I have been blessed with many opportunities and experiences. I have sat with families from Rwanda who have lost their loved ones from the butchery of genocide. In the Balkans, I brought together Ministers from Croatia and Serbia to a table; the same went for Ministers from Armenia and Azerbaijan.

I was in Cambodia with a Minister who had 70 of his family slaughtered, who sits in Cabinet with the Khmer Rouge. I have sat in South Africa and been witness to that great story of forgiveness and reconciliation. I now serve with a group sponsored by former foes Nelson Mandela and F W de Klerk, which is promoting peace and democracy.

What I have seen is beyond what was my moral compass, my capacity to understand this different universe. The power and desire for peace and reconciliation is profound. I say this to put into perspective the subject of differences between New Zealanders over matters of race. We are not at a state of crisis but we do have differences that need navigating. What I have learned from some of the experiences I mentioned is that there must be a conversation, not a dialogue of the deaf.

Perhaps we should reflect on the wise words of President Lincoln - during the American Civil War, President Lincoln in an inaugural address said this:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Political correctness must not crowd out discussion. I notice Dr Brash has been in the news recently. It's not good enough to call someone a racist because you don't agree with them, it won't do. It won't do to have politicians say some New Zealanders aren't really New Zealanders or second-class citizens because they are Pakeha. Nor is a redneck reaction in the comfortable, cowardly anonymity of talkback radio. And it won't do to say there's no difference – we are equal but not the same.

But there's a difference between democracy and demagoguery.
The creative value of democracy above closed societies and why open societies trump closed ones is that competition for ideas and for public approval drives up better results. We reject the European experience of the rule of law, property rights, an independent judiciary, merit and public service at our peril.
This is a conversation we must have. It has been unhealthy that we have not been open with each other. But one thing I've learned is that words do matter – extreme words lead to extreme action and reaction. Civility and good manners, even good humour are necessary for a conversation. This is very difficult in an election cycle; governments always call for bipartisanship and consensus so long as you agree with them.

Governments want difficult issues off the front page, which is exactly where oppositions want them. Before I'm accused of jumping on a bandwagon, let me explain a process I failed to convince Parliament to follow in 1999. I thought it worth revisiting and gave a copy of my 1999 legislation to several leaders when I was in Wellington earlier in the week.

New Zealand is one of the most isolated nations on earth: its geological, physical and political evolution is also unique.
We were all boat people at one time. The first migrants who arrived some one thousand years ago in their waka or those who arrived one thousand hours ago did not arrive without memories.

We reflect the English with their history of respect for institutions and law, the agony of the Irish the Welsh, Scots, Croatians, Indians, Dutch and Chinese who were treated so badly in the 1900s and the new arrivals from Asia and the Pacific, all make up the unique personality that is evolving as a distinctly New Zealand character. The Magna Carta, the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights the lessons from the Age of Enlightenment, the poems and songs of the "old world" the love of freedom personified by Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, we also regard as part of our history and journey because, while our islands are isolated geographically, spiritually and intellectually we are part of a wider world.

New Zealanders are proud but not vain ultra-nationalists. We are also internationalists as our history of international engagement in the wider world testifies. New Zealanders realise our peace and progress depends on the peace and progress of people everywhere. We are not just a Polynesian country, although we are the largest Polynesian population centre. We are not only of European extraction, not do we slavishly follow European traditions, even if these traditions have been central to our success and evolution as an open developed liberal democracy based on the rule of law with living standards among the front rank of nations.

Change ought not to be rushed or hurried, change ought only to be entered into after deliberate detailed and sober consideration, consultation and reflection. Final decision and authority to make changes must remain, as always, with the people who must decide on the system they want to manage their democratic affairs. A powerfully profound and convincing case must be established before such change is contemplated.

Decisions should not be made because of some temporary fashion, fad or grievance with the Government or political personalities of the day because once made, they will be difficult to un-make. It took the young United States over 10 years to put together their constitution and Bill of Rights. These changes will provide and provoke the direction of New Zealanders for generations. Our constitutional arrangements are not in desperate disrepair, but a new epoch demands new responses.

New Zealand is a proud, independent pacific nation. Institutions ought to reflect that fact. In other less modest lands, independence and nationhood has often been given bloody birth and baptism with fire, sword and canon. New Zealand's evolution to mature nationhood should be gentle, respectful, like our land, which is blessed without angry predators. Other nations celebrate their history with forts and cathedrals, our forests are our cathedrals, our lonely coastal beaches our fortification. This process must not be an experiment, nor an act of defiance. Even less is it a quarrel with the past or a bill of grievances. My bill offers a binding, evolutionary process of what has been working successfully and usefully in the development of our young country thus far.

The Constitutional (People’s) Convention Bill provided a deliberate time frame and systematic structure to evaluate, study, publicise and allow the people to decide on the constitutional political issues and opportunities that face us.
A nation is the sum total of its history, memories and experiences. We are confronting our historic ghosts and demons. Racial injustices have been the stone in New Zealand's shoe.

The Bill provided the constitutional process to equip us with a fresh, modern start. To build one nation that enjoys many peoples and cultures would be a splendid gift to the generations to come and prove us worthy of the ideals of our foreparents: migrants all of them, who came to build a better life.
It provided a framework to establish a formal constitution if required. It recognises the Treaty of Waitangi process and accepts that substantial progress has been made towards full and final settlement.

Essentially, my Bill established Leadership Council comprising all the Party leaders in Parliament, and by consensus establishes an Eminent Person’s Group, with all the powers and prerogatives of a Royal Commission. After a few years, they would draft a report on constitutional options, which would then go to a Constitutional Convention.

The existing Parliament would select a group of MPs as delegates in proportion to their representation in Parliament. Pacific nations for which we have constitutional responsibility would send delegates without voting rights. Past Prime Ministers and Governors General who attend as delegates without voting rights. An assembly would be elected to consider the report and, if agreement was reached, put its findings to the people by way of referendum. One delegate would be elected for each Maori seat, and one for every two general seats.
I reluctantly put into my bill an opportunity to discuss how we select our head of state. Frankly I felt then as I do now that the great Republican debate is a diversion – it’s a debate we need to have, but the issue of the Treaty and its place are more fundamental and important.

Perhaps we might be inspired by the preamble of the new South African constitution that reads:
We, the people of South Africa,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this constitution as the supreme law of the republic so as to:

We do need a peaceful process and pathway to progress. My idea of 5 years ago was not acceptable as it was not ripe to consider at the time.

But it is fitting and proper that we calmly begin a process which does not shut down debate. Politicians, parties and the public need to have their say. It’s the most important conversation our Nation will have. It strikes at the heart of citizenship and what it means to be a New Zealander.

New Zealand is too young a nation to go rotten before it’s ripe.