Karl du Fresne points out the so-called "debate" on the constitution (run by Radio NZ) is effectively a watered down version of a wet tea towel.They are cosy consensus sessions featuring safe speakers who can be counted on to agree broadly on the key issues. While the participants are learned and articulate, it’s dishonest to pretend these affairs are a genuine contest of ideas.
They are a sham, creating the misleading impression that the highly contentious issues under discussion – such as the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitutional arrangements – are largely settled....This charade closely follows a series of pretend “debates” on the Treaty...It is a misuse of power – nothing less.
Yep, this will not end well. And no doubt the masses will rest easy knowing that no matter what happens, John Key and Maurice Williamson will be there to assure us the sun will still rise tomorrow. As if that is somehow relevant to the political darkness descending upon us.
Read the whole article: Debasing Debate
Right.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue for not having a constitution unless.
1. The treaty is abolished.
2. There is a house of LORDs. With LORDS spirtual elected using presbyterian methods (which means that the laity and clergy need to vote you in).
3. The Supreme Court is Abolished.
4. There are term limits on the judiciary, prime minister, and members of parliament.
5. And Parliament can only sit and hold committees during June, July and
August (when the cows are dry but before Lambing).
6. All bills have to be confirmed by the people. (IE, a referendum, Annually
7. That you can only vote if you pay a head tax. 20 K sounds about right.
Which is why no one lets me near the debates
You'd be great in these debates. It would make a lot of my requirements seem perfectly reasonable.
ReplyDeleteAnd to be fair, your ideas are not as extreme as incorporating the ToW into the Constitution. Now that is barking mad.
we have the same debacle here in the States and they are gaining ground!
ReplyDelete