John Armstrong: Disgraceful plan flawed at every step

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English with Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples. File photo / Mark Mitchell

Shame on National and the Maori Party too. The so-called review of New Zealand's "constitutional arrangements" is little short of a disgrace.

If a review is really necessary then it should be conducted by a royal commission, not by Bill English and Pita Sharples, politicians whose parties have a vested interest in the outcome.

Auckland had a royal commission examining its local government arrangements. Surely scrutiny of constitutional issues at a national level deserves nothing less.

Mr English and Dr Sharples will be assisted by an advisory panel and consult a "cross-party reference group" of MPs.

But ultimately the pair will be making the recommendations to the Cabinet.

Neither will final approval of any changes necessarily be subject to public referendum. "Broad" cross-party agreement in Parliament may be deemed sufficient.

National is obliged to conduct the review under the terms of its confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party.

The Maori Party wants to write the Waitangi Treaty into New Zealand's constitution - something National finds about as attractive as a turkey finds the approach of Christmas.

Such has been National's stonewalling behind-the-scenes, it has taken two years to get this far - which is not really very far at all. Its three-year length also shows National's enthusiasm.

If the review is flawed in principle, it is also flawed in design.

Its terms of reference do not include the question of whether New Zealand should become a republic. This is ridiculous. But it ensures Maori can retain their Treaty relationship with the Crown. A republic would leave Maori with no Crown with which to relate.

The terms of reference do include looking at the size of Parliament and the size and number of electorates. This is nonsensical.

Any recommendations on those matters made in 2013 could well be shortcircuited by Justice Minister Simon Power's 2014 referendum on the electoral system.

As English noted, New Zealand has a long history of "incremental" constitutional change.

That has never been more evident than with the unwritten constitution's slow absorption of the Treaty as the country's founding document.

The Treaty is now very much part of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements. Anyone who doubts that has been asleep for the past couple of decades.

Codifying the Treaty's constitutional role may make the Maori Party feel better. But - as the saying goes - if it ain't broke, why fix it.