A Peoples
Referendum
to
Choose a new CONSTITUTION
Read more…
Why a Peoples Referendum?
About
.jpg)
I do not recall what led me to the website of Investigative Journalist Ian Wishart, however, after reading the articles there on this very issue, I knew that it had to be addressed by the country as a whole.
Imagine how much better our lives could have been if we had only addressed this issue at the time Ian Wishart first brought it to our attention; if only we had been able to see the significance of resolving this issue then. Perhaps our lives were too busy, or we relied on the media to alert us; either way, we must give it our fullest attention NOW.
1-Minute Read
The Constitutional Legitimacy of New Zealand’s Parliament: A Critical Examination
This document challenges the constitutional legality of the New Zealand Parliament following its 1986 declaration of independence from Britain. Drawing heavily on the research and claims of investigative journalist Ian Wishart, it argues that New Zealand’s government has operated without proper constitutional authority since severing ties with Westminster, and that sovereignty legally reverted to the people.
The 1986 Break in Constitutional Authority
Ian Wishart’s central argument is that the Constitution Act 1986 effectively declared New Zealand independent from Britain, cutting the constitutional “branch” (New Zealand) from the “tree” (Britain).
-
Before 1986, New Zealand’s authority to govern came from British Acts of Parliament.
-
When independence was declared, this authority was severed.
-
No new constitutional mandate—such as a public referendum or election ratifying independence—was ever established, leaving Parliament legally unsupported.
Concealment and Continuity of Power
The Lange Government allegedly concealed the constitutional break to maintain the illusion of continuity.
-
The government retained the same offices, symbols, and systems (Governor-General, Queen’s Representative, etc.) despite their legal authority having ended.
-
According to Wishart, this act was “technically illegal and unconstitutional.”
-
Other nations like Ireland, undertook public ratification processes post-independence; New Zealand did not.
Consequences and Call for Action
If Parliament truly lacks constitutional authority, major national functions would be invalid.
-
Government could not lawfully collect taxes, pass laws, or enforce judicial rulings.
-
Local councils, acting under parliamentary authority, would also be unlawful.
-
The author argues that a national referendum must now be held to establish a new, legitimate Constitution sourced directly from the people.
Conclusion:
The document asserts that since 1986, New Zealand’s Parliament has operated outside lawful constitutional bounds. To restore legitimacy and democratic sovereignty, it calls for a People’s Referendum to formalise a new, people-based Constitution.
