Simon Bridges' response (20 December) to Robin Rimmer's question on whether a referendum would be required for any constitutional changes was less than reassuring. A referendum was possible, Bridges said, but so was a cross-party agreement.
Instead of a referendum, they are planning to garner the support of vested interest parliamentary parties, and impose constitutional change onto the country through a vote in parliament. The reason is practical. Any government that tried to impose a Treaty based constitution onto the country through a public referendum would face defeat. New Zealanders do not want to live in a separatist nation. So, as long as a majority of MPs think it a good idea then as Robin Rimmer said it could be 'simply foisted upon us”.
This is the favoured way of overcoming likely public rejection. Simple. Don't ask them. The same technique was used to 'foist upon us” the Marine and Coastal Area Act . If the Government has any intention of holding a referendum they would be shouting it from the roof tops. Do our politicians need reminding that even the Egyptians had a referendum to approve their new constitution.
$4m has been budgeted for the constitutional review and of that $2m has so far been spent consulting with Maori. Could Mr Bridges tell us when consultation will began with the other 85% of New Zealanders.

Richard Prince, Welcome Bay.