Tanczos Nandor: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Tanczos Nandor: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18013] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 This country is in a process of constitutional change and it is part of a slow process of decolonisation. That makes some people in this country uncomfortable. It is right that it should do so because if that means anything at all it must mean a shift in the bases of power. It is not clear to everyone that we are undergoing such a process because this country is unusually fortunate. Our constitutional debate is not forged in civil war or in violent revolution but in peaceful evolution. That allows us a unique opportunity. It allows us to take a measured approach. It allows us to take a considered process of full public participation and an incremental approach towards an agreed destination. 
Recent events in this country have added impetus to this process of constitutional change. We have seen the establishment of our Supreme Court and the assertion as a result of judicial independence. That has been important because the doctrine of judicial independence has been academic in this country while our final appeal court has resided in London. We have seen the enactment of the foreshore and seabed legislation and it has raised quite properly questions of what are the constitutional protections for tangata whenua and what are the protections to stop Parliament from usurping property rights. Even the current debate over what is the best flag for this country is symbolic of an interest in constitutional matters. But that debate has been constrained in this country by a general lack of knowledge of what our constitution actually is. 
During the hearings on the Supreme Court Bill Sir Tipene O’Regan said that New Zealanders are constitutionally illiterate. I agree with that comment but it is not surprising that that is the case since there is no civics education in our schools. Most people in this country do not even know how legislation is enacted never mind the roots of parliamentary judicial and executive “legitimacy”. But people are capable of understanding those debates and forming opinions. The language of the debate may be unfamiliar to many people but it is not incomprehensible. So we need a proper process in this country to provide information to the public and to facilitate public discussion about this matter. The course of action that we are discussing in this motion is part of that process. 
I remind the House that this specific proposal began as an agreement between the Green Party and the Government made during our support for the Supreme Court Bill and the terms of reference have largely been nutted out in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am pleased to see the Hon Peter Dunne is so enthusiastic about a Green Party idea he wants to chair the committee. The Government needs to remember that it is the committee itself that will elect its chair. It is not for the Prime Minister to decide who the chair will be despite attempts to put a conciliatory gloss on it. So what should this committee do? It is not for the committee to determine what our constitution should be. That is for the people of this country. But it is helpful to have a select committee lay out the sources of our constitution now. The point has been made that we can find it in Professor Philip Joseph’s textbook and we can find it in the  
Cabinet Manual 
. That may be true but what do those things mean? There are widely divergent views on this and the recent debates between Dr Cullen and the Chief Justice indicate how divergent some of those views can be. 
I think it is right for this Parliament at the start of the 21st century to lay out its view of what it means—its view of what those sources are and how they work out in practice. There is no single view in this House just as there is not in the wider community but what we can do is lay out the parameters of that debate and the arguments for and against different positions. The other thing a select committee can usefully do is provide an accessible text readable by lay people and accessible to the average New Zealander that can lay out that information and thereby provide a basis for a much more informed discussion in the community. As the Green Party has often said in the past that needs to be backed up at a more basic level with a commitment to civics education in our schools. 
I was looking at the December issue of  
Law News 
 and in it there is an article by Catriona McLennan about a paper by Professor Bruce Harris on the constitutional future of New Zealand which was published in the  
New Zealand Law Journal 
. Professor Harris said that there is a lack of public knowledge about constitutional issues that constitutional education in schools is inadequate and that a prerequisite to any constitutional reform process must be an effective programme not only to meet the understanding deficit in the community but to increase enthusiasm about constitutional debate. This committee is an opportunity for Parliament to take a step in that direction. Professor Harris also makes a number of useful suggestions about how we might proceed to have a public discussion and we should take note of those suggestions. Other people have made suggestions too but they are just suggestions. We need to start to work towards a collective agreement about ways to proceed and a commitment to make that happen. 
The last role of the select committee is to look at the processes used to debate constitutional change in other countries and what processes we might use in this country bearing in mind that we can learn from overseas countries but that we are unique in Aotearoa and have to develop processes specific to ourselves. That process is about public discussion. As I have already said it is not for the select committee to determine whether and how we might change the constitution but it is a proper role for a committee to determine how Parliament can facilitate a debate about whether we should change and how any such change should take place. 
As I stated at the beginning of my speech we are in an unusually fortunate position in this country in that this debate is happening not in revolution not in war not in violent confrontation but in a peaceful slow evolution. That is extremely important. This is part of our process of coming of age as a nation. I know I am privileged as a member of this Parliament to participate in this process and I look forward to doing that on behalf of the Green Party.