KEY POINTS:
Mike Moore's suggestion of an "eminent persons" group to avoid ad hoc, opportunistic and rushed constitutional reform struck immediate problems yesterday.
The Government expressed bemusement with the idea and the proposal was widely misinterpreted as a push for a republic.
Rather than promoting a republic, the former Labour
leader is arguing that the likelihood of Australia contemplating another ballot on republicanism and the dangers of New Zealand continuing to make ad hoc changes to its unwritten constitution necessitate some kind of constitutional review mechanism.
Setting up an "agreed" process to consider constitutional arrangements, including the question of a republic, would short-circuit such moves and avoid rushed decisions that would be difficult to unpick.
Mr Moore had privately briefed MPs from several political parties in advance of his article in yesterday's Herald outlining his proposal. He is hoping one or more of those MPs will pick up his suggested mechanism for ensuring potential constitutional reform is managed more carefully in the future.
Mr Moore yesterday said "lobbying" was too strong a description to apply to his discussions with MPs, whom he would not name.
"Maybe it will be a fizzer. But the ideal thing for me would be to see some politicians grab it, own it and prove it."
However, duty minister David Cunliffe said the Government was bemused as to why Mr Moore was raising his concerns now.
In his article, Mr Moore implied someone was about to thrust republicanism on to the political agenda "in a fit of populism" or as a diversion.
However, Mr Cunliffe said no plans for constitutional change were under consideration.
Mr Moore stressed he would not let his personal views on republicanism become known as that might block the wider debate on a need for a constitutional review.
However, his article has been widely misinterpreted as backing republicanism. That perception may be mistaken, but it will make it more difficult for Mr Moore to persuade an MP to front for his constitutional review.
One of the few MPs actively advocating a republic had mixed feelings about Mr Moore's proposal.
Green MP Keith Locke, who has drafted a private member's bill for a referendum on who should be the head of state, said Mr Moore's planned review was too broad in covering not only the republic issue, but whether MMP should be retained, the status of the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand's special constitutional relations with the Pacific. "It is hard enough to get any group of people to agree on one constitutional issue, let alone a basket of issues."
National leader John Key shared Mr Moore's concerns about ad hoc changes to constitutional laws.
"That was shown up in the sense of the changes to electoral finance law. It exposed the fact that pretty substantial aspects of our informal constitution can be changed by a very slim majority."
However, Mr Key said that while it was inevitable that one day New Zealand would become a republic, "I don't see it as one of the big issues that are relevant today".
Not surprisingly, the Republican Movement welcomed Mr Moore's call for a constitutional convention.
"Since the republic debate began, republicans have consistently called for discussion about New Zealand's constitutional future, how we could improve our democracy and create a head of state of our own," said the chairman of the Republican Movement, Lewis Holden.
However, Mr Moore said he did not want the backing of republicans - or monarchists for that matter. He wanted backing for a managed process of change - or no change.
