Rex Warwood: New Zealand in urgent need of a reset of the way it is governed

Former Prime Minister, Sir John Key, is obviously still hurting after losing his bid in 2016, to see a change in the make-up of New Zealand’s flag when the vote in the second referendum ended with 56.6 per cent to 43.2 per cent support for the current national flag.

Sir John was reported as saying recently he would not hold a flag referendum if he could have his time as Prime Minister again. “Instead,” stated 1 TV News, “he would simply change New Zealand's national flag and “let the public love it or lump it.”

This story raised the question of binding referenda, a subject which is taboo to most politicians who know very well that by giving the public a say on major issues, the politicians would lose a large proportion of the control which they now currently hold over the electorate.

The MMP system of Government currently used by Government is an example of how many unelected politicians can make decisions on major issues and the public has no say in the matter.

The flag referendums were ‘Sir John’s referendums’. He instigated them and despite him not being happy that, almost three years after he suddenly resigned his position as the country’s leader, New Zealanders made the decision.

The facts speak for themselves: The flag referendum saw 2,124,507 people casting votes in what was an impressive turnout of 67.3 per cent.

Far too often these days, politicians are taking it into their own hands and making decisions of which they have no mandate. New Zealanders should be able to have input into important issues and maybe it is time for more Citizens Binding Initiated Referendums to be considered.

Politicians are gradually whittling away the country’s sovereignty by negotiating agreements with foreign entities, mostly in secret and it is only when leaks occur that the public finds out about them.

Two instances that highlight the deviousness of politicians in both the National and Labour Governments have been the disastrous TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) and the United Nations Global Compact on Immigration

The TPPA was a proposed trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States, negotiated in secret under a National Government and signed on 4 February 2016. It was not ratified as required.

When the TPPA was analysed it was found that it was not really about free trade, it was designed to allow foreign investors to enforce their special rights under the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime.

The TPPA was later shrunk into the 11 member “Comprehensive and Progressive Transpacific Agreement” with the exit of the U.S.A.

As soon as Donald Trump became President in 2016, he immediately pulled the U.S. out of the TPPA because he believed it to be unfair and all countries stood to lose their sovereignty.

Bryan Gould, the former British MP who became Vice-Chancellor of the University of Waikato until his retirement in 2004, has said: “The result is that the TPPA is in reality a charter for multinationals, giving them carte blanche to do what they like and able to object to any measure that limits their operations or places them at a disadvantage.”

So, if this TPPA/TPP is such a great boon for New Zealand, why was it negotiated in secret without input from the public?

As with the TPP, the ‘United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration’ was negotiated in secret and signed last December by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her deputy, Winston Peters.

This Global Immigration Compact is as bad as the TPP in the sense that it allows refugees from any country to choose freely as  to which country they would like to settle and it will be illegal for the public, which has never been consulted on the issue, to criticise the Government for its actions.

This means that migration now comes under the control of an unelected bureaucracy in the United Nations.

Stefan Molyneaux, the Canadian journalist who was banned from speaking in Auckland last year by our politicians, asked his YouTube listeners to imagine a scenario where the United Nations set up a ‘Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Tax Evasion’.

“Tax evasion is illegal,” he said, “and so is migration. They are attempting to make it legal through supra natural bureaucratic agencies.”

Europe has had its fair share of migrants flooding illegally into their countries in the past five years and as far as the them fleeing chaos, instability and war and so on, this is no longer the perspective of Europeans as a whole.

Most Europeans believe that migrants are coming to Europe because of the pull benefits they can derive from the taxpayers, such as healthcare, free education, social stability rather than the push factors such as wars or extreme poverty or political instability or climate change. So, they’re coming for the money, they are not fleeing from the violence.

The U.S. is currently battling to prevent a crisis on its southern border where unprecedented numbers of people from South American countries, and Africa, are trying to get in with what is alleged to be a ‘United Nations-backed invasion’.

In a recent poll: There are hundreds of millions of people around the world from Third World countries who would immediately move to the west, ‘just like that’. Fifty per cent of Kenyans would move to another country if they could.

There is no addressing in the compact the fact that this migration is one way, unless you’re planning on moving to Somalia or Libya. It’s one way. This is not migration, it is a one way street. There’s no addressing that fact.

Also, Jacinda and Winston have not addressed the problems that come with Third World migration such as disease and infrastructure issues.

New Zealand, under this UN Migration Compact will be subjected to people pouring in from the Third World who do not have inoculations and who carry diseases that are very harmful to the local populations, particularly the children.

Many will remember when they were growing up how bad it was that small pox was introduced to the natives in North America. Now, here’s this pipeline that is carrying not just people but these virulent pathogens that the local populations have no defence for – no issues around that Jacinda and Winston?

Also missing from the document is even the slightest concern for a basic infrastructure. If you look at places like Lebanon where there is quite a lot of refugees or migrants, electricity requirements have gone through the roof, causing massive problems with the grid.

So, when you have millions and millions and millions of people pouring into Western countries, is there the electrical capacity for it? Are the roads being built for it? Is there enough housing (New Zealand can’t even house all its own people). Are there enough doctors, are there enough teachers and educational facilities. How are you going to deal with translation?

None of that is addressed, because that would bring some practical restrictions to the fantasy of infinite benevolence that characterises the deranged minds of centralised bureaucrats.

So, now that there is ample evidence that politicians are making decisions without consulting ‘we the people’ the question remains: How are you going to deal with your grovelling politicians next year when they want us to vote for them in the General Election?

When they are elected and settled into the Beehive, they will carry on “as normal” and make decisions, without mandates that we can “like it or lump it”.

Surely the time is now to start changing this cycle?

New Zealand is in urgent need of a reset in the way it is governed and ‘We the People’ should be playing a greater role in the decision-making process. After all, it is our destiny and the destiny of future generations that is at stake here.

The people of Switzerland have their destiny in their own hands, and have had for many years, a system that would be an ideal system to implement into the New Zealand Government.

The Swiss system allows up to four binding citizens initiated referendums per year and all that is required for committing Government to referenda is for citizens to petition 100,000 signatures on each issue.

If it can be introduced to New Zealand we will surely have politicians  voted in to represent the people as we expect them to do. We will have the mandate on major issues rather than the current system of secret agreements that, bit-by-bit, through stealth, the country’s sovereignty is being whittled away.

Citizens Binding Initiated Referenda is a topic well worth addressing and well worth having a conversation about.

Rex Warwood has held a life-long interest in New Zealand’s politics since beginning his career as a journalist with the Franklin County News, in 1979. He became Editor in 1986, and established his own newspaper, Franklin Life, in 1997. Now retired, Rex believes a ‘Swiss-style’ of government that allows for more public input through binding referendums would benefit New Zealand.