Flawed Constitutional Instincts
In this report card on the current Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key we employ the word "instincts" frequently. Instincts can be salutary where they function as early and leading indicators. But instincts, whilst necessary, are never sufficient. They must be buttressed with principled thought. It is here that one of John Key's biggest flaws becomes apparent. He often betrays a want of fundamental principles to inform clear thinking to support his instincts. The upshot is that he ends up as a milk-toast, weak kneed, unprincipled leader who consistently kow tows to the left or the social progressives (aka, the velvet revolutionaries).
This leads people to sense that there is a shallowness to the current Prime Minister. Some have averred that he trades too much on being a "nice guy". Others have complained that he is a weak and plastic man. Whilst they concede he may well be a nice guy, he is clearly not a leader.
So, his constitutional instincts appear sound. He clearly does not regard government as his own personal fiefdom. He has reversed the previous government's deliberate politicising of the public service--a terrible travesty of the constitution. He has stopped dead in its tracks the revolutionary attempt by the Labour Government to override the neutrality and impartiality of the electoral process, which resulted in never-before-seen curtailments of freedom of political speech. It would be hard to imagine John Key stripping away the Privy Council as the highest court in the land, without careful consideration and a broad political consensus. One has not seen deliberate attempts to stack the judiciary with party activists and flunkies that occurred under Justice Minister, Margaret Wilson. The recovery of a neutral Speaker's Chair in Parliament has been immensely gratifying--and to the good of all.
All these can be cited as evidence of Key's sound constitutional instincts--and this soundness is neither inconsequential nor unimportant. We are very thankful for it. So, a bouquet is arguable.
But Key's instincts do not appear to be buttressed by a grasp of principle. Two examples illustrate what we mean. The first is his willingness to play a condign role in the most radical change in the constitution and the rule of law in this country. We refer, of course, to the claim of co-sovereignty by Maori over the country. This is a radical constitutional claim--and by now the soft-revolution is virtually "all over, Rover".
Key initially took a stance that appeared quite principled. He committed himself and his party to the abolition of Maori seats. That was a sound instinct. But underneath it lay an iceberg of broader constitutional issues to which he appears completely oblivious, or, worse, has decided are relatively unimportant in the bigger scheme of things.
Much has been made about the Treaty of Waitangi. Up until about thirty years ago it was universally held that the Treaty was a "vassal treaty" in which Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown. Now "vassal treaties" or covenants have been around since the beginning of time. But Maori have gradually worked up an argument to re-write history and the exegesis of the Treaty. We believe they have done so dishonestly, using this argument as a pretext for yet more state sanctioned redistribution of others property to Maori.
Maori have argued essentially two things about the Treaty. First, because it was entered into voluntarily and not by subjugation, it can also be exited voluntarily. Like a modern, secular "marriage", whilst the parties freely enter into the arrangement, it can be broken and revoked at by one of the parties at will. Thus, they have argued, Waitangi was not a vassal treaty, and therefore sovereignty by Maori to the Crown was not conceded. It was a Treaty between equals.
Secondly, and following on from this, Maori have argued that they are "Treaty partners" and therefore share co-sovereignty over the nation with the Crown. Just as Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown when they signed the Treaty, the Crown equally ceded its sovereignty to Maori.
It goes without saying that this is a completely radical and revolutionary conception. It is historicism on a grand scale. But, amazingly--and to our everlasting shame as a nation--it has been widely accepted by default. It remains unchallenged and uncontested. It is a radical reshaping of our Constitution. John Key has failed to grasp this.
So, he has approached the whole Maori political movement (as expressed via the organ of the Maori Party), as a negotiation, a deal to be had. Now a deal to be had in politics is one thing. But when it involves a fundamental change in our constitutional fabric, it is something else entirely.
John Key has failed the country badly here. He has been in an ideal position--he has had an opportunity that will possibly never happen again. Upon going into coalition with the Maori Party, he has had the opportunity to concede the abolition of the Maori parliamentary seats for the time being, whilst reiterating constantly the wider constitutional issues and that are at stake. This he has failed to do. The spurious claims of co-sovereignty, withdrawal from the ceding to the Crown, and of "Treaty partner" have to be named and shamed. Key has defalcated on these responsibilities. Once the Maori Party was in the tent he was in a perfect position, privately and publicly, to press the fundamental constitutional issues at stake, and reject the revolutionary historical revisionism which Maori and progressives have been successfully foisting to date upon the country. On all these matters, Key has gone cacophonously silent. One is left wondering whether he really understands the issues at all.
A second example of egregious constitutional failure has been Key's position over the anti-smacking law. He has stubbornly, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, clung to his maxim that he will not support a law amendment unless damage is done to "ordinary" New Zealand families. He has "assured" the country that despite what the Crimes Act now says, he will ensure that the Police will exercise discretion and not apply the law, at least not in the way it is written. This is a totally untenable position from a principled constitutional perspective. It tacitly and implicitly and in principle undermines the rule of law itself.
And why has he done this? We are told that Tariana Turia made a personal appeal to him not to amend the law because of the "message it would send" to Maori about child abuse. No doubt there was other pressure bought to bear upon Key from inside the Beltway as well. But if Key has been willing to set constitutional principles aside for the sake of maintaining "good guy" status with his coalition partners, he has failed in his duty as Prime Minister. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn.
On the matter of fidelity to the constitutional framework of New Zealand's Westminster democracy, we appreciate Key's instincts, but believe him to be way out of his depth. He is perpetuating recent damage, and has been inflicting his own, new harms.
No comments:
Post a Comment