Dear National Party Leadership,
I recently received Sir John Key’s message encouraging voters to continue supporting National and to trust the Party to complete the work it has begun.
As a long-standing observer of New Zealand’s constitutional development, I believe there is an important matter that should not be overlooked.
Many of the constitutional concerns currently being debated did not originate under the present Government, nor solely under recent Labour administrations. In the view of many New Zealanders, they developed progressively under governments led by both major political parties, including National.
For example, the Jim Bolger Government signed the Ngāi Tahu Deed of Settlement on 21 November 1997. [whakatau.govt.nz], [whakatau.govt.nz]
On 13 September 2007, New Zealand voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) at the United Nations General Assembly. New Zealand was one of only four countries to vote against the Declaration at that time. [press.un.org], [social.desa.un.org]
On 20 April 2010, the National-led Government announced its support for UNDRIP through statements issued by John Key and Pita Sharples. Both described the Declaration as non-binding and aspirational. [beehive.govt.nz], [beehive.govt.nz]
These dates and events are matters of public record.
Reasonable people may differ on whether these decisions were beneficial or harmful. However, what cannot easily be disputed is that significant constitutional and governance developments occurred over many years without being placed directly before the New Zealand public for a specific democratic mandate.
Many New Zealanders now feel they have inherited constitutional arrangements that were developed incrementally through executive decision-making, policy adoption, and administrative practice rather than through a clear national conversation about the direction of the country.
That concern is not about ethnicity, nor is it about opposing Treaty settlements or historical redress. It is about democratic legitimacy, constitutional clarity, and the public’s right to participate in significant constitutional change.
The question many voters are asking is simple:
If these constitutional arrangements are intended to endure for future generations, should New Zealanders not be permitted a full and open discussion about them?
National is entitled to ask voters for their support.
Equally, voters are entitled to ask National to acknowledge its own role in the development of the constitutional frameworks that are now the subject of public concern.
For many New Zealanders, the issue is not whether change takes time.
The issue is whether political leaders are prepared to permit open democratic examination of changes that have already occurred.
Respectfully,
Ivan Thomas Barnett
Christchurch, New Zealand
Many of the constitutional concerns currently being debated did not originate under the present Government, nor solely under recent Labour administrations. In the view of many New Zealanders, they developed progressively under governments led by both major political parties, including National.
For example, the Jim Bolger Government signed the Ngāi Tahu Deed of Settlement on 21 November 1997. [whakatau.govt.nz], [whakatau.govt.nz]
On 13 September 2007, New Zealand voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) at the United Nations General Assembly. New Zealand was one of only four countries to vote against the Declaration at that time. [press.un.org], [social.desa.un.org]
On 20 April 2010, the National-led Government announced its support for UNDRIP through statements issued by John Key and Pita Sharples. Both described the Declaration as non-binding and aspirational. [beehive.govt.nz], [beehive.govt.nz]
These dates and events are matters of public record.
Reasonable people may differ on whether these decisions were beneficial or harmful. However, what cannot easily be disputed is that significant constitutional and governance developments occurred over many years without being placed directly before the New Zealand public for a specific democratic mandate.
Many New Zealanders now feel they have inherited constitutional arrangements that were developed incrementally through executive decision-making, policy adoption, and administrative practice rather than through a clear national conversation about the direction of the country.
That concern is not about ethnicity, nor is it about opposing Treaty settlements or historical redress. It is about democratic legitimacy, constitutional clarity, and the public’s right to participate in significant constitutional change.
The question many voters are asking is simple:
If these constitutional arrangements are intended to endure for future generations, should New Zealanders not be permitted a full and open discussion about them?
National is entitled to ask voters for their support.
Equally, voters are entitled to ask National to acknowledge its own role in the development of the constitutional frameworks that are now the subject of public concern.
For many New Zealanders, the issue is not whether change takes time.
The issue is whether political leaders are prepared to permit open democratic examination of changes that have already occurred.
Respectfully,
Ivan Thomas Barnett
Christchurch, New Zealand
1 comment:
This is core issue: lack of consultation with the people. Why not? Why no strong protest from citizens?
The Marxist approach is " no consultation" - rather, stealthy action then sudden major change as a " fait accompli."
The Left are the masters of this - but the Right (notably National as Labour Lite) - is equally adept .
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.