NZ First opts out of constitutional review
New Zealand First is refusing to take part in the Government’s constitutional review.
The review is looking into matters such as the size of Parliament, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution.
But New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says it is sham designed to sneak the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into all laws.
He says the constitutional review is a political stunt from the National and Maori parties, and is not designed to give people more say in the country’s democracy.
Mr Peters says New Zealand First has declined an invitation to nominate a party member to take part in the review, which is due to report back to the Government by the end of 2013. — Radio NZ News
This represents New Zealand First policy, as enunciated at Kelston during the General Election campaign.
I guess the question is: does a NZ First ‘ boycott’ invalidate the process fatally? I don’t think so…
-P
The review process is already fatally flawed, or invalid, no matter what. Imagine a jury trial of someone on a charge of breaking and entering, where all jurors were drawn from the local prison. (After all, they’d know truth from lies, being acknowledged experts, right?)
The Review panel has been carefully ‘stacked’ to produce a desired result. In that way, it follows the same constitution as the Waitangi Tribunal being stacked in favour of the claimants; and various processes that governments go through called consultation, after which it does what it was planning to do, all along.
Yeah, right.
Between a treasonous PM and Quisling-General (Finlayson), I fear we are headed for a type of apartheid society that will have our forebears turning in their graves. And our grand children wondering what possessed us.
Hi Perry,
Quisling? Strong word.
I’ve been interested to observe the personal criticism John Key has attracted for the government’s policies in this area. The coastal coalition created a poster campaign before the last election featuring a photo of him wearing a feather cloak and accusing him of signing away coastal land.
*Who* wanted the constitutional review?
– P
The Maori Party, as part of some confidence and supply agreement, if I recall aright. As for Quisling-General Finlayson, would you use the police prosecutor as your defence lawyer in court? Do you know who/what Quisling-General Finlayson was representing, in the past?