Comments on: MUST READ: Two Kings, One Country

By: Sinic

Sinic — Sat, 17 Sep 2022 04:26:11 +0000

We don’t know our own history in NZ. It was never taught to us correctly at school. I had to go to university to learn that there was more than one te tiriti o Waitangi document, for example.

By: SPC

SPC — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 20:38:14 +0000

In reply to Cantabrian. Meh. The only party acting in reference to the Crown as Treaty partner is the New Zealand government. And the Crown obligation, in reference to the Treaty, would only be more directly connected to the New Zealand government if the "Crown" was no longer represented by a foreign person (and thus the GG here) but the New Zealand nation state.

By: Grey+Area

Grey+Area — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:04:55 +0000

Tuheitia Paki should have no more part to play in a modern Aotearoa New Zealand than any other citizen. Charles Windsor should play no part.

By: Grey+Area

Grey+Area — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:00:00 +0000

“We should replace both distant monarch and local GG not with a head of state by any name, but something useful: a constitutional court of the Chief Justice and two other Supreme Court justices, whose duties would be to appoint prime ministers and governments, and to guard us against tyranny by approving or rejecting legislation and by dismissing governments that sought to infringe on our liberties as defined by the Bill of Rights.”

Like the rogue US Supreme Court is guarding against tyranny there?

By: Grey+Area

Grey+Area — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 18:58:27 +0000

Like the rogue US Supreme Court is guarding against tyranny there?

By: Cantabrian

Cantabrian — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:35:44 +0000

Surely if there is no presence from the Crown in New Zealand as in a republic then the Treaty becomes worthless.

By: SPC

SPC — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 06:17:06 +0000

In reply to John Trezise.

Sure a modern democracy merely needs oversight or guardianship of the process. And thus any change should involve as little politics as possible.

However I would not compare the foreign monarch to a local mountain but to an island (and its constitutional tradition within its parliamentary system) called Britain (to many Pakeha as a Taiwan/Atiu/Raiatea to Maori).

I suppose one could have a Crown Governorship Council perform the duties currently performed by the GG as agent of the foreign/disinterested royal. The use of the term Crown would be important so as to legal continuity and why some prefer a person in office as Crown Governor.

However the idea that there would be real power held by a legal authority to reject legislation and depose elected governments is a major change to that offshore Britain tradition that we have inherited. What you suggest would result in a politicisation of judicial appointments and we know where that leads … (SCOTUS).

A Crown Governorship Council made up of a Crown Governor, and say say a public servant and a former justice to provide expert advice might work better.

By: James+Brown

James+Brown — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:41:04 +0000

‘their’ people not ‘there people’ . . and I am the one that needs to ‘get a fucken brain’ yeah?

By: John Trezise

John Trezise — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 05:39:23 +0000

We have a comfortable constitutional convention where our notional head of state, now King Charles III, is represented by a Governor-General whose relevance to our government is entirely ceremonial.
Matthew Hooton recently proposed that we could replace the British monarch by appointing Aoraki/Mount Cook president, presumably eternal president like North Korea’s Kim Il-sung of unhappy memory. And nothing would change.
The Aoraki suggestion illustrates that we need neither king nor president.
Parliament is sovereign: a parliamentary democracy needs a head of state like a fish needs a bicycle.
We should replace both distant monarch and local GG not with a head of state by any name, but something useful: a constitutional court of the Chief Justice and two other Supreme Court justices, whose duties would be to appoint prime ministers and governments, and to guard us against tyranny by approving or rejecting legislation and by dismissing governments that sought to infringe on our liberties as defined by the Bill of Rights.
And we could make this change by simple act of Parliament, though it would clearly need to be entrenched by a supermajority.

By: John Trezise

John Trezise — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 05:14:43 +0000

My recollection, perhaps faulty, is that Dame Te Atairangikaahu preferred the title Arikinui to that of Queen or Kuini.
The King movement in the Waikato was, I think, part of the attempt to repel the colonial seizure of land by forces perceived to be agents of the British Queen.
Perhaps, once New Zealand has divested itself of the last associations with the British monarch, the Waikato-Tainui King movement will gradually abandon notions of kingship.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/6t4/te-atairangikaahu-koroki-te-rata-mahuta-tawhiao-potatau-te-wherowhero/print