Constitutional inquiries

The government finally seems to be getting its act together on constitutional review, with a proposal for a broad select committee style inquiry set to go before Cabinet. While it's dissappointing for those who wanted a full Royal Commission, I don't think it really deserves DPF's scorn as a Clayton's review. Yes, it will take time - but it needs it. The issues under consideration require a broad consensus if there is to be change, and if Don Brash was really interested in a debate on our constitutional structure (rather than simply trying to stoke tension to get votes), he'd support it. As for DPF's sneering at the idea of a "conversation witht he people", it depends on how it is done. If it is truly an attempt to promote grassroots discussion (as suggested by the Greens), then it should be supported. It's our constitution, after all; shouldn't we be involved in the process?

I think it's interesting that the government is also trying to focus squarely on the Treaty and put republicanism and a written constitution to one side for the moment. As I've argued here, the Treaty really is the prior issue, in that our answers on the other questions are going to depend significantly on how we approach the Treaty. Entrenching it as supreme law (as suggested by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System and pushed by Geoffrey Palmer) will drive us towards a more formal written constitution, for example, while the question of permanant Maori representation (or even, as ocassionally suggested, an upper house) will depend on what principles are extracted from it. Which means that this inquiry really is going to have to be followed by another one to deal with those other issues...