The Demographic and Political Imperatives for Improving Crown-Maori Relations in Aotearoa-New Zealand

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Demographic and Political Imperatives for Improving Crown-Maori Relations in Aotearoa-New Zealand The Demographic and Political Imperatives for Improving Crown-Maori Relations in Aotearoa-New Zealand HARRY A. KERSEY, JR. AsiaPacific ISSUES Analysis from the East-West Center SUMMARY Nearly a decade has passed since the United Nations declared No. 64 November 2002 International Year of the World’s Indigenous People. Yet issues of social and The U.S. Congress established the East-West Center in 1960 to economic marginalization, inequality, cultural survival, and change related to foster mutual understanding and cooperation among the govern- indigenous peoples continue to challenge the global community. In Aotearoa- ments and peoples of the Asia Pacific region, including the United New Zealand the Pakeha (Caucasian) settler population for many decades States. Funding for the Center comes from the U.S. government dominated the political landscape, leaving little voice for the nation’s indige- with additional support provided by private agencies, individuals, nous Maori people struggling for greater rights. Today, however, the growing corporations, and Asian and Pacific governments. Maori population makes New Zealand the only First World country in which The AsiaPacific Issues series contributes to the Center’s role as the indigenous people’s movement for self-determination is sufficiently large a neutral forum for discussion of i issues of regional concern. The to promise the possibility of major societal transformations. Over the past views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those quarter century, regardless of which political party or coalition held power, of the Center. escalating Maori demographic trends and increased political activism have encouraged the Crown to address Maori concerns and grievances.ii Today, with one out of four children under the age of five a Maori, the government has little option but to negotiate with a growing indigenous community. 2 Analysis from the East-West Center The contemporary context of Crown-Maori relations than the European ethnic group and making up an can be understood only against the historical back- increasing share of the total population.”vi Maori are drop of the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding docu- expected to reach nearly one million by 2051 and ment of the contemporary nation of Aotearoa-New constitute 22 percent of the population; along with Zealand. The treaty was translated from English into Pacific Islanders and Asians they will make up ap- the Maori language—its most distinctive feature— proximately 43 percent of New Zealanders by mid- and a number of copies were circulated and signed century. Equally significant is the projection that 68 by more than 500 chiefs.iii Although signatories rep- percent of New Zealand’s children in 2051 will be resented less than a majority of Maori iwi (tribes), in of Maori, Pacific Island, or Asian extraction.vii In May of 1840 the British lieutenant-governor of New the future Maori may well have to compete with a A carefully fostered South Wales, Captain William Hobson, declared Brit- growing non-white immigrant population for scarce appearance of racial ish sovereignty over all of New Zealand.iv Through- resources, but they have learned the value of the bal- harmony masks out the intervening 162 years, Maori have protested lot to achieve their goals. Due to increased enroll- the crown’s interpretation of the treaty and their loss ment on the Maori Roll under New Zealand’s Mixed the reality of of rangatiratanga (sovereignty). Today, a carefully fos- Member Proportional electoral system, the number political tension tered appearance of racial harmony masks the reality of of Maori parliamentary seats has risen from 4 in 1993 political tension between the predominantly white- to 7 in 2002. In the 1996 election 63 percent of the dominated Crown government and Maori political Maori electorate cast votes; a large number of Maori activists. Crown-Maori relations stand as New Zealand’s remained on the General Roll but it is unclear how single most pressing sociopolitical issue as it confronts they voted. and seeks to address its colonial past while forging a These figures have major political and social policy just and equitable multicultural society. This process implications for New Zealand’s future. The national and its outcomes are being carefully observed by gov- election of July 2002 provided the latest referendum ernments and indigenous peoples worldwide. on the Crown’s efforts to address Maori concerns and At the beginning of the twenty-first century, cur- grievances. The Maori struggle has had at least two rent and projected population dynamics clearly de- fronts: calls for justice based on human rights and monstrate the challenge to the Pakeha majority and Treaty of Waitangi principles, and increasing involve- the momentum behind New Zealand’s changing so- ment in the political process as voters or supporters of cial and political reality. The New Zealand census political parties. Maori voters usually have a clear per- of 2001 revealed that 1 in 7 people (526,281) are of ception of which party will best serve their interests. Maori ethnicity or 14.5 percent of the population, an increase of 21 percent since 1991.v It is also a young Political Background population. The Maori median age is 22.0 years, significantly below the New Zealand median for all Maori have been a strong constituency of the social groups of 32.0 years. By comparison, the number of democratic Labour Party since the 1930s when the Europeans grew by 3.5 percent and their median age Ratana Church movement, a Maori variant of Old is 34.6 years. More important, however, a 1996 ana- Testament beliefs, entered an alliance with the Labour lysis of census data found that “Maori now account Party. Yet Maori had little to show for nearly four for one in every four, or 25.6 percent of all New Zea- decades of political loyalty. When Labour took power land children under five and 23.6 percent of chil- in 1972, it moved to defuse social unrest and address dren under fifteen years.” Furthermore, “with higher Maori demands by passing the Treaty of Waitangi Act rates of fertility, greater proportions of people of in 1975. The legislation established a quasi-judicial child-bearing age, births from inter-ethnic unions Waitangi Tribunal to hear individual and tribal claims and (in the case of non-Maori) immigration, non- arising from breaches of the treaty. The act placed European groups are growing at a much faster rate severe limitations on the tribunal; for example, it had 3 Analysis from the East-West Center no retrospective powers and could consider only con- of most Maori, especially the urban group that oc- temporary and future claims. The tribunal had power cupied the lowest rung on the socioeconomic ladder. only to recommend settlements; final disposition was Maori suffered most from Labour’s unexpected turn by act of Parliament or executive fiat. Furthermore, to “New Right” economic policies in the 1980s. One tribunal cases considered only claims against Crown critic noted, “On the surface, the Labour government lands, forests, fisheries, and the like; no private prop- did take unprecedented steps to redress the injustices erty could be involved. Thus, for the first decade of the past, and the ‘principles of the Treaty of Wai- of its existence the Waitangi Tribunal was relatively tangi’… . But in reality little changed. Labour’s eco- ineffectual, although some important cases set prece- nomic policy and its policy on the treaty were on a dents for enforcement of Maori rights under its collision course. The dilemma would require it to re- provisions.viii define Maori treaty rights and induce Maori to accept Labour regained control of the government in the a settlement which left intact individual property 1984 election and renewed its effort to set things rights, unrestrained exploitation of resources, max- right with Maori. The energetic minister of justice, imisation of private profit and the supreme authority Sir Geoffrey Palmer, pushed through the 1985 Treaty of the Pakeha state.”x of Waitangi Amendment Act, which gave the tribu- nal retrospective review power to 1840, thus effec- National Party policies, 1990–1999. The New Zea- tively covering the period when most transgressions land electorate, including Maori, leery of Labour’s occurred.ix In the 1987 State Owned Enterprises radical departure from democratic socialism, replaced case, the New Zealand Maori Council challenged the it with the conservative National Party at the 1990 Crown’s right to sell properties while tribal claims election. In a stunning reversal of fortune, Labour that might encumber them were still pending before lost all of the Maori seats in Parliament.xi The new Three important the tribunal. The High Court of New Zealand sus- government continued dismantling New Zealand’s pieces of legislation tained the Maori position but gave neither side a welfare state for another decade and looked to settle significantly ad- clear victory; instead, the court invoked a theory of with Maori as well. National expanded the process, vanced Maori “partnership” and “spirit of the treaty” as means for begun under Labour, of devolving control over social fortunes in the the Crown and Maori to reconcile their differences. service programs for Maori. Labour had begun to This decision led to three important pieces of legis- shift control of services by contracting them directly late 1980s lation that significantly advanced Maori fortunes in to local tribal agencies. In urban areas this policy gave the late 1980s. prominence to the role of pan-tribal Maori authori- First, the 1988 Treaty of Waitangi (State Enter- ties. Before vast sums of money were awarded to iwi, prises) Act gave the tribunal power to award Crown however, governmental structures had to be in place holdings to Maori claimants under limited condi- to handle the funds.
Recommended publications
  • Unsettling Recovery: Natural Disaster Response and the Politics of Contemporary Settler Colonialism
    UNSETTLING RECOVERY: NATURAL DISASTER RESPONSE AND THE POLITICS OF CONTEMPORARY SETTLER COLONIALISM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY STEVEN ANDREW KENSINGER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DR. DAVID LIPSET, ADVISER JULY 2019 Steven Andrew Kensinger, 2019 © Acknowledgements The fieldwork on which this dissertation is based was funded by a Doctoral Dissertation Fieldwork Grant No. 8955 awarded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. I also want to thank Dr. Robert Berdahl and the Berdahl family for endowing the Daphne Berdahl Memorial Fellowship which provided funds for two preliminary fieldtrips to New Zealand in preparation for the longer fieldwork period. I also received funding while in the field from the University of Minnesota Graduate School through a Thesis Research Travel Grant. I want to thank my advisor, Dr. David Lipset, and the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Hoon Song, Dr. David Valentine, and Dr. Margaret Werry for their help and guidance in preparing the dissertation. In the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Dr. William Beeman, Dr. Karen Ho, and Dr. Karen-Sue Taussig offered personal and professional support. I am grateful to Dr. Kieran McNulty for offering me a much-needed funding opportunity in the final stages of dissertation writing. A special thanks to my colleagues Dr. Meryl Puetz-Lauer and Dr. Timothy Gitzen for their support and encouragement. Dr. Carol Lauer graciously offered to read and comment on several of the chapters. My fellow graduate students and writing-accountability partners Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • What the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Aimed to Do, Why It Did Not Succeed and How It Can Be Repaired
    169 WHAT THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT AIMED TO DO, WHY IT DID NOT SUCCEED AND HOW IT CAN BE REPAIRED Sir Geoffrey Palmer* This article, by the person who was the Minister responsible for the introduction and passage of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, reviews 25 years of experience New Zealand has had with the legislation. The NZ Bill of Rights Act does not constitute higher law or occupy any preferred position over any other statute. As the article discusses, the status of the NZ Bill of Rights Act has meant that while the Bill of Rights has had positive achievements, it has not resulted in the transformational change that propelled the initial proposal for an entrenched, supreme law bill of rights in the 1980s. In the context of an evolving New Zealand society that is becoming ever more diverse, more reliable anchors are needed to ensure that human rights are protected, the article argues. The article discusses the occasions upon which the NZ Bill of Rights has been overridden and the recent case where for the first time a declaration of inconsistency was made by the High Court in relation to a prisoner’s voting rights. In particular, a softening of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as it applies in the particular conditions of New Zealand’s small unicameral legislature, is called for. There is no adequate justification for maintaining the unrealistic legal fiction that no limits can be placed on the manner in which the New Zealand Parliament exercises its legislative power.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation in New Zealand Statute Law
    WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT NEW ZEALAND LAW AND THE NEW ZEALAND WAY OF DOING LAW - INNOVATION IN NEW ZEALAND STATUTE LAW Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer President, Law Commission Paper delivered to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Law Commission, Legislative Council Chamber, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, 25 August 2006 What is this paper about? 1 The threshold question is to define what this paper is about.1 Tests as to what is innovative tend to be subjective. What is meant by “innovative” in the first place? The Oxford English Dictionary makes it plain that innovation is the action of innovating; the introduction of novelties; the alteration of what is established by the introduction of new elements or forms. In one sense, every statute is an innovation. The term is also susceptible to a distinction between those statutes that are innovative as to form and those that are innovative as to policy. Some statutes are known for the novelty and boldness of their policy. Others for the use of intricate and novel legislative techniques, for example the claw back provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988.2 Some lawyers may admire particular legislative techniques that have no great impact except to implement faithfully the policy of the Act. And that policy may be of no great significance. On the other hand, statutes that are simple in drafting terms may raise enormous controversy leading to a difficult and long parliamentary passage. 2 Contemplating the difficulty of selection, I informally surveyed the Law Commission lawyers as to what they considered to be the three top innovative pieces of legislation in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Complaint Re S & F Bill V13a Incl HR Director
    OCR scan of letter received Te Tari Whakatau Take Tika Tangata The Office of Human Rights Proceedings 12 October 2005 Level 10 Tower Con tre Cnr Queen & Customs 515 PC Box 6751 Wellesley Street Auckland Telephone: (09) 375-8623 Facsimile: (09) 375-8641 Email: [email protected]. nz Dear Mr Goldsbury RE: YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FORESHORE AND SEABED ACT 2004 Thank you for your letter dated 15 September responding to my letter dated 19 August 2005 which set out my decision relating to your application for legal representation to take proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal in respect of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. You have asked me not to close your application but to suspend it so that it can be used to support any other similar application by directly affected persons which may be made in the future. If I receive a similar application in the future and if I agree to provide legal representation for proceedings in respect of that application, I will certainly convey to that applicant your willingness to support them with their case. If this occurs and they are agreeable to you being involved I will write to you and advise you of this. I cannot however suspend your application. I have made a decision in your case and in accordance with my usual procedure I will now close your file. Robert Hesketh Director of Human Rights Proceedings Tumuaki Whakatau Take Tika Tangata Human Rights Complaint re S & F Bill v13a Incl HR Director reply 12 Oct Sep05 - Peter Goldsbury 1 15 Sept 2005 Mr Robert Hesketh, The Director of Human Rights Proceedings, 10th Floor, Tower Centre, Corner Queen and Custom Streets PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, Auckland.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgressive Technologies?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Commons@Waikato Transgressive Technologies? Strategies of Discursive Containment in the Representation and Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand Dr Carolyn Michelle Convenor, Women’s and Gender Studies Programme Department of Societies and Cultures University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton Aotearoa/New Zealand Ph: +64 07 838 4847 Fax: +64 07 838 4654 Email: [email protected] Short Title: Transgressive Technologies? Acknowledgements: This project was funded by a grant from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Waikato, and carried out with the help of two research assistants, Jennifer Germon, and Natalie Cowley. 1 Transgressive Technologies? Strategies of Discursive Containment in the Representation and Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand Abstract: Drawing on a case study of the contemporary representation and regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand, this paper traces the cultural anxieties evident in public, political, and media discussion and debate around the provision and use of ART, with a specific focus on the use of donor insemination and IVF by single women and lesbian couples. It documents the operation of various narrative mechanisms, normative assumptions, and discursive strategies that work to identify the legitimate uses and users of such technologies whilst simultaneously affirming conventional understandings of “gender”, “motherhood”, and “the family”, and concludes that contemporary anxieties and ethical dilemmas provoked by women’s transgressive uses of ART have been addressed through legislative changes that target these women for official surveillance and control while also effectively limiting their reproductive options.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Scrutiny of Human Rights in New Zealand (Report)
    PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN NEW ZEALAND: GLASS HALF FULL? Prof. Judy McGregor and Prof. Margaret Wilson AUT UNIVERSITY | UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE NEW ZEALAND LAW FOUNDATION Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2 Recent Scholarship ..................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 22 Select committee controversy ................................................................................................. 28 Rights-infringing legislation. .................................................................................................... 32 Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. ... 45 Domestic Violence-Victims’ Protection Bill ............................................................................. 60 The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill ................................................................................ 75 Parliamentary scrutiny of human rights in New Zealand: Summary report. .......................... 89 1 Introduction This research is a focused project on one aspect of the parliamentary process. It provides a contextualised account of select committees and their scrutiny of human rights with a particular
    [Show full text]
  • Television Coverage of the House
    I.18A Television coverage of the House Report of the Standing Orders Committee Forty-eighth Parliament (Hon Margaret Wilson, Chairperson) June 2007 Presented to the House of Representatives 1 I.18A TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE Contents Recommendation 3 Introduction 3 Television broadcasting rules and conditions 3 Enforcement of rules and conditions 5 Appendix 1: Recommended amendments to Standing Orders 40, 44 and 400 6 Appendix 2: Draft Appendix D of the Standing Orders—Broadcasting of proceedings of the House—rules and conditions 7 Appendix 3: Committee membership 9 2 I.18A Television coverage of the House Recommendation The Standing Orders Committee recommends to the House amendments to Standing Orders 40, 44 and 400, and the proposed new Appendix D to the Standing Orders, as set out in this report, and recommends that they be embodied in a sessional order until the committee completes a full review of the Standing Orders. Introduction In 2003, the Standing Orders Committee recommended that an in-house facility for televising the House be developed.1 This facility is now almost operational, and from July 2007 remote-controlled television cameras will film all proceedings of the House of Representatives. In addition to web-casting, a broadcast-quality live feed of the images will be made available to television broadcasters, who will decide if they wish to use the material. The televising of Parliament is a significant milestone. The aim is to make parliamentary debate more accessible to the public and to improve public understanding of the democratic process. The current rules for television coverage of the House have been in operation since 1990, and they need some elaboration of detail as a guide to the director of the parliamentary broadcast.
    [Show full text]
  • Inequality and the 2014 New Zealand General Election
    References Achen, Christopher and Larry Bartels. 2016. Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Adams, James. 2001. Party competition and responsible party government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Adams, James. 2012. Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: Theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science 15: 401–19. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-031710-101450 Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. The authoritarian personality. Oxford: Harpers. Aimer, Peter. 1989. Travelling together: Party identification and voting in the New Zealand general election of 1987. Electoral Studies 8(2): 131–42. DOI: 10.1016/0261-3794(89)90030-9 Aimer, Peter. 1993. Was there a gender gap in New Zealand in 1990? Political Science 45(1): 112–21. DOI: 10.1177/003231879304500108 Aimer, Peter. 1998. Old and new party choices. In Jack Vowles, Peter Aimer, Susan Banducci and Jeffrey Karp, eds, Voters’ victory? New Zealand’s first election under proportional representation, 48–64. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Aimer, Peter. 2014. New Zealand’s electoral tides in the 21st century. In Jack Vowles, ed., The new electoral politics in New Zealand: The significance of the 2011 Election, 9–25. Wellington: Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. 281 A BARk BuT No BITE Albrecht, Johan. 2006. The use of consumption taxes to re-launch green tax reforms. International Review of Law and Economics 26(1): 88–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2006.05.007 Alesina, Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND 12TH EP/NEW ZEALAND INTERPARLIAMENTARY MEETING 26 FEBRUARY - 5 MARCH 2006 AUCKLAND, WELLINGTON, CHRISTCHURCH CHAIRMAN'S REPORT The Delegation travelled to New Zealand from 26 February to 5 March. The delegation was headed by Mr Neil Parish (EPP-ED, United Kingdom). The full list of the participants is appended. MEPs held meetings at the highest level, in particular with the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark; the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Margaret Wilson; the Foreign Minister, the Rt. Hon. Winston Peters; and the Leader of the National Party, Dr Don Brash. Members also met a wide range of Members of Parliament, including the Labour Party, the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, the United Future New Zealand Party and the Green Party. Meetings also took place with the Business Committee of the House of Representatives. On regular occasions during the entire visit the Delegation was accompanied by members of Parliament. The Delegation was briefed by the Heads of Mission of the Member States to New Zealand, including the Delegation of the European Commission, and met also representatives of agriculture, academia and the press. Key items discussed during the meetings were the EU-New Zealand relationship; Common Agriculture Policy reform; development aid to the Pacific region; New Zealand's free trade agreement with China; internal New Zealand politics, in particular the Mixed Member Proportional representation system (MMP) that has been in operation since 1996; the post-enlargement EU and the draft constitutional treaty; world affairs and global security.
    [Show full text]
  • MAYORS, MAORI and EMPLOYMENT
    The Jobs Letter No. 130 8 September 2000 Essential Information on an Essential Issue • More than fifty beneficiary advocates from Northland to Invercargill KEY met last week with Government Ministers, the Department of Work and Income (Winz) and Ministry of Social Policy (MSP). They discussed MAYORS MEET MAORI progress on a list of 123 recommendations of immediate changes that the advocates want to see Winz and other departments implement in AN EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY order to assist those living on a benefit. ADVOCATES MEET GOVERNMENT The Conference took place at Tatum Park near Levin, and was addressed by Ruth Dyson, Associate Minister of Social Services and Employment and CEG APPOINTMENT Parekura Horomia, Minister of Maori Affairs. The ministers later said that the INCOME AND JOB INSECURITY government “valued its ongoing relationship with the advocates...” CEOs Robert Reid, President of Unite! and spokesperson for the advocate groups says that the conference enabled a wide group to consider the recommendations from the advocates and to discuss what progress had been made on them by the departments. The meeting also included DIARY workshops with representatives from Winz, MSP, Department of La- 16 August 2000 bour, Ministry of Economic Development and Housing New Zealand. Representatives from the Labour, Alliance and Green Parties were Parliament’s finance committee endorses a policy that govern- invited to the final session of the conference. ment departments buy NZ-made goods and services “where cost There will now be regional meetings held between beneficiary advocate groups effective”. The Industrial Supplies and the Winz Regional Commissioners. Maori beneficiary advocates have Office, which filters government formed their own network and have been invited to be involved in the Winz purchasing, says that every $1m of import substitution saves 16 Maori structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Inequality and the 2014 New Zealand General Election
    A BARK BUT NO BITE INEQUALITY AND THE 2014 NEW ZEALAND GENERAL ELECTION A BARK BUT NO BITE INEQUALITY AND THE 2014 NEW ZEALAND GENERAL ELECTION JACK VOWLES, HILDE COFFÉ AND JENNIFER CURTIN Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Creator: Vowles, Jack, 1950- author. Title: A bark but no bite : inequality and the 2014 New Zealand general election / Jack Vowles, Hilde Coffé, Jennifer Curtin. ISBN: 9781760461355 (paperback) 9781760461362 (ebook) Subjects: New Zealand. Parliament--Elections, 2014. Elections--New Zealand. New Zealand--Politics and government--21st century. Other Creators/Contributors: Coffé, Hilde, author. Curtin, Jennifer C, author. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press This edition © 2017 ANU Press Contents List of figures . vii List of tables . xiii List of acronyms . xvii Preface and acknowledgements . .. xix 1 . The 2014 New Zealand election in perspective . .. 1 2. The fall and rise of inequality in New Zealand . 25 3 . Electoral behaviour and inequality . 49 4. The social foundations of voting behaviour and party funding . 65 5. The winner! The National Party, performance and coalition politics . 95 6 . Still in Labour . 117 7 . Greening the inequality debate . 143 8 . Conservatives compared: New Zealand First, ACT and the Conservatives .
    [Show full text]
  • RTI Study by Steven Price
    1 I INTRODUCTION Introducing the Official Information Bill to Parliament in 1981, the Minister of Justice called it "one of the most significant constitutional innovations to be made since the establishment of the office of the Ombudsmen in the early 1960s."1 Its goals were lofty: to "increase progressively the availability of official information" in order to promote democratic participation, political accountability and good government.2 Yet to hear some of the criticisms of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) now, one could be forgiven for wondering whether it has been much of an improvement over the Official Secrets Act 1951, which made releasing official information an offence.3 "Ministers and officials developed ways of routinely subverting the provisions of the Official Information Act", researcher Nicky Hager has written.4 "Journalists complain processing of requests takes too long, and accuse bureaucrats of abusing the system, especially if the material sought is remotely embarrassing or controversial", wrote investigative journalist Amanda Cropp.5 "It is ridiculously easy to circumvent the act and to hide information from requesters and Ombudsmen alike", wrote former MP Michael Laws recently: "Of course, all potentially embarrassing information is routinely refused and time delays are simply de rigueur."6 1 Hon J K McLay (23 July 1981) 439 NZPD 1908. 2 Official Information Act 1982, s 4 and long title. Note that the Act also aims "to protect official information to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy": Official Information Act 1982, s 4(c) and long title. 3 Official Secrets Act 1951, s 6.
    [Show full text]