This week's poll asks:
Do you agree that major constitutional change without a public referendum is illegitimate?
*If this treaty based constitution issue was debated in the public arena and then put to a referendum this issue would be thrown out on it's ear and that is why I think this is being done behind closed doors and in secret. It is undemocratic. Don
*Is there no end to the arrogance of our politicians?
Most of them should be dumped. We'd be better off with men and women of ability and integrity standing as Independent MPs.
Let's face it - we have a pretend democracy with self serving politicians choosing to follow the dictates of their Party Bosses rather than the wishes of the people who are paying their salaries.
The country is heading for disaster if we don't have a political house cleaning. Denis
*It is not only illegitimate but undemocratic. If National with other parties continue on this track then only solution to regain democracy is a revolution. Failing that, then non co-operation and an Irish type Boycott with every branch of government both Central and Local is our only chance for freedom. Brian
*Absolutely not!!!Why are we not considered when important changes etc are made? We are living here too!not just politicians. Anna
*Most definitely yes. I'm wondering if these newsletters get forwarded to the major papers. One wonders at their silence and would have thought they would have loved to expose what is happening in our country. Why are they silent? I just know the people are going to wake up when it is far too late. The damage will be done. Many have absolutely no idea as to what is happening and sleazy Finlayson is gleefully giving away our country lock stock and barrel from behind his office door. Surely this is treason of the highest order. B+H
*If this change goes through, I will close my business and move my family back to Australia for good.
This makes me ashamed to be a Kiwi.
At least Aussies have a sense of fair play, and are not afraid to stand up for it. In Aussie, this would be called 'Un Australian', which is a nice way of insulting someone who is responsible for something morally wrong.
What an absolute disgrace to this once wonderful country that we could find ourselves in this position. Andrew
*Disgusting. The underhand way key and that twerp, list member Finlayson (poof) are colluding with these racists is stunning. I don't believe Key wants to lead the Nats next election, and will probably make his permanent home in Hawaii or somewhere offshore. He doesn't appear to give a damn about us average Kiwis or future generations. No wonder so many good citizens are leaving NZ to be replaced by what???? Carolyn
*The public must have an input into any constitutional changes made. Gail
*A major constitutional change without a referendum was possible under Nazism, in the USSR, & under Mao Tse Tung and look what happened to the people who lived under those regimes.
Think of Mugabe and wake up, kiwis! Eneka
*I'm sick of special deals for a group who survive on an entitlement mentality. Mark
*It is only too obvious why National and the Maori Party are doing everything to avoid an open approach by initiating a binding referendum re any changes of our constitution. If there was a referendum, I am absolutely positive that a overwhelming majority of New Zealanders would oppose the integration of this pseudo treaty into the constitution. I also blame the other parties to be as guilty as them by not questioning these undemocratic activities.But this is where we are now: the democracy in this country has been eroded to a point where political brinkmanship and underlying fascistic principles are applied to achieve total control.This is actually nothing else but treason and these instigators should be removed from office and held accountable for their actions in the High Court (which does include the misappropriation of taxpayers money to support these unlawful activities).
I also consider these actions to be a massive breach of our human rights. Michael
*We now should gather our own constitutional details - some goe back before Magna Carta of 1215, e.g. in HALSBURY'S Annotated Laws, re Private Fishery, using antiquated words, GETS easier. A
'several/severed fishery is an exclusive right to fish in a given place. (Hanbury v Jenkins 
2 Ch. 401, &c...
'it is an incident of the ownership of a river that is not tidal and navigable. In todal waters , where the public have a right to fish + the soil belongs to the Crown, a title claimed under a royal gr ant must.. rest on a grant made before the Magna Carta (Stephens v Snell  3 All E R. 622.
sEE 'PRIVATE FISHERIES' 17 Halsbury's Laws (3rd Edition) 303 et seq.
I came to 'love' 3rd ed., while on Book Eight, 'The Common Law of Fisheries.' Jean
*From the point of view of the people being sovereign and what should be a proper policy of equal rights for all, it is a disgrace.
Sadly, however, with the enormous power that any political party in office has acquired by default, this government seems to have decided that it can do what it likes, regardless of the views of those it is supposed to represent.
This is the time for us to let it be loudly known that this is something we will not tolerate. Beverley