NZHistory, New Zealand history online - dominion day

Dominion status symposium, 2007

Dominion Day, 2007

To mark the centenary of New Zealand's adoption of dominion status, a symposium was held at the Legislative Council Chamber, Parliament Buildings, on Dominion Day, 26 September 2007. A range of speakers discussed concepts of nationhood, how New Zealanders have represented these ideas, how they have changed over time, different approaches to nationhood, and possible future developments.

The symposium was hosted by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who opened proceedings and chaired the keynote address. The Prime Minister also hosted an official reception that followed immediately after the symposium.

The sessions were recorded by Radio New Zealand and will be available on their website. The speakers' abstracts and links to the full papers are provided below.

Abstracts

James Belich ‘Globalisation and the nation’

After considering questions of definition, this paper asks how much space the twin spectres of globalisation and the nation have left for each other in New Zealand historiography and history. Speculation about the future follows discussion of the interaction between earlier New Zealand trans-national and national identities.

Professor Belich (History, University of Auckland) is a graduate of Victoria University of Wellington and Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He has published widely on New Zealand history and its place in the British Empire, including The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict (1986) which was the basis for a television documentary series. He is the author of a two-volume history of New Zealand: Making Peoples: A history of the New Zealanders from Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century (1996), and Paradise Reforged: A History of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the Year 2000 (2001).

Professor Giselle Byrnes ‘Rethinking national identity in New Zealand’s history’

This paper argues for a revision of the concept of national identity in rethinking New Zealand’s history. It asks: What is the relationship between history and national identity? How has the concept been employed in the past? And what are the implications for citizens of the early 21st century New Zealand ‘nation-state’? The paper challenges the implicit homogeneity contained in the idea of ‘ New Zealand identity’. It plays with the suggestion that national identity is an artificial ideal, a rhetorical device which legitimises continuing ‘cultural colonisation’.

The paper also considers how the relationship between history and national identity is complicated in Aotearoa New Zealand by the rhetoric of biculturalism, claims for Maori self-determination, the intervention of post-colonial perspectives, and the reality of transnationalism. It questions whether national identity still offers a useful way to explain our past. New historical scholarship is fracturing the dominance of national identity narratives in this country; there are many alternative ways to frame New Zealand’s past.

Professor Byrnes has recently been appointed Professor of History at the University of Waikato. She is editing the New Oxford History of New Zealand, a revisionist national history with 28 authors which offers alternative ways to understand and explain New Zealand history. In particular, it critiques the idea of national identity in the New Zealand context. Her research expertise is in the fields of cultural interaction and colonial history and most recent book is The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History (2004).

See transcript of Giselle Byrnes' presentation. (pdf)

Colin James ‘Resetting and settling the settler society’

A settler society takes many generations to settle, to secure legitimacy in its displaced place. It must reset its coordinates. It must leave the empire. It must establish unquestioned dominance over any previous occupant or negotiate joint occupancy. It must discover and delight in a distinct voice, make and live a new culture and create symbols to mark the transition from settler to settled. It must re-link with the ancestral society as a distinct equal but also learn to own and integrate its ancestral heritage. Its members’ cultural attachment to it must become so deep that it persists despite immigration and becomes embedded in the subconscious of the descendants of the immigrants. Since 1907 many of the coordinates have been reset. New Zealand’s settler society of the original Dominion Day has moved a long way down the path towards a settled Aotearoa. But securing legitimacy in and an enduring cultural attachment to this place may take much of the next 100 years.

Colin James is a political journalist and commentator who writes a weekly column in the New Zealand Herald and a monthly column in Management magazine. He analyses the policy environment and runs a forecasting service, the Hugo Group. He has written six books and a guide to journalists covering elections, and has contributed papers to seminars in New Zealand, Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom. He has held several university fellowships, including the J.D. Stout Research Fellowship at Victoria University of Wellington (1991) and was the inaugural New Zealand Fellow at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the University of Melbourne (1993).

See transcript of Colin's presentation (pdf)
Hear this presentation (Radio NZ)

Dr Andrew Ladley (and Elinor Chisholm) ‘Who cut the apron strings - and when? Adopting the Statute of Westminster in New Zealand in 1947’

New Zealand’s ‘progressive independence’ from the United Kingdom can be seen as a process with a number of key steps between its formal foundation in 1840 and the Constitution Act 1986 (NZ). For most of the dominions, the Statute of Westminster 1931 ( UK) was central to this process. The Statute was intended to clarify the status of dominion law as equal to UK law, and also to enact the convention that the UK Parliament would not legislate for a dominion without its express request and consent.

New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 and was the last of the dominions to do so. Why did it take so long? The conventional reason is ‘reluctance to cut the apron strings’. There is some support for this of course. Before 1931 Wellington did not want to change the constitutional arrangements and specifically asked to be left out entirely from the Statute. The United Kingdom government apparently misunderstood this request and included New Zealand in most of the ambit of the Statute. Anger in Wellington at what was seen as a fundamental breach of the convention was hushed up at the request of the UK government. A legal mess had resulted, which could only be corrected by further British legislation. In Wellington, the early reluctance to adopt the Statute had meanwhile changed to wanting this to be done as soon as possible. But it took until 1947 to get everything organised. So, the ‘reluctance to cut the apron strings’ explanation is only half accurate — the real story is much more complicated and interesting.

Dr Ladley is the Director of the Institute of Policy Studies in the School of Government at Victoria University of Wellington. He has been a constitutional and international lawyer at Victoria since 1987, with interruptions working abroad for the United Nations and Commonwealth, and in the Beehive as an adviser. His research focus on constitutions and state-building reflects his background and experience working with the United Nations, Amnesty International and other organisations in a number of areas of conflict. For his work in East Timor, Andrew was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Elinor Chisholm graduated in Political Science with Honours from Victoria University. She is presently a Commonwealth Scholar undertaking her Masters in Latin American Studies at the University of Cambridge.

Professor Ngatata Love ‘Maori approaches to nationhood’

Maori recognised the wisdom of not giving in to pressure to join the Australian Federation, and supported the New Zealand government’s decision to accept the dominion status that was proclaimed on 26 September 1907.

Maori have consistently recognised their place as tangata whenua, as tribal entities, and as partners with the Crown through their commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed in good faith in 1840. Through the decades Maori have striven to be part of the nation while retaining their rights as a people committed to nationhood in terms of the 1840 Treaty.

Since 1907 Maori have volunteered for service in two world wars and other conflicts, and lived with the consequences of radical economic change. Maori culture and values have remained strong despite disruptions caused by rapid urbanisation.

The Maori view of nationhood has evolved over the decades through increased understanding of the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in the nation’s life. Maori commitment to New Zealand sports teams and cultural endeavours has been unstinting.

The future holds many challenges for Maori, as it does for all New Zealanders. The place of Maori in our nation will continue to depend on how these challenges are responded to.

Professor Love (Te Atiawa, Taranaki, Ngati Ruanui, Ngati Tama) is Professor of Management at Victoria University of Wellington and Emeritus Professor, Massey University. He was formerly Chief Executive, Ministry of Maori Development (Te Puni Kokiri) (1995–2000). He serves on numerous community and commercial committees and groups, and chairs the Wellington Tenths Maori Land Trust, Palmerston North Maori Reserve Lands Trust, and Port Nicholson Block Mandated Representative Team. He is a trustee of Te Tatau o Te Po Marae and a director of New Zealand Post Ltd. He holds a QSO.

Hear Ngatata Love's presentation (Radio NZ)

Emeritus Professor David McIntyre ‘The development and significance of dominion status’

The anniversaries of 2007 — the centennial of Dominion Day, 26 September; the diamond jubilee of the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, 25 November; and the coming-of-age of the Constitution Act 1986, 13 December — provide an opportunity to review the achievement and nature of New Zealand’s independence.

Dominion Day was hailed at the time as our Fourth of July. Dominion status was our path to independence, a route trod by an elite group of some ‘restless’ and some ‘well-behaved’ British offspring. It was Sir Joseph Ward who suggested that colonies with responsible government should be designated by a separate title. In 1907, to be a ‘Dominion’ was to be politically independent. Independence in world affairs began in 1912 with separate representation at international conferences. It was confirmed in 1919 by W.F. Massey’s signature on the Treaty of Versailles, which included the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Constitutional independence was discussed from 1917. Massey believed in partnership, ‘with all that the name implies’. The ‘status formula’ of 1926 recorded that Britain and the dominions were equal in status and freely associated. The Statute of Westminster of 1931 gave legal expression to the formula, with the Crown as the symbol of free association. The New Zealand government of the day professed itself uninterested in such niceties, but from the mid-1930s New Zealand operated within the spirit of the Statute. This was formally adopted in 1947 but, as part of New Zealand law, the Statute, like the title ‘Dominion’, was to last just 39 years.

Professor McIntyre (Research Associate, Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury) was Professor of History at the University of Canterbury from 1966 until 1998. He has written 15 books on Commonwealth and New Zealand history, most recently Dominion of New Zealand: Statesmen and Status, 1907 to 1945 (2007). He has served on a number of academic and other committees, and in 2006–07 was Consultant to the Commonwealth Committee of Membership.

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer ‘Symbols of nationhood’

This paper will explore the important functions that symbols perform in our nation. Their contribution to a sense of national unity and purpose, and to good government, will be analysed. Their constitutional aspects will be discussed. An attempt will be made to identify New Zealand’s symbols of nationhood and government. These will be examined from the point of view of the contribution they have made or can make to our national life. Some attention will be paid to how these symbols have changed over the years.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer has degrees from Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Chicago, from which he graduated LLD cum laude in 1967. The Member of Parliament for Christchurch Central from 1979 to 1990, he became Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, and (in 1989–90) Prime Minister. Both before and after his political career he was Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Iowa. He was a founding partner of Chen, Palmer & Partners. In 2005 he became President of the Law Commission. His many publications on legal and constitutional matters include Unbridled Power: An Interpretation of New Zealand’s Constitution and Government (1979, 1987).

See transcript of Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer's presentation (pdf)

Alison Quentin-Baxter ‘Building on the past and looking at the future’

In hindsight, the constitutional recognition of New Zealand’s exclusive power to make its own laws seems inevitable, once it had been given representative and responsible government. By 1947, we had quietly abandoned the title ‘Dominion’, with its suggestion of submission to British authority. Our independence was demonstrated by our separate New Zealand citizenship, the divisibility of the Crown, and the New Zealand government’s succession to British treaties, including the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1983, the Queen confirmed her delegation to the Governor-General of full executive authority. The duty to act on the advice of ministers is left to constitutional convention.

Since 1947, Parliament has used its plenary law-making power to make some real constitutional changes. In 1950, it abolished the Legislative Council, removing at least a theoretical check on legislation. But in 1956, some sections of the Electoral Act were made harder to change than the ordinary law. While Parliament was no real check on an executive with majority support, the appointment of an Ombudsman, an enhanced right to judicial review, an Official Information Act, and more vigorous standing select committees all had some effect. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was a significant reform, though Parliament shied away from giving the Bill of Rights the force of supreme law. Our own Supreme Court replaced the Privy Council as our final court. Our mixed member system of proportional representation has led to the emergence of minority governments. The conventions governing their formation and survival are still evolving.The constitutional issues ahead look just as challenging.

Alison Quentin-Baxteris a Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand who specialises in constitutional and international law. She graduated LLB from Auckland University College in 1952, began her career in the Department of External Affairs, and was a Lecturer in Law at Victoria University of Wellington (1967–9), and Director of the Law Commission (1987–94). Her consultancy work has included the review of the 1917 Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor-General, and assisting the constitutional development of various Pacific and South Atlantic islands. She was awarded the QSO (1993), LLD ( Honoris Causa, Victoria University of Wellington, 2003) and the DCNZM (2007).

hear and read transcript of ‘Building on the past and looking at the future’

Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal ‘Some speculations on M ā ori identity in the New Zealand of tomorrow’

Questions of identity lie at the heart of every human society and culture. Who are we? Where are we? What is our purpose? The answers to these questions are gloriously diverse. Matters of identity underlie how economies work, how culture is expressed, even how health is achieved. This paper asks whether the identity terms ‘Māori’ and ‘Pākehā’ have become obsolete.

These terms (and the powerful organising ideas associated with them) were primarily constructed through colonisation, and inevitably evoke contests of ethnicity and culture. As Edward Said put it, in reference to the 'West' and ‘Islam', identity terms operate as ‘reductive formulae’ – blunt instruments which undermine diversity. Neither term suggests a worldview, a set of values or modes of experience. They simply say that this group of people are called ‘Māori’ and that group are called ‘Pākehā’.

This paper argues the need for a new language of identity. This should be consciously attuned to the increasing diversity of our society, embracing distinctiveness whilst enabling a meaningful contribution to a larger whole. It does not advocate that Māori abandon the important values which distinguish a ‘tangata whenua’ worldview. Rather, it suggests developing a new kind of identity language in which to express that worldview in an increasingly diverse world.

For the past century and more, Māori communities have been dominated by paradigms of social justice and cultural revitalisation. Whilst these remain important, the concept of ‘creative potential’ is emerging as a mechanism for achieving these goals. The new language of identity will give expression to this new paradigm.

Dr Charles Royal (Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Tamaterā and Ngā Puhi) is a composer, writer, and researcher of traditional Māori knowledge (mātauranga Māori). He was Director of Graduate Studies and Research at Te Wānanga-o-Raukawa, Ōtaki (1996–2002), and Kaihautū of a Māori language graduate programme in mātauranga Māori, researching theories of knowledge and worldviews. He has written and/or edited five books. In 2001, as New Zealand Senior Fulbright Scholar, he researched indigenous worldviews in North America. In 2004, he held a research residency at the Rockefeller Foundation Study and Conference Center, Bellagio, Italy.

A transcript of this paper can be found at www.charles-royal.com

Alison Quentin-Baxter Dominion symposium speech

'Building on the Past and Looking at the Future' by Alison Quentin-Baxter DCNZM, Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand. Speech for Dominion Status Symposium, Legislative Council Chamber, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, 26 September 2007.

Transcript

INTRODUCTION

My name is Alison Quentin-Baxter. I want to pick up where David McIntyre and Andrew Ladley left off, and carry forward the story of our nationhood after 1947.

Looking at what we have done over the last 50 years to develop our constitution and our national identity, I see three themes. One is how we perfected our constitutional independence. Another is how we control the power of our Government and Parliament. The third is how we see ourselves as a nation, and embody that vision in our constitutional arrangements. I shall try to trace those interwoven threads

Then I shall draw on what has gone before, and make some predictions and suggestions about what our constitutional future might hold.

PERFECTING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE

After the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, and the passing of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1947, we still had quite a lot of tidying up to do, in order to perfect our constitutional independence.

Abandoning the title “Dominion”

Even before 1947, New Zealand, along with the other independent members of the Commonwealth, no longer called itself a “Dominion”. The name had fallen out of favour, as suggesting some remaining subjection to the United Kingdom.

Clarifying the power to make laws

In 1973, because of a court decision that in my view had got it wrong, we had to amend the 1852 Constitution Act again, to make it clear that Parliament already had the power to make laws on any subject. That statement was reiterated in the new Constitution Act of 1986.

The divisibility of the Crown

We also had to work through the implications of the fact that, as soon as the Sovereign began to be separately advised by ministers in each of the self-governing colonies, later the Dominions, the Crown had in reality become divisible. As a legal person the Sovereign needs to be treated differently in the law of each Commonwealth monarchy.

After 1950, when the Republic of India became a member of the Commonwealth, there was agreement that the Queen should be recognized as the Head of the Commonwealth. Otherwise each Commonwealth monarchy would give her its own Royal Style and Titles.

In 1953, we described Queen Elizabeth II as “… Queen of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories …”.

Since 1974 we have described Her Majesty simply as “… Queen of New Zealand, and Her other Realms and Territories …”. The United Kingdom figures only as one of the Queen’s “other Realms”.

Revision of the Letters Patent constituting the Office of Governor-General

We also had to revise the 1917 Letters Patent constituting the Office of Governor-General. Under our constitution the executive authority of New Zealand – that is the power to govern – is vested in the Crown in right of New Zealand.

The 1983 Letters Patent make it clear that the Sovereign has delegated the whole of the executive authority to the Governor-General. The new document is also brought up to date in other ways. It does not, however, attempt to codify the constitutional conventions about the need for the Governor-General to act on the advice of his or her ministers, except when it is necessary to appoint a ministry or perhaps dismiss one.

Our own New Zealand citizenship

In 1949 we ceased to be British subjects, a status we had acquired because we had been born within the allegiance of the Crown. Instead we became New Zealand citizens under a statutory scheme enacted by our own Parliament.

Abolition of appeals to the Privy Council

Most recently of all, in 2004, we repealed the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, formerly our highest court, and substituted a right of appeal to a new New Zealand Supreme Court. That is now our highest court.

The consequences of these developments

All but the last of these developments passed virtually unnoticed. That was because they really were of a tidying-up nature. The abolition of appeals to the Privy Council was substantive, and also controversial. Some people were genuinely worried about whether, within New Zealand, it would be possible to find enough high quality judges to sit in our own highest court. Many Maori had other priorities. Those opposed to the legislation called unsuccessfully for a referendum. In Parliament, the voting was on strict party lines. But that seemed to be more a reflection of the overall political situation than of real concern about what Parliament was doing and how it was doing it.

The Sovereign’s role as Queen of New Zealand, and as such our Head of State, is our only remaining constitutional link with the United Kingdom. That link does not, of course, give the United Kingdom Government or Parliament any role in respect of New Zealand.

WHAT WE DID TO CONTROL OUR PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT

My second theme is the things we did to control our Parliament and Government. They take two forms. Some focus on the content of the laws that Parliament makes. Others help us to find out what Ministers and officials are really doing, and then to hold them to account. One, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, does both.

Constraints on the content of the law

Abolition of the Legislative Council

One of the first things Parliament did, after 1947, in exercise of its newly-acquired power to amend the 1852 Constitution Act, was to abolish the Legislative Council, in 1950.

Theoretically the Council’s job was to check any excesses of the popularly elected House of Representatives. As a body whose members were appointed by the Government of the day, it was not able to do that job well. Unless a second chamber represents a different constituency, as it does in a federal State, it is seldom an effective check.

Amending the Electoral Act

In 1956 Parliament decided to put the constitutional aspects of our electoral system beyond the risk of alteration by a majority. In the past there had been some manipulation for party political advantage. Now any change needs either a 75% majority in Parliament or approval by a majority of the voters in a referendum.

Obtaining official information.
One difficulty in holding a government to account is how do we find out what ministers and officials are actually doing? They, themselves, always hope that information which is likely to embarrass them will not come to light. Two New Zealand developments have significantly improved the amount of official information in the public domain

The Official Information Act 1982

First, in 1982, Parliament repealed our Official Secrets Act and passed an Official Information Act. The philosophy of the new Act was the exact opposite of the legislation it replaced. Information must be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it for one of the reasons expressly set out in the Act.

Public Interest Immunity

Second, our courts have narrowed down the scope for the Crown to withhold documents from litigants on the ground of public interest immunity. That rule of law will not be allowed to prevent a litigant from getting at the truth unless there are clear and convincing reasons.

Holding ministers and officials accountable

Once we have found out what is going on, the next question is how can we influence the policies and legislative proposals of the government or call in question the decisions of ministers and officials? Parliament took several initiatives to improve or build on the arrangements that had traditionally been available for those purposes.

Judicial review

In 1972 it enacted a new, single procedure for the judicial review of the exercise of a statutory power. Citizens seeking justice no longer have to face unnecessary procedural hurdles. As a remedy judicial review is concerned with the legality of a decision rather than its merits, but it can be a powerful tool.

The Ombudsmen

In 1975 Parliament created a new officer of Parliament called the Ombudsman, the first to be appointed outside Scandinavia. Ombudsmen have the discretion to investigate, and recommend a remedy for, any matter of administration on a wide range of grounds, including simply that the action complained of is wrong.

Parliamentary select committees

Questions in Parliament and formal debates are rather structured and politicised procedures for examining the policies and legislative proposals of the government. To a large extent the task of monitoring the executive has now passed to select committees.

Since 1979, all Bills, except money Bills or Bills to which the House has accorded urgency, must be referred to a select committee. Select committees also have a wide range of other investigatory powers.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

In 1985 a Government White Paper put forward a proposal for a New Zealand Bill of Rights that would control the powers and actions of the legislature as well as the executive. It proposed that, once enacted, the Bill of Rights should be supreme law. Otherwise it could be cut down or modified by any inconsistent legislation.

The White Paper was referred to the Justice and Law Reform Committee. The key finding in the Committee’s Final Report of 1988 is worth quoting:
A large majority of the submissions did not favour this type of approach at all. The power given to the judiciary by the White Paper draft was the principal reason for opposition … . The main thrust of that argument concerned the redistribution of power this was thought to entail from elected representatives of the people … to the judiciary… .
The Committee considers that there is a limited public understanding of, and support for, the role of the judiciary under a bill of rights. In countries which do have a bill of rights, the judiciary does not usually see it as their function to thwart the wishes of the elected representatives by striking down legislation without a very good reason. In fact, they rarely exercise the power. Nonetheless, the Committee has concluded that New Zealand is not yet ready, if it ever will be, for a fully fledged bill of rights along the lines of the White Paper draft.

The Committee therefore recommended the introduction of a Bill of Rights as an ordinary statute.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 does not empower the courts to strike down legislation on the ground that it conflicts with the Bill of Rights. Even so, it was a major addition to the machinery for securing compliance with civil and political rights that have long been recognised in our own law and internationally.

The effect of these developments

These various developments opened up New Zealand’s governmental and legislative processes to the scrutiny of its citizens. They now have better opportunities to influence government policy, better standards by which to evaluate it, and better access to remedies for wrongs done to them by the State or its agencies. The process of enacting some of the legislation revealed public perceptions about the roles of Parliament and of the courts. These have implications for the nature of our constitutional arrangements in the future.

HOW WE SEE OURSELVES AS A NATION

My third theme is how we see ourselves as a nation and the effect that has had on our constitutional arrangements.

The introduction of MMP

My first topic is our mixed member system of proportional representation – MMP. The MMP electoral system was recommended by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in December 1986. The Commission’s terms of reference had included the question “How should voting support for candidates, parties and groups in the community be translated into the election of members of Parliament and the establishment of governments?”

The Commission examined the working of the existing plurality system, known as “first past the post” – FPP. It found that FPP had some positive aspects but also serious weaknesses. As an alternative to FPP the Commission recommended the MMP voting system. That system produced proportional representation nationally while still dividing New Zealand into the requisite number of single-member territorial constituencies.

The new system was adopted after an indicative referendum in 1992, in which a large majority of electors, 85%, voted for change to a new electoral system. The MMP system was preferred to the other systems on offer. Then, in 1993 there was a further referendum in which a majority voted for the MMP system instead of choosing to retain the FPP system. MMP has been used at all general elections since 1996.

The move to that system has had consequences for our constitutional arrangements. In particular, new constitutional conventions about the formation and survival of a government are still evolving. The political accommodations required in order to form and maintain stable government need to be found by the political parties themselves. Under our constitution the Governor-General must not be left without responsible advisers. His or her role is to give the political leaders any encouragement they may need in agreeing on how they will meet that constitutional imperative.

More generally, Members of Parliament have become much more representative of the community they serve. A higher proportion of members are women, though still less than 50%. The number of Maori MPs is roughly in proportion to the number of Maori in the population. Several MPs come from ethnic groups that, previously, were not represented at all or not in proportion to their population share.

The place of Maori in our Constitution.

The Treaty of Waitangi

On 6 February 1840, at Waitangi, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom and Ireland, entered into a Treaty with the Maori Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand. The Government of New Zealand – often referred to in this context as “the Crown”, is now the successor to the rights and obligations of Her Majesty.

Differences between the Maori and English texts, as well as differences in the experience and expectations of the parties, have led to differences in the understanding of each party about what the Treaty of Waitangi meant at the time of its signing and has come to mean subsequently.

For a long time the Treaty seemed to have become a document of purely historical interest, at least in the minds of non-Maori New Zealanders. But in the last three decades it has become increasingly influential although the debate about its present-day relevance goes on. Nowadays, the Treaty is often described as New Zealand’s founding document. At the least, that acknowledges the place in our national community of Maori tribes and subtribes – Iwi and Hapu.

Some more recent Acts and cases give us an impression of the place that Maori occupy today in our constitutional arrangements.

The Waitangi Tribunal

The Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975 set up the Waitangi Tribunal. It was given jurisdiction to consider claims that current or projected legislation, policies or actions are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty. It may make recommendations to the Crown on remedial measures. In 1985 the jurisdiction of the tribunal was widened to include “historic claims”, that is claims going back to the date of the Treaty, 6 February 1840, even if the measures concerned are no longer in force.

The State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 and similar legislation

Another Parliamentary initiative, taken for quite specific and benevolent reasons, was to include in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 the following provision: “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Similar provisions were subsequently put into other legislation.

The landmark decision on what the “principles of the Treaty” require is New Zealand Maori Council v The Crown ([1987] 1 NZLR 641). The Court of Appeal held that the Treaty establishes a partnership between Maori and the Crown. The Treaty partners have a duty to act reasonably towards one another and in the utmost good faith.

The constitutional recognition of Maori as a group or groups

Gradually the decisions of the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts, coupled with the settlement of a number of historic claims, were beginning to give Maori some confidence that a place in our constitution for the recognition of their identity as a distinct group or groups was slowly being carved out. But there was also a political backlash, among those who sighed after the assimilationist policies of the 1950s and 60s.

The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004

Then, in 2002, a bombshell was dropped when the Court of Appeal in The Attorney-General v Ngati Apa ([2003] 3 NZLR 643) unanimously held, contrary to previous understanding, that such customary rights as Maori may possess in the foreshore and seabed have not been extinguished. There was a panicky reaction that the public might no longer have a right of access to the beaches. The Government quickly announced that it would overturn the decision by legislation. Many Maori were outraged. Large-scale but peaceful protests were organised.

After a process involving rather rushed consultations, Parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The Act vests the foreshore and seabed in the Crown but preserves a limited right for Maori to pursue customary rights claims through the courts. If the court finds in favour of the applicant group any redress must be negotiated between it and the Crown. Apparently that compares quite well with what has been done about indigenous rights in the foreshore and seabed in other jurisdictions, but that may not be saying much.

My main concern is with the process that was followed. The Government set a strict timetable for the enactment of the legislation. Because of that, and the highly-charged atmosphere, it cannot be said that the Foreshore and Seabed Act was broadly acceptable to most Maori, as well as to the community as a whole. Some Maori formed a new political party with a platform of repealing the 2004 Act. Thanks to MMP it is now represented in Parliament.

Maori representation in Parliament

That brings me to another strand of our constitutional arrangements as they affect Maori. In 1867 Parliament, again for specific and benevolent reasons, had provided that four members of the House of Representatives should be elected by Maori males. Except for a brief period in 1975, the number remained at 4, despite the increasing number of electors on the Maori roll.

The Royal Commission on the Electoral System concluded that the Maori seats had gone some way towards providing for the effective political representation of Maori interests. But they did not ensure that Maori electors had an effective voice, or that all MPs were, in some degree, dependent on their support. It recommended MMP as the best system for those purposes, with or without the Maori seats.

In 1993 Parliament decided that the Maori seats should be retained, along with the “Maori option” introduced in 1975 to permit all persons of Maori descent to choose, after every census, whether to be on the Maori roll or the general roll. The number of Maori electoral districts is now determined on the same population basis as the general electorates. But, unlike other important provisions of the Electoral Act, the existence of the Maori seats is not protected against alteration or repeal by a majority in Parliament.

PEERING INTO THE FUTURE

We arrive at last at my gaze into the crystal ball. I see three issues that we may need to deal with:

One is whether we should become a republic.
Another is whether, and if so how, and for what purposes, we need to give express constitutional recognition to the place of Maori as a distinct group or groups within our community.
The third is whether we should identify the key elements in our constitution and make them supreme law.

I shall say something about each, not as an advocate, but as someone who has tried to think about some of the implications.

Becoming a republic

Any strong impetus for New Zealand to become a republic is likely to be driven by events or our perception of events outside this country – perhaps a move in that direction by our near neighbour, Australia, or perhaps a sense that royalty has lost its charm.

In 1867, Walter Bagehot, the best commentator on the English Constitution in the 19th century, said this:
“[S]ecrecy is … essential to the utility of English royalty as it now is. Above all things, our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it. … Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.” (Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, reprinted by Collins, The Fontana Library, Farnhill, 1965, p 100.)
Well, we have let in daylight. It remains to be seen whether New Zealanders as a whole will someday decide that the magic has gone and care about that enough to want New Zealand to become a republic.

If so, it would not, as some have suggested, just be a matter of going through the statute book, deleting “Queen” and “Governor-General”, and substituting “President”. We would have to decide how we should choose a President and what powers the President should have.

Even if they are the powers the Governor-General has now, I am not sure that it is realistic to vest the executive authority of New Zealand in a President, and then require the President to act on the advice of ministers, on all but the rare occasions when there is doubt about who those ministers are. The concept of acting on advice seems to me difficult to transplant to a republican setting, especially if the President were to be popularly elected. So if we are interested in becoming a republic we would need to think out the details of how that would work in practice.

The constitutional recognition of Maori as a distinct group or groups within our community
For the reasons I have explained the question whether, and if so how, our constitution should recognise Maori as a distinct group or groups within our community is a live issue. I do not think that, with the passage of time, it will simply go away. Nor is the question likely to be answered satisfactorily by the “one law for all” approach at one extreme or at the other extreme by simply making the Treaty of Waitangi part of our law.

It seems more likely that, over a period of time, we will find some New Zealand answers to the questions about the constitutional place of Maori, and do so in a New Zealand way. We will probably need to draw on a range of techniques, including some we are using already. Although the solutions must be our own, we should, however, take account of things that have worked well in other countries where distinct minorities have been fearful that their needs and interests would be swallowed up by those of the majority.
.
The Royal Commission on the Electoral System made a number of useful suggestions about how the Maori desire for a measure of self-determination might be met. But it ruled out a power of veto for any minority group in the legislature of a democratic nation. That, however, is not such a revolutionary idea as it might seem.

Emeritus Professor Arend Lijphart, formerly of the University of California at San Diego, made a study of the constitutional arrangements of Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium. In different parts of those countries the populations are of different descent or speak different languages or have different religions – sometimes all three. Ways have been found of recognising and protecting the special interests of these distinct groups. Professor Lijphart calls the three countries consociational democracies.

The essential elements include

the devolution of decision-making authority to the affected group whenever possible; and
if that is not possible and the group’s vital interests are at stake, there should be strenuous efforts to reach a consensus but, in the absence of a consensus, the group should have the right to veto the decisions of the majority.

These arrangements are seen as legitimate in the three Western European countries mentioned, not in order to separate the various ethnic groups, but to help them live together harmoniously.

Consociation principles have been drawn upon in other multi-ethnic societies. They work best in a country that is relatively sophisticated and committed to its essential unity. I simply want to draw attention to the existence of those principles as a possible ingredient in our distinctively New Zealand mix.

Making our constitution harder to change than the ordinary law

Because aspects of our electoral system had previously been manipulated for party political advantage, Parliament has made some of them harder to change than the ordinary law. Legislation inconsistent with the protected provisions would be unconstitutional though the task of determining unconstitutionality has not yet been given to the courts. The original proposal for a Bill of Rights would have given the courts the power to determine whether Acts of Parliament, as well as the actions of the executive, were consistent with it. But, in that form, it was not then acceptable to the public or Parliament.

In New Zealand the fear of giving undue power to unelected judges has been strong. It seems to be based on two things. First, people do not have a good understanding of the techniques the courts use, in countries where the constitution is supreme law, to deal with legislation that is claimed to be inconsistent with the Constitution. One is by reading down the effect of the legislation so that inconsistency is avoided. But if the courts do hold that all or part of an Act is invalid they try to give the injured party a remedy without inflicting undue hardship or inconvenience on those who have relied on it up to that point.

Second, some people seem to believe that there is a constitutional principle called the sovereignty of Parliament that endows Parliament with the power to make any laws whatsoever and that this power should not – or perhaps cannot – be taken away. That is a mistaken notion. The sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament is a rule of the common law. It simply means that the courts will regard as law any document that, on its face, is an Act of Parliament, made in the required manner and form. The sovereignty of Parliament has no bearing on the question whether Parliament should enact a law by a simple majority, some greater majority, or after some other procedure that measures the extent of public support.

The idea of a Constitution that is supreme law is not unusual or unorthodox. Parliament did not hesitate to enact such Constitutions for the Cook Islands and Niue, New Zealand’s two self-governing, associated States, though those Constitutions came into force only when they had been approved by the local voters. Whether or not the people of New Zealand, too, should give themselves a Constitution that is supreme law is for them to decide freely and on the basis of full information. That information would need to include a good understanding of how our constitutional arrangements work now.

Reddit Twitter Facebook Google StumbleUpon

Dominion Day, 2007

A feature of the centenary celebrations of New Zealand's adoption of dominion status was the illumination of the Parliamentary Library. In 1907 Parliament Buildings had been illuminated with lights spelling out the words ‘Advance New Zealand’. For the centenary in 2007, the arches and roofline of the Library were illuminated on the evenings of 25 and 26 September. This was the first such illumination since 1937.

Credit:

Ministry for Culture and Heritage

Reddit Twitter Facebook Google StumbleUpon

tags:

anniversaries

parliament buildings

dominion day

Dominion status film

This clip tells the story of New Zealand's adoption of dominion status in 1907. It contains images and sound (through the voice of an actor) of Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward reading the proclamation on 26 September that year and film of Dominion Day celebrations outside Parliament and at Newtown Park in Wellington, taken in 1907 or 1908.

Transcript

Narrator: Sir Joseph Ward went to the Imperial Conference in 1907, and it was decided that the self-governing colonies would be called dominions. Now of course Australia, the Australian colonies had federated, they were called a commonwealth; Canada was called a dominion, but New Zealand was still called a colony, so he thought it was an advance for New Zealand to be called a dominion.

Sir Joseph Ward (actor's voice): 'And the territories belonging thereto shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand.'

Narrator: But when Ward announced it, Massey said the name was pretentious and would make New Zealand ridiculous. I think he meant that it suggested we were as important as Canada. But you could say that that was a step in the direction of independence even if it was in name only.

Film extract from The years back episode 1: the twentieth century, produced by the New Zealand Film Unit, 1973.

Video supplied courtesy of Archives New Zealand. Not to be reproduced without permission of the chief archivist.

Reddit Twitter Facebook Google StumbleUpon

Media Group:

video

NZ history:

Dominion status

Video thumbnail:

tags:

New Zealand in 1907 - Dominion status

Just under a million people lived in New Zealand in 1907, but cities such as Auckland and Wellington were growing rapidly. Suburbs were expanding, and electric trams, motor cars and cinemas were multiplying. Distinctive cultural and intellectual traditions were developing. Locally composed classical music was played at the Christchurch Exhibition of 1906/07. Novels and poetry about ‘Maoriland’ were enormously popular.

Maori remained a largely rural people, but, after decades of population decline, their numbers were rising. The term ‘Young Maori Party’ denoted a new generation of leaders, such as Apirana Ngata, who would make an enormous impact on the country.

Britain was still the main source of migrants. By 1907, most people living here had been born in New Zealand. Ties to the British Empire and Anglo-Saxon racial identity were strong. Through the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori too claimed a special relationship with the British Crown. It became increasingly difficult for non-white people to settle here.

The Liberal government, now led by Joseph Ward, had dominated the political scene since the 1890s. It promoted New Zealand as the world’s social laboratory, a ‘workingman’s paradise’ where hard work and thrift paid off. Reality did not always match rhetoric. The country was reasonably prosperous, but wealth trickled down haphazardly. The white-collar sector was growing, and more women were moving into paid work (before marriage, at least), but life could be precarious for the old, the sick, Maori, and the many who relied on seasonal work.

Transport and communication links were expanding. In 1907 the North Island main trunk railway line was nearing completion after more than two decades of construction; it would open in late 1908. The Union Steam Ship Company introduced the modern steamer Maori on the Wellington–Lyttelton route in 1907. The number of telephone subscribers rose by more than one-third in 1907 alone.

Extractive industries – timber, coal, gold, flax and kauri gum – remained important, but the agricultural economy was thriving. Britain absorbed most of New Zealand’s production, which centred on the processing and export of frozen meat and dairy products.

The adoption of dominion status was just one of many significant events in 1907. The Plunket Society came into being that year, heralding further improvement in child health. Two of the country’s best-loved publications, the Edmonds cookery book and the School Journal, appeared for the first time. The first issue of Wellington’s Dominion newspaper was published on 26 September. Cricket’s interprovincial Plunket Shield was first contested in the summer of 1906/07. Women’s basketball (netball) arrived in the country, and the first New Zealand rugby league team toured overseas. The first New Zealand Open golf championship was held, and in tennis, Anthony Wilding and his Australian partner defeated the mother country to win the Davis Cup for ‘Australasia’.

Classroom ideas - Dominion status

This page gives a broad outline of how the feature on New Zealand being granted dominion status could be used by teachers and students of social studies and history.

Dominion status

On 26 September 1907 the colony of New Zealand ceased to exist. New Zealand became a dominion within the British Empire. Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward read the proclamation of dominion status from the steps of Parliament, and he marked an important symbolic shift in New Zealand’s perceptions of nationhood. However, the shift from colony to dominion was a change of name only. It had no practical effect. New Zealand was no more and no less independent from Britain than it had been before.

Richard Long, writing in the Dominion Post on 25 September 2007, argued that Dominion Day 'would be a whole lot better as a national day than continuing with the ever-divisive Waitangi Day'.

This feature is of great value to teachers and students working at various levels who are exploring themes associated with the growth of New Zealand identity.

Social studies

Many junior social studies classes explore the theme of New Zealand identity. The focus of these studies is often what it means to be a New Zealander or symbols of identity, for example, Kiwiana. What is not so obviously addressed are some of the important political and constitutional issues that have shaped our identity as a unique nation. This might be touched on when the Treaty of Waitangi is studied, but these can be somewhat daunting concepts to tackle with younger students. This feature will help teachers come to grips with some constitutional issues relating to New Zealand’s political development as a nation. With careful use, this feature could be used by teachers at Levels 4 and 5 to follow on from a study of the Treaty of Waitangi by examining the transition from colonial to dominion status. Some key questions to consider include:

Did Dominion status result in New Zealand asserting its own identity as a nation? Did anything really change?
How was New Zealand society as a whole shaped by this event?
How did New Zealanders react, individually and collectively, to dominion status?
Does Richard Long have a point when he suggests Dominion Day should replace Waitangi Day as our national day?

NCEA Level 2 history

The 'Growth of New Zealand identity 1890–1980' is one topic offered under the heading of the theme, 'Imperialism, indigenous peoples and the emergence of new nations'.

When Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward read the proclamation of dominion status from the steps of Parliament on 26 September 1907, he marked an important symbolic shift in New Zealand’s perceptions of nationhood. This would, he hoped, remind the world that New Zealand was an important player in its own right. The Evening Post reported on the first Dominion Day that, New Zealand went ‘up one’ in the ‘school of British nations’. ‘Abroad … there is a notion that New Zealand is … merely the little tail of the great dog; but the Prime Minister is determined that the tail is not to be overlooked, nor to be despised in any way.’

This feature provides students with a context to examine the issue of dominion status as part of New Zealand's pathway to independence. To what extent was this merely a change in name and not status? The debate surrounding dominion status could be used to prepare for:

Achievement standard 2.6: Examine individual or group identity in a historical setting, in an essay.

For more detail of specific activities relating to this topic go to Dominion status activities – NCEA Level 2 history.

Dominion status Gazette notice, 1907

The proclamation on 26 September 1907 announces the 'Colony of New Zealand to be styled Dominion of New Zealand'.

Credit:

New Zealand Gazette

Reddit Twitter Facebook Google StumbleUpon

tags:

joseph ward

dominion day

Government Buildings lit up on Dominion Day

Government Buildings on Lambton Quay, Wellington, are illuminated for Dominion Day (26 September) in 1907.

A large lit-up map of New Zealand is surrounded by the words 'The New Dominion'.

Credit:

Alexander Turnbull Library
Reference: 1/2-080523-F,
Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa must be obtained before any reuse of this image.

Reddit Twitter Facebook Google StumbleUpon

tags:

Dominion status proclamation, 1907

Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward stands on the steps of Parliament Buildings, Wellington, and reads his 'message to the people of New Zealand' at the official ceremony to proclaim New Zealand a dominion on 26 September 1907. The governor, Lord Plunket, stands to the right of Ward.

Credit:

Alexander Turnbull Library
Reference: 1/1-008649-G,
Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa must be obtained before any reuse of this image.

Reddit Twitter Facebook Google StumbleUpon

tags:

joseph ward

dominion day

parliament buildings

Dominion Day celebrations, 1908

This view of the 1908 Dominion Day celebrations at the Basin Reserve, Wellington, shows a crowd of people waving flags, rows of soldiers, and spectators in the foreground.

Dominion Day, held on 26 September, never became an established fixture in the New Zealand holiday calendar. Wellington was one of the few places that kept up ceremonies after 1907.

Credit:

Alexander Turnbull Library
Reference: 1/1-022915-G,
Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa,must be obtained before any reuse of this image.

Reddit Twitter Facebook Google StumbleUpon

tags:

NZHistory, New Zealand history online - dominion day

Dominion status symposium, 2007

Abstracts

James Belich ‘Globalisation and the nation’

Professor Giselle Byrnes ‘Rethinking national identity in New Zealand’s history’

Colin James ‘Resetting and settling the settler society’

Dr Andrew Ladley (and Elinor Chisholm) ‘Who cut the apron strings - and when? Adopting the Statute of Westminster in New Zealand in 1947’

Professor Ngatata Love ‘Maori approaches to nationhood’

Emeritus Professor David McIntyre ‘The development and significance of dominion status’

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer ‘Symbols of nationhood’

Alison Quentin-Baxter ‘Building on the past and looking at the future’

Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal ‘Some speculations on M ā ori identity in the New Zealand of tomorrow’

Alison Quentin-Baxter Dominion symposium speech

Transcript

INTRODUCTION

PERFECTING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE

Abandoning the title “Dominion”

Clarifying the power to make laws

The divisibility of the Crown

Revision of the Letters Patent constituting the Office of Governor-General

Our own New Zealand citizenship

Abolition of appeals to the Privy Council

The consequences of these developments

WHAT WE DID TO CONTROL OUR PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT

Constraints on the content of the law

Holding ministers and officials accountable

The effect of these developments

HOW WE SEE OURSELVES AS A NATION

The introduction of MMP

The place of Maori in our Constitution.

PEERING INTO THE FUTURE

Becoming a republic

Making our constitution harder to change than the ordinary law

Dominion Day, 2007

Dominion status film

Transcript

New Zealand in 1907 - Dominion status

Classroom ideas - Dominion status

Dominion status

Social studies

NCEA Level 2 history

More classroom topics

Dominion status Gazette notice, 1907

Government Buildings lit up on Dominion Day

Dominion status proclamation, 1907

Dominion Day celebrations, 1908