Constitutional Reform

In a recent Listener article Tim Watkin has done a good, thoughtful job of explaining the need for constitutional reform. It’s a shame that so many other New Zealanders find the subject too boring to think about, or else take the complacent ‘if ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ approach. Worse still, MPs are clearly too scared to tackle the problem, and produced a very lame reporton the matter. I think we need more debate about this.
I disagree with Watkin in his assumption that the Treaty is an essential part of any future constitution. The Treaty is a poorly drafted and ambiguous document, and some of its wording is now simply irrelevant (‘British subjects’? The Crown’s ‘exclusive right of Preemtion’ in land transactions?). It has become a source of division, rather than unity; and its two versions appear to mean quite different things.
Certainly, it does have an historical constitutional role, in that it signifies the formation of the British colonial government here, and it purported (at very least) to protect Maori property rights. So, a constitution may note the historical place of the Treaty. But surely we could come up with wording that would better reflect the future status of sovereignty and indigenous peoples’ rights than what the Treaty offers us. We need to think creatively about this, and not just assume that the Treaty has an unquestionable place as some kind of constitutional bedrock.
Naturally, the status of the Treaty will become one of the biggest debating points in any future constitutional reform process. But, the place of the British monarch as head of state, and the possible powers of any new head of state, are equally significant and emotive issues for us. I think it’s time we ordinary New Zealanders took the lead over politicians and began this debate.