck down many US federal and state abortion laws and fuelled an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether or to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be.

Critics of the ruling also contended it was an example of judicial activism

Let’s recall how NZ was surprised by signing of indigenous rights declaration – and how Mahuta criticised the Key govt’s secrecy

Announcing the completion of the first stage of the two-step engagement process to develop “a Declaration Plan”, Willie Jackson acknowledged the work was being done through race-tinted glasses.

Almost 70 “targeted engagement workshops” had been held mainly online, the Minister for Māori Development said.

“Māori rōpū represented diverse groups ranging from iwi, hapū, tāngata whaikaha Māori (disability community) and rangatahi, to groups interested in health, education, and the environment.

“There were 12 key themes from the Māori targeted engagement covering areas such as rangatiratanga, participation in government, equity and fairness. It ran from Sept 2021 to Feb 2022 and some engagement is ongoing. You can read the full report and other resources here.”

The drafting of the Declaration Plan would now begin in partnership with the National Iwi Chairs Forum’s Pou Tikanga and the Human Rights Commission

“… before being shared for public consultation later this year”.

Under the Government’s discriminatory consultation timetable, and at long last…

“All New Zealanders will get the chance to comment on the range of actions proposed in the draft Declaration Plan.”

And so the leaders of one ethnic group representing 17 per cent of the population, have been enabled over several months to give the Government a wish list which now is being curated by officials before being presented for discussion by the whole population. 

Dr Bryce Edwards: Rotorua’s voting proposals and the polarising issue for Parliament of co-governance

****

Announcing completion of the the first stage of the two-step engagement process to develop “a Declaration Plan”, Maori Development Minister Willie Jackson today said valuable feedback had been received to help with drafting the plan on indigenous people’s rights over the next few weeks before it is taken out to wider consultation. 

As stated previously, he insisted, He Puapua is not the Declaration Plan, nor is it Government policy.  Furthermore, the Declaration Plan will not just be about co-governance, he said.

But this does not necessarily mean co-governance is being lowered in the government’s considerations.   In this article, DR BRYCE EDWARDS canvasses the debate the co-governance issue has engendered …

 ****

Co-governance is currently the most polarising issue in New Zealand politics. There’s something of a culture war over the concept of giving Māori voters or leaders a mandated equal political influence in public affairs. It’s an issue that has the potential to be socially explosive as plans are being developed and debated for how far the co-governance concept should be introduced in different areas of public life.

The co-governance issue of the day is whether local government elections could be altered so voters on the Māori electoral roll have the power to elect exactly the same number of councillors as those on the general role. The council in question is the Rotorua District Council, which has asked Parliament to give it legislative permission to introduce a new system for this year’s elections, allowing voters on the Māori and general rolls to elect three councillors each.

Critics point out that there are 22,000 voters on the Māori roll in Rotorua and 56,000 voters on the general roll, and that means voters on the Māori roll will have 2.5 times the electoral power as voters on the general roll.

The co-governance debate – why Singapore would eschew such a model (and look how well the people of that nation are doing)

Peter Dunne, who was leader of United Future and served as a minister in former National and Labour governments, is right to remind us that “co-governance” is not a new idea, It has been at the heart of many of the successful treaty settlements of the past 30 years, he points out in an article posted on Newsroom.

“In the specific instances where it has been applied, it has generally worked well.”

A recent Stuff headline echoed this:  How co-governance is already working

The accompanying article began:

Co-governance is back in the headlines. Glenn McConnell looks at what it means and how it’s already working.

McConnell began by recalling the passage of the Waikato River Settlement Act in 2010 which (a) called for government funding to clean up the Waikato River and (b) established a co-governance board to manage the river’s restoration.

The resultant Waikato River Authority is governed by 10 board members – five appointed by the Crown, the other five from Waikato tribes. 

UK newspaper raises questions (of particular concern to NZ) about the future of the Commonwealth

How  long  will  the  Commonwealth   survive?  It’s  a  question  that  hasn’t  aroused  much  attention   in New Zealand, but  –  along with the  whole  relationship with  the  monarchy – it could  become a major issue.

Commonwealth membership and the role of the monarch have  a  special  importance  for  this country,  because the   Crown  is  at the  centre  of  this  country’s  constitutional arrangements.

So we can’t say we haven‘t  been warned when  the headline on a feature in The Guardian in  London asks:

After that disastrous royal tour, is the sun finally setting on the Commonwealth realms?

The  issue  could become  of greater  significance  as  the  debate  over  “co-governance”  broadens.

The  Guardian article is  written   by Moya Lothian-McLean, who  presents Human  Resources, a podcast  about Britain’s slaving  history.

The PM urges sophistication in our thinking about democracy – to make it gel with co-governance (and unelected councillors)

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – answering questions in Parliament on Tuesday – ominously reinforced impressions she believes the Treaty of Waitangi entitles some New Zealanders to more political rights than others.

The entitlement of tribal leaders to appoint their own representatives to local authorities rather than stand for election, for example.

She was asked if she stood by her statement at Waitangi in 2019 that “Equality is our foundation”, and, if so, did she believe that our constitutional foundation should be equal political rights for all New Zealanders?

As Hansard records, she opted to address only part of the question:

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

The questions were asked by ACT leader David Seymour, who has  called for a public referendum on co-governance decision-making arrangements between Māori and the Crown.

In a speech to the Milford Rotary Club last week, he cited He Puapua, Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority as examples of co-governance principles being wrongly applied.

Presumably he hoped his questions in Parliament would flush out Ardern’s thinking on democracy, co-governance, the Treaty of Waitangi and so on.

ACT makes commitment to a referendum on co-governance – but maybe it was too late for the capital’s morning newspaper

The Stuff team didn’t bring out the big headline type to report on a party political commitment of profound importance to anyone who cares about how and by whom we are governed. That – of course – should be everyone.

Stuff didn’t mention this commitment in the Dominion-Post (flagship of the Stuff fleet) – at least, Point of Order failed to find an account of it in our copy this morning, but maybe it was tucked away somewhere between some ads.  Or maybe the press release around 7:09 last night was too late.

An online Stuff report did report it but its headline brought the Maori Party’s highly predictable response into the reckoning:  New ACT Party policy branded ‘divisive’ and ‘bigoted’ by Māori Party

The online report opened:

A new ACT Party policy calling for “a referendum on co-governance” has been branded “divisive”, “bigoted” and “appealing to racists” by the Māori Party.

Thus the emphasis was heaped not on ACT’s announcement of a commitment to strengthening our democracy and to enabling voters to determine how we are governed.

Stuff opted, rather, to highlight the hostile position of a party whose leadership does not enthusiastically champion democracy.  

According to Newshub, Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi has declared:

“We need to start looking at how Maori can participate more equally and equitably in that particular space in a tiriti-centric Aotearoa. Not in a democracy, because… democracy is majority rules, and indigenous peoples – especially Maori at 16 percent of the population in this country – will lose out, and we’ll sit in second-place again.”