Photo by Chris Gregory
As we get deeper into our constitutional korero, it is fitting that we draw on the experiences of other countries especially other democracies with strong constitutional cultures.
Our Chief Executive, Wendy McGuinness, has just attended a conference facilitated by the European Sustainable Development Network. The conference was held in Austria, a country that has had constitutional safeguards for the environment since 2020.
On June 13 2020, the Austrian Parliament adopted a constitutional law on sustainability. Para 1 of the law says: ‘The Republic of Austria (the federal, regional and municipal level) commits itself to the principle of sustainability in the use of natural resources in order to enable the highest quality of life for future generations.’
In Austria, the constitutional court can review the decisions of the executive if they don’t comply with the environmental charter of the constitution known as the Staatszielbestimmung. This was tested recently when the court threw out a statute granting permits to shipping companies. The Austrian Constitutional Court decided that the constitution ‘sufficiently guaranteed the consideration of environmental interest in the decision making process.’ Read the full article here.
They even have an environmental ombudsman who is charged with defending the interests of the environment, acting as a mediator between the public and the government in relation to environmental issues.
This sort of thing isn’t uncommon in Europe or worldwide for that matter. Environmental provisions are included in the constitutions of more than 90 countries, with Canada, China, Japan, New Zealand and the United States being some of the most notable hold outs. But environmental provisions have been more effective in some countries than others. Critics argue that at the end of the day constitutions are just words on a page without the cultures and institutions that support them. North Korea, for example, has provisions securing human rights and prosperity for all of its citizens, and we all know how that’s working out.
In the book Environmental Rights Revolution, David Boyd (one of Canada’s leading environmental lawyers) measures the effectiveness of environmental provisions in national constitutions. He does so by analysing 193 constitutions and the court decisions of more than 100 states. Those countries with environmental protections in their constitution, he concludes, have stronger environmental laws, enhanced enforcement, greater government accountability, more access to information and public participation. Subsequently, they have smaller ecological foot prints and are reducing pollution at a much faster rate.
In 2020, France amended their constitution by adding an environmental charter. The preamble states ‘Decisions made responding to today’s needs should not compromise the capacity of future generations and other populations to satisfy their own needs,…’ Most notable in the Charter’s components is Article 5, which raises the ‘precautionary principle’ to constitutional status, trumping ordinary legislation. This shifts the onus and restricts the introduction of sprays, chemicals and genetically modified foods until scientists have proved that they are safe.
Besides the clean green image that is the foundation of our international brand, the environment is at the heart of our sense of national identity and constitutions are a good place to express such sentiments. As the historian Michael King pointed out, it was the unique environment more than anything else that made Polynesians Maori and Europeans Pakeha. We have a responsibility to protect this for future generations.
![20160906 McGuinness Institute - TacklingPovertyNZ Workshop – Far North Flyer [FINAL]](/wp-content/uploads/20160906-McGuinness-Institute-TacklingPovertyNZ-Workshop-%E2%80%93-Far-North-Flyer-FINAL-1-50x50.png)
2 comments
gregfullmoon says:
Jun 29, 2020
Life is a puzzle.
The form of a Constitution depends on the question/s we ask to arrive at it’s purpose, i.e. the interest it serves.
If it is the oft repeated mantra National Interest how is this determined? Whose interest in the nation is served under the current mantra? Is this currently a quality outcome?
What question would I ask? the following might give a starting point for designing our guiding document;
‘What is the Aotearoa/New Zealand mission statement?’
The answer may resolve a number of difficulties, and contradictions that are evident in today’s regime.
If one answers ‘to make heaps of mone’y, well there goes the neighbourhood and the environment, if we continue with the current values paradigm which upholds property as an interest over the human condition.
However we could have ‘wealth creation’ as a guiding light, the outcome in practice dependent on how we determine ‘wealth’. If one priced our resources and allocated responsibility for degradation of the commons (commons the whole of the place) appropriately we could all share in abundance. So a regime of abundance as opposed to scarcity, which to me creates competition and thus warfare for stuff.
Another approach might be to answer; ‘to enable healthy, creative and expressive human beings’.
If this answer becomes the first principle, then tomorrow’s offspring are equal to the human beings already aboard Maui’s creation.
And analogous to growing lovely plants for show or food, one must ensure the appropriate conditions are available; Sunlight, warmth, water and a rich soil medium to provide ground for being and to gain nutrition.
Funnily enough the natural watering system, rain from the sky is usually preferable to artificial irrigation. We just haven’t managed to package the little cosmic charge that comes with each raindrop into a sprinkler. I’m sure someone is working on it in their nano-laboratory.
It would be ludicrous to manage the place on the basis that those aboard now are the only ones who matter.
You never know you might find upon getting to see St. Peter that you are issued with a return ticket. If you find a mess upon return, you could blame great-grand-pops, however you might be pointing the bone at yourself.
You ask what I think? Hmmm.. always best to take the highest and longest view. I seem to recall from reading history that in the space of a year or so in the early 2020s, the Western economies were completely restructured to War footing to meet the modern industrial demands of warring with the Axis Powers.
Willpower attached to a shared vision is that which will kick us through our current stupid stage in development on the path to enabling the growth of healthy, creative and expressive human beings.
Critical thinking seems a scarcity and yet we don’t war to get more..
being – experiencing – learning – thinking – synthesizing – knowing – wisdom…
Danny says:
Jul 6, 2020
I am encouraged by this article as I was disillusioned to find out that NZ does not give any weight to a ‘healthy environment’ being a basic human right. I agree this should be enshrined into our constitution and law before an further exploitation of the natural wold.