It’s boring, not newsworthy yet.  I, like most New Zealanders, am relaxed, I like our British Westminster system, but we no longer have the British system.  We have MMP, a promise to have another referendum broken, rights of appeal to the Privy Council gone, Honours List changed.  All sorts of conventions on the behaviour of Government broken.  We don’t have the strong anti-Royalist sentiment of Australia, we were not traumatised by a Governor General sacking an elected government.  But fashions can change quickly.  Ready or not, this will be an issue, my suggested process was to make us ready.  The preferred option is to do nothing.

Constitutional change, once made, is hard to unmake.  Debates, even referendums, in Australia and elsewhere which have enjoyed the British system, flounder on this key point.  If we are to have a Presidency, a NZ-owned head of state, what are this person’s powers, and how is that person chosen?  A ceremonial Presidency with the same power of a Governor General (whose powers in NZ are not locked into law!) would be similar to Germany and Israel.  There, MP’s elect that person.  It’s hard to see, once a decision is made, how the public who don’t trust politicians won’t demand to vote for this position.  This creates political potential for stalemate, crisis and conflict.  You can’t have two hands on the steering wheel.  An executive Presidency, similar to France or the US where the President chooses the Cabinet from outside Parliament, and Parliament becomes a legislative body to check these powers, is attractive.  But the other source of checks and balances is the courts, but then you need a constitution.  All this bothers me, I’m a Parliamentarian, I fear an executive President who is not accountable or answers questions in Parliament.  At the very least, we need to consolidate all the rules and laws that govern the way a Governor General operates.  These, and how the Treaty of Waitangi fits in, are big questions.  A very serious leader in matters constitutional once suggested that the Treaty should be our constitution, and we have a constitutional court to tell us what that means.  This would override Parliament, deny the principles of the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution upon which our system operates.  That is, the Sovereign is answerable to the law, not above it, and that the Sovereign must seek Parliament’s approval to spend the people’s money.  A constitutional court, so established, would have the power of Sovereigns whose heads we used to cut off.

My process, to recap, is an Eminent Persons Group to be established by consensus of party leaders, it works for a few years considering all these issues.  It has the power of a Royal Commission.  Its report comes to Parliament and to a special Constitutional Convention where the majority are elected at large.  Political parties represented in the Parliament of the day have representatives alongside eminent persons and observers from nations whose destinies we share, who can persuade but have no vote.  If there is a wide consensus, the people make a final decision at a referendum.  This process folds MMP, a possible constitution, the vital status of the Treaty, and matters of our governance into a package that’s considered over a number of years.  I admit to throwing some sand in the gear box to slow down the process beyond the life of any one Parliament.

The politics are difficult to navigate.  Both Helen Clark and John Key have said there will be change but not perhaps in their political lifetimes.  Good.  Smart.  Helen Clark is correctly fearful that even starting a process to consider options will be perceived as a cunning plan to smuggle in a republic.  Not so.  Such is the distrust and paranoia that some think this is a plan to make her President for life.  How silly.  John Key is cautious because the National Party was stunned when Jim Bolger suddenly announced we should be a republic.  National is normally more traditional and conservative on these issues.  It was interesting to note that two National former Ministers who were awarded a pretty junior honour, rushed off to Buckingham Palace, preferring to accept their honour from the Queen rather than our Governor General in NZ.

So far, politicians have been good, they have not rejected the concept.  We need space and grace to consider all this.  What to do?  It would be a splendid gift to NZ’s gentle progress if the ‘process’ was owned by smaller parties, then perhaps the main parties could join with them, not being seen to be focussing on an issue that could be misunderstood, and for which there is little public demand.

Peter Dunne, Pita Sharples, and Rodney Hide spring to mind.  They will have different views as to the outcome, but could lead the process.

Winston Peters, who is a true and conservative Parliamentarian, would be an ideal person to take hold of the issue.  His natural instincts are good, he fears the courts having too much power, is sceptical, would want to be convinced the process is true and solid.  Good.  Critics of my process suggest these could mean all things to all people.  Correct.  The tent must be big to accommodate all opinions.