What does tangata whenua mean?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

My proposal in light:

The house of representives stays as it is presently, minus the Maori electoral seats.

An upper house is formed with no ability to propose legislation. This upper house is appointed by the the Maori signatories to te tiriti o watangi and is known as the kaitiaki. The method of appointment of kaitiaki members is entirely at the whim of the afformentioned signatories and may be opened up to non-tiriti signatories and pakeha should the signatories desire such. The kaitiaki has placed with them all the lands and peoples of NZ. The kaitiaki may give or deny ascent to legislation in its role as protector and guardian of the lands and of the peoples. A major role of the kaitiaki would be in preventing discriminatory laws and preventing environmental destruction

A constitutional court is formed tasked with ensuring that no legislation passed by parliment is contradictory to the constitution. This court would also mediate between the Kaitiaki and the parliment in the case of disagreement and would ensure that both were acting within their constitutional boundries.

Legislation may be given ascent even if the kaitiaki vetos it should a super-majority in the house be present or should the constitutional court rule that the kaitiaki is over-stepping its contitutional bounds. Should a super-majority within the kaitiaki choose to veto legislation this may not be over-ruled by a super-majority in parliment in the absence of post-legislative referenda.

The kaitiaki could potentially hold the ability to grant allodial title over a peice of land to a group should that group pay the full value associated with such title. The granting of this title allowing an independant state to be formed.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

What was the quote along the lines of stuffing about whilst Rome burnt?

Rampant industrial dairying.
The BS about ACC being broke and why it needs to be sold off.
Global warming and Copenhagen
Adult education trashed
Anti-democratic behaviour and the subversion of legal process in the house. Rodney had no right to prejudge Auckland and disenfranchise all Aucklanders.
Privatisation, privatisation, privatisation.

and where on earth in importance does republicanism and monarchism come in all of this. What a waste of time and space when so many more important things could be looked at.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

I would imagine that, given more than 1/3rd support a republic, more than intellectuals support this.

It’s a matter of self-determination and necessary for the development of nation-hood.

Add to that the baggage of the existing system – religious supremacism, male chauvinism, pandering to colonial cringe knighthoods, unmerited leadership over others status from birth which is anathema to democratic sovereignty and equality. These are principles upon which the democracy (over which the corrupt relic sits like some debauched mocking Leviathan) is based and they are slighted by the current system.

Like or Dislike: 3  2 (+1)

Why bother SPC. It’s just intellectualism at it’s worst. Bit like the flag debate….again why bother.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The thing is we can and should cut the cord as soon as possible, but a debate about formalising a new head of state arrangement (whether chosen by 75% parliament vote, or by choice of the Supreme Court, or by a public poll) and associated constitutional change is a matter for some debate and over a process which will take some time – even to just agree on going ahead with such a process.

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

What a lot of hot air tonight. Sense a few professional academics in the mix surely.

The current state of play is comparitively benign.

Again, god help us if we ever get a President.

President Banks, Hide, Brash or Key.

Let’s get on with something that is actually important.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Nonsense DLR. Your arguments are based on logical fallacies.

A figure head that doesn’t cost us anything

Wrong. The Governor-General costs New Zealand taxpayers around $11 million a year, not including upgrades to Government House at around $46 million.

much and is largely uninvolved in our politics,

Indeed the Queen isn’t. She’s not involved at all in our politics, and has never intervened in any of the Commonwealth states she is head of state of… which goes to contradict your next point:

and importantly is at least currently seen to be reasonably capable of being the nearest thing we have to a politically neutral arbiter for when our government way oversteps the line.

If you can give us one example of where the Sovereign has actually intervened when a Government has “stepped over the line” I’d be glad to hear it. No examples or precedents exist – instead there is a litany of coups and broken governments where the Queen was head of state – Pakistan, Sierre Leone, Rhodesia, Grenada, Fiji, the Solomon Islands… the list goes on.

The idea that the Sovereign is a neutral arbiter is a myth. Moreover, since the Prime Minister appoints and can fire the Governor-General, they’re rarely neutral either – you either end up with a Mexican stand-off (as happened in Papua New Guinea) or the Governor-General firing a government with the confidence of the house and forcing an early general election where none is needed (as happened in Australia).

Just what do you think it will cost us to equip and fund our own head of state, with a suitably lavish official house, staff, and private army of security, transport etc.

Our Governor-General already has all of these things – yet costs New Zealand taxpayers more than the President of Ireland ($8 million per year). Wrong again.

We’ll end up with a partisan head of state with no protections at all

Wrong again. The Commonwealth countries that retained their Parliamentary systems of government have remained stable and democratic – it’s the ones who don’t that tend to fall apart. More importantly by electing the head of state, rather than allowing the Prime Minister to choose whoever they want for the role of Governor-General, you’re actually introducing a real check on Government that currently doesn’t exist.

If a head of state were to step over the line, which I doubt since you’re likely to have someone of the same gravitas as a Governor-General take the office, then Parliament could remove them. The threat of such removal would force anyone occupying the office to act in a non-partisan way, but be enabled to intervene (unlike the Governor-General) when a crisis arose.

Talk about sending the country to hell in a gas guzzling, carbon spewing v8.

Err… no.

It ain’t broke, so don’t try to fix it. (Or is “fixing it” your intention).

Nope. The monarchy is broken. Our parliamentary system isn’t. Becoming a republic is about fixing our irrelevant, constitutionally useless head of state.

Like or Dislike: 2  2 (0)

There is nothing to stop the Governor General from becoming the agent of our true sovereign the collective of the citizens of our democracy. Name the people sovereign (in place of the Crown) and continue as we are appointing a Governor General as we do now. The Crown continues (made anew inheriting the old estate in full) and so does the office of Governor General as its agent.

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Keith you fool.

We currently have the best system. A figure head that doesn’t cost us anything much and is largely uninvolved in our politics, and importantly is at least currently seen to be reasonably capable of being the nearest thing we have to a politically neutral arbiter for when our government way oversteps the line.

Just what do you think it will cost us to equip and fund our own head of state, with a suitably lavish official house, staff, and private army of security, transport etc.

We’ll end up with a partisan head of state with no protections at all (We’d surely need to reintroduce the upper house to restrain both Govt and HoS should they have the same political inclinations.)

Talk about sending the country to hell in a gas guzzling, carbon spewing v8.

Your demented. It ain’t broke, so don’t try to fix it. (Or is “fixing it” your intention).

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

SPC,

Not more reasonable; same position, more explanation.

I get lots of demerits, I aim for a 1:2-3 ratio.

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

You’ve become more reasonable during this debate and then you get a demerit point. The injustice.

Like or Dislike: 0  2 (-2)

SPC,
I argue that one cannot know that ones logic is valid and that one cannot know that their perception of reality is true. Since the assumption of ones logic being valid is the only assumption in reasoning via pure logic there is less room for error than any assumption as to the nature of the world as that assumption involves both the assumption that ones logic is valid and that ones perceptions are true; thus introducing more potential room for error.

Scientific theories, even when supported by all evidence and put into doubt by none, may be questioned on the grounds of logic and on the grounds of reality. The theory I suggest may only be questioned on the grounds of logic and requires far less inference and assumption.

To know entails justified true belief. While anything may be true we may never justifiably believe anything and thus we have no claim to real knowledge.

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

So you argue that logic is more true than reality, for reality is not known perfectly, and so the one claiming awareness of pure logic possesses the only knowable truth. It’s a point of view I suppose.

Like or Dislike: 0  3 (-3)

SPC,

“I know not even that I know not”.

Everything that we may claim to know is based on assumption. Even the previous assumption assumes our logic valid; something which, assuming our observations are valid, we know is not always true.

The knowledge that requires the least assumption, however, is the assumption that our logic is valid as all other assumptions are based on this assumption in addition to other assumptions. Thus assumption based purely on logic is that about which we can be most certain; the best approximation of real knowledge. The possibility of flawed logic being something we must live with just as we must live with the possibility that we exist not.

The position which I hold is one that I came to independently but has been come to independently by many since, at least, the time of Socrates. This position has never, in this time, been successfully challenged and has always managed not just to ward off those whom would attempt to show it wrong but has shattered, via logic, those whom would attempt to do so. As far as a theory may be supported this one has been. More so than any other theory to date. More so than any other theoretical theory can even be theoretically supported.

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

As to the issue of Greens sticking with environment issues – the party arose out of the Values Party – which was not a single issue party. It came to emphasise the importance of the environment.

Republicans, Treaty activists, social justice/human rights activists, social liberals, drug reform activists, economic reform activists, feminists, conservationists etc all had common cause in Values and yet accepted the growing importance of protecting the environment, not to negate other issues but to prioritise one.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Sapient, anyone can show anything to themselves, that’s the nature of self-perception (delusion) of logic. Is there any such thing as measurable pure logic, does not imperfect perception provide sufficient ground to question trust in anyones ability to discern pure reason?

Like or Dislike: 0  3 (-3)

Like or Dislike: 4  1 (+3)

Unfortunately Blue Peter’s version of everyone being treated equally is that the rich get an even more god given right to absolute wealth at the cost to those of us who actually do some work instead of shuffling money around the planet while we still have a planet.

Like or Dislike: 3  2 (+1)

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Like or Dislike: 2  14 (-12)