I would have to hear Russell’s arguments before I could comment on the profundity of his thought.

I personally don’t think there is much of a future for the colonial system in general or for the Treaty of Waitangi in particular. But it would be unreasonable, even dangerous, for European politicians to dispense with that part of New Zealand’s colonial baggage which may be of advantage to Maori, while leaving the balance of the colonial system intact.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes and yes. Their website is not impossible to navigate. Let your fingers do the walking.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So you think Geoff’s comment was fatter than mine?

Does the Green Party have concrete ideas on the Treaty apart from supporting Moari ownership/control of Foreshore and Seabed?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It was unfortunate for you, jh, that your skinny comment came right after the full-bodied contribution from Geoff Fischer. This juxtaposition left your comment looking cheap.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I see Russell Norman also thinks that honoring the Treaty is just what Aotearoa needs. You can see he’s a deep thinker!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

At the opening of the 49th New Zealand Parliament all elected members were required to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, and her heirs and successors according to law. As has been the case with previous parliaments, some of the new members of New Zealand’s purportedly “democratic” legislature baulked at being required to swear allegiance to the hereditary monarch of a foreign state. The “New Zealand Herald” reported that “When Green MP Kevin Hague tried to slip allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi into his [oath] he was made to read the oath proper again”. It is difficult to fathom why Kevin Hague would want to swear allegiance to the Treaty, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a political constitution (despite having important constitutional implications). It would appear that Hague was simply trying wiggle out of giving unqualified allegiance to the monarch. But the crown would allow no wiggle room, and following the lead of his Green Party colleague Keith Locke, Hague capitulated. Such brief acts of momentary rebellion have come to be expected with every new parliament. The Maori Party Member of Parliament Hone Harawira is one of the few to have persisted in a show of disobedience to the crown past his first term in office. Harawira, according to the Herald, swore “allegiance to everything but the Queen, including the Treaty of Waitangi, the good people of Tai Tokerau, their whanau, iwi and hapu, and then to all Maori of this great nation of ours” but “escaped a scolding by tagging the oath proper to the end of his own effort”.

On the face of it, the whole performance was quite silly. Hague and Harawira, like all previous dissenters, were made to look undignified and weak-kneed by the Crown’s officials. The “Herald”, as spokesman for the regime, took the opportunity to insinuate that Harawira was simply being childish – a hard claim to refute. To my knowledge not one New Zealand parliamentarian has ever taken a stand on principle and refused allegiance to the monarch, as was the norm for Irish nationalists elected to the British parliament. The inescapable conclusion is that New Zealand parliamentarians are a particularly spineless bunch. All parliamentarians know that the oath of allegiance to the monarch is morally indefensible. Keith Locke (to give him credit, one of the few Members of Parliament who is brave enough to discuss the issue) claims that if he did not swear allegiance to the Queen he would not be in a position to oppose her unwarranted demands at some future time. This is fairly tangled reasoning. Locke may naively believe it to be the case, but the other 119 members of parliament are under no illusions. They know that if they take a stand on patriotic or democratic principle they will lose their parliamentary seat and their parliamentary salary. In the monarchist parliament money and power always trumps democracy and patriotism.

http://www.republican.co.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There is a lot of speculation about what would happen when the monarchy is overthrown. Some say that the only change would be in the means by which the head of state is selected, or elected as the case may be. Others fear, or hope for, more radical change. The Republican Movement of Aotearoa, which is basically a front for professional politicians who have given their allegiance to the crown, but are positioning themselves for a change of allegiance if, or when, the move to a republic becomes unstoppable. (Not surprisingly, Peter Dunne is one of the foremost among those royalist politicians who have links to the Republican Movement of Aotearoa, http://www.republic.org.nz). The late Bruce Jesson (editor of “The Republican” magazine) advocated a more radical nationalist (and socialist) republicism.. My own sympathies (www.republican.co.nz) have always tended more towards Bruce Jesson than to the likes of Peter Dunne.

What kind of republic New Zealand ends up with will depend on the roles played by the opportunist and radical factions of the republican movement. The same consideration applies to the particular fate of the Treaty of Waitangi. If, for example, the parliamentary Maori Party was to significantly influence the shape of the new republic, then the Treaty of Waitangi would be incorporated into a republican constitution. But if the republic is born out of a civil conflict between royalist and nationalist forces (in which Maori and Pakeha would be found on both sides of the struggle) then the Treaty of Waitangi would be consigned to history.

I will leave samiuela to figure out in what circumstances student loans would be written off on the advent of a republic ….’

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Some of you (e.g. Gerrit) have argued that the Treaty of Waitangi will become void if New Zealand becomes a republic (because the treaty was signed with crown). Using that same logic, if New Zealand became a republic, my student loan would be wiped. I recall the loan documents stated that the loan was from the crown to me (I think the documents even mention QE2).

Of course all agreements with the crown will simply transfer to the new head of state, but the dream of being able to wipe my student loan is appealing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

In answer to jh:

The questions that I put to Kevin Hague were not meant to be rhetorical, and I did not intend that they should be answered by anyone but Kevin Hague himself. I hope he will do so, because it behoves those who seek state power to explain themselves to the people over whom they aspire to rule.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I cannot presume to offer the “best” argument against the monarchy. Instead I will offer the argument which is most important to me, from my own individual, even idiosyncratic, point of view.

I am opposed to the crown because of the very feature that supporters of the monarchy claim as its redeeming characteristic – the fact that the monarch, like all other state servants, is “apolitical”, that she is considered to be “just doing a job” and that she can not be held morally accountable for the actions of the state over which she presides.

When the state goes to war, as in Iraq or Afghanistan, the monarch is head of the state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. But she accepts no personal responsibility for the decision to make war, or the way in which the war is conducted. When the state legislates in favour of abortion, prostitution, gambling or usury, the Queen gives the royal assent, but she accepts no moral responsibility for the acts and no responsibility for their social consequences.. She is the model of every bureaucrat, every soldier, and, ultimately every citizen, of the regime. She is the epitome of the culture of moral irresponsibility that has an insidious influence within New Zealand society.

Others argue that the monarchy represents hereditary privilege and British rule, that the law of succession is sexist and sectarian, and that the whole institution of the monarchy is anachronistic. Those are valid arguments. But my greatest objection to the monarchy is that it has become the model of the amorality of the state.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

the daily show got it wrong, they leaped from “following the prime minister’s instructions, the governor general (representative of the queen) prorogued parliament…” to “the queen how power over canadian politics!”
that’s o.k. the daily show is american, & was after the comic angle anyway.

hey geoff fischer pick your one best argument & post it here

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Daily Show weighs in on Canada’s relationship with the Queen:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=212888&title=provinces-in-peril

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Questions for Green Party MP Kevin Hague:

Why did you “try to slip allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi” into your oath of allegiance to the Queen?
…………..
Because he sees Maori separatism and anything radical as a good thing?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Outinfront says

“I have not heard a single good argument for changing the way things are. ”

That does not mean there are no good, even compelling, arguments for dispensing with the monarchy. Outinfront just hasn’t heard those arguments, possibly because he hasn’t gone looking for them, but they are not that hard to find. Visit the website of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa http://www.republic.org.nz or my own website http://www.republican.co.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Questions for Green Party MP Kevin Hague:

Why did you “try to slip allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi” into your oath of allegiance to the Queen?

And why did you then revert to the “oath proper” when “made to”?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

no need to look further than this thread for good reasons to maintain the monarchy. too many republicans can’t wait to pile on all sorts of weird & wonderful constitutional changes

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Dave S

How many Iwi are there and how many seats would they have in parliament?

Ministry of Non-Maori affairs surely. There are many more races in New Zealand then Pakeha. All other non-pakeha people might feel left out.

What you are suggesting is apartheid. I dont like it anymore than seperate Maori seats.

I also dont like this notion of letting the “other” party governing New Zealand simply on the presumption that the current “Crown” (which has included Maori seats and Maori representatives by the way) has done a bad job.

I still believe in one nation, one people, one law for ALL. No seperatism.

Hence a new constitution that takes into consideration Maori asperations to rectify past grievances, but unites ALL New Zealanders.

As frog ackowledges, there is not enough public or DOC land availalbe to return to Maori in claim settlemts, nor enough money in the economy to finacially compensate all the claims.

So where from that situation?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

in other words a bait & switch – vote for this constitutional change & you open the door to all sorts of constitutional change you aren’t going to like

It’s nothing of the sort. It’s a model which ensures that the most popular option is the one on the final referendum.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Gerrit
I replied yesterday, but may have been censored out! So here goes another try.

We give each iwi a seat in Parliament, which they hold their own elections for – anyway they like.

We have a set of 10 Pakeha seats, 2 for each of the Super 14 regions (as good a division as any). From there on in, the approaches to forming a government etc., stay the same with the proviso being that there be a Ministry of Pakeha Affairs.

QED

Let’s see if the other party to the treaty can do a better job of governing all New Zelanders than The Crown has done; it would seem to be difficult to do a worse one.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thanks for that Don. That’ll explain my collection of awful shirts and ties as well

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)