KEY POINTS:
Former Prime Minister Mike Moore is at it again in today's Herald, seeking a planned approach to what he believes will soon be an inevitable discussion on New Zealand's constitutional arrangements and the issue of becoming a republic.
He first raised the issue 10 years ago in a private member's bill, shortly before leaving Parliament. That failed to go anywhere, in much the same manner as a constitutional conference in Australia at much the same time. Now, Mr Moore senses a renewed republican urge across the Tasman, and worries that a populist impulse will propel a similar, but ill-considered, development here. Now, as then, his initiative is welcome.
A decade ago, Mr Moore's central concern was the danger of ad hoc constitutional change. Since then, as he notes, New Zealanders have witnessed the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, the failure of the political executive to provide another referendum on the future of MMP, and the breaching of an old multi-party consensus on issues such as electoral finance laws. Age-old values are, says Mr Moore, being eroded in a way that is "visionless, dangerously ad hoc, short term and confusing".
His proposed solution is an unhurried three-step procedure. In the first instance, an Eminent Persons Group of leading New Zealanders would, over several years, consider various overseas republics as a model for this country, and ponder crucial issues such as the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in a written constitution. It will need all that time to debate these and the many ticklish matters of detail, such as how the new head of state would be appointed. But consensus need not be out of reach, as Mr Moore knows from his years of handling divergent views as the Director-General of the World Trade Organisation.
The next step would see the Eminent Persons' report tabled at a constitutional convention. If there was agreement there, the final decision would lie with the people through a referendum. That step is the most important. Questions of how we are governed, how our rights are defined, and of our national institutions and symbols can be answered only by the people's voice, and only when they are ready.
Mr Moore is, therefore, right to observe that, while the process may lead to a republic and the reining in of the virtually absolute power of the political executive by constitutional checks and balances, it could also result in an affirmation of the status quo. "Making no change is a valid option if the case for change is not compelling," he notes.
Ten years ago, there appeared no particular yearning for change. Jim Bolger, the only politician of significance to have spoken in favour of a republic, probably did the cause no good by trying to force his own personal preferences on a country that showed little inclination to believe its time had come. It remains to be seen if Mr Moore's concern, and warning of the danger of further seemingly modest incremental change, resonate sufficiently to encourage a change of heart.
Until now, New Zealanders have been content to allow matters to evolve in a manner far more natural than one embracing constitutional conventions and the like. If Mr Moore's initiative gains traction, it will suggest an interest in more vision-based politics. It will also confirm that people sense, currently, the bigger picture is being overlooked. Either way, Mr Moore should be commended for raising this issue, especially in an election year. He is also right to note the importance of a planned approach. The process is, as he says, almost as important as the result.
