Unfortunately, I had an article ready about New Zealand’s entrenchment issue but now find it irrelevant. My thesis would have been that hasty proposals with quick votes are no way to handle such important matters and will ultimately undermine entrenchment as well as jeopardize its constitutional basis.

New Zealand doesn’t enshrine very many things into law, unlike countries with written constitutions which provide protection for much more than it. Debating what deserves constitutional protection should certainly continue; let’s just do it differently this time around!

Max Harris and Gordon Campbell offer this alternative suggestion for protecting public ownership of water infrastructure: engage the public via binding referendum to get support, just as happened with the Electoral Act in 1993, to achieve similar levels of protection without resorting to political haggling tactics. This way, public ownership would receive similar levels of protection without resorting to legislative tricks!

So if public ownership of water assets is your goal, enter each election campaign with this in mind: If we fail to achieve 75% support in Parliament for keeping them public, a binding referendum may be called; either that would force future Parliaments into keeping these assets publicly owned, or force another referendum vote in their place.

Believe it or not, protesting can be an effective way of upholding what you believe without undermining its moral heft. But you need to approach it seriously if it’s going to work; don’t use it just as a political weapon! Start building bridges between candidates now so they’re clear to take office in November – not vice versa! Fix what needs fixing now so voters know you mean business next election cycle!