by frog
Here is Harry Lusk – Keith Lockes’ Youth MP – giving a General Debate speech at Youth Parliament last month.
My speech is based on one simple question: should the New Zealand people not have the right to elect whoever holds the highest position in our land? I speak to you, my fellow youth parliamentarians, concerned with the fact that none of you could ever be our head of State. Supposedly many people in this room will be the leaders of tomorrow, but that is only to a certain extent. I think it is absurd that the current head of Aotearoa New Zealand is someone who was not born here, who has not lived here, and whose children have an automatic right to rule over us. How many of you think Prince Charles could even perform the haka, let alone at Kate’s party? New Zealand should become a republic and move on from our ailing links with the so-called motherland, a land that is becoming further distant from our own culture and identity down here in the South Pacific. How is it fair that young New Zealanders cannot aspire to work in the highest office of the land, and how is it democratic that only one member of one family will always be the head of State of our nation?
The closest a Kiwi can get to becoming our head of State is if she pushes Kate Middleton aside and marries Prince William. New Zealanders should be able to choose someone who represents their values—someone truly Kiwi and someone we can identify with. It is our time, our responsibility, and in our best interests to push for a new chapter in our country’s identity. I mean no disrespect to our parents’ generation, but they have left this issue in the too-hard basket when it is not that difficult. I understand the argument “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And do not get me wrong; the Queen is a highly regarded world leader, but do we seriously think there is no New Zealander who can step up to that role? Shame on anyone who has that view. We have to stop underestimating ourselves.
I know that some people have a concern that the Treaty of Waitangi will be affected by any move to a republic, but that is bollocks. We do not require the Queen to keep us in line. The Government has an obligation to honour the Treaty, with or without the Queen, and it would be a very silly Government that chose to dishonour the indigenous people of this land.
I respect that there are many differing views on the republic issue, but I do not accept the argument that it is not important for us to deal with. Who our leaders are is an important question because it shows the world who we are and what we stand for. Gone are the days when we were the little brother of Great Britain. Aotearoa New Zealand has its own unique identity, and I live in hope that in my lifetime one of the people in this very room will be our head of State.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Tue, August 3rd, 2010
Tags: Harry Lusk, head of state, republic, treaty of waitangi
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Great stuff Harry.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The head of state is just a figurehead that’s why the Royal family do it well. Otherwise we should choose a bicycle.
=====
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.
1962 (or there abouts)
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Do it well? The Queen doesn’t do it at all – all the work of New Zealand’s head of state is done by their conduit, the Governor-General. So if we’ve already got a de facto head of state, why bother with the Royal family?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
10 (-10)
Unfortunately, we have had an unbroken succession of very silly Governments in that regard, Harry.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Not sure what’s up with your fascination with left-wing lesbians, but nonetheless you seem to assume that a new head of state would be as undemocratic as the status quo… do you really think Parliament or the general public would elect either of those people as head of state? Of course not.
Back in the real world, it’s pretty clear from other countries following Westminster systems that are republics that it’s more than possible for the general public to make sensible choices… and where they don’t, at least they get the chance to rectify it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
@Toad – true, there may need to be some other sort of constitutional settlement on the Treaty first (as was the case in Canada with their first nation treaties with the British monarch). But that doesn’t mean the treaty is voided by becoming a republic.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@Lewis Holden 5:01 PM
Agreed. There are constitutional ways of working through the issue, if there is the political will.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
12 (-11)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
I assume thumbs down means manawhenua doesn’t outrank the status of a tauiwi? I am also wrong (apparently) in thinking Maori soverignty (under te tiritti) means Maori culture must be upheld and applies to areas occupied during the signing of te tiritti in 1840? Are Tariana Turia and Margaret Mutu also wrong? I am also wrong (I’d say) in suggesting that the race known as Maori are of highest birth (holding mana whenua) in Aotearoa?
One thing I am right about is that at the 2002 conference Meteria Turie introduced a remit that the indigenous version of te tiritti be adhered to at all cost.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
jh-You’ve hit a new low; Greens have a penchant for “Lefto-Lesbos” and pakeha culture is more open and evolving than Maori culture? Your ignorance knows no bounds!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I can reference Margaret Mutu if you like Sprout:
http://www.goingbananas.org.nz/…/Going_Bananas_August_07_Maori_Roots_Multicultural_NZ.ppt -
5.
Māori Role in Aotearoa/New Zealand
Defined by tikanga (our laws)
derive from a world view that we inherited from our ancestors
rooted as much in the spiritual aspects of this world as the physical.
based on underlying values which include
Mana – authority, power, control, ownership, status, influence, dignity, respect all derived from the gods
Tapu – sacredness, spiritual power or protective force
Whanaungatanga – kinship, relationships through genealogical bonds
Kaitiakitanga – inherited responsibilities to take care of all our natural resources including our lands, waters, seas and other taonga
Rangatiratanga – chieftainship including sovereignty, rights of self-determination, self government, authority and power to make decisions and own and control resources.
6. Our tikanga determines that :
We are tangata whenua – we are the hosts for all who visit this country (and hence need to determine immigration policy)
We have a duty of manaaki manuhiri – we are obliged to look after our guests and ensure they are well-treated and respected.
And if they decide to stay then they need a good understanding of our tikanga so that we can all live here in harmony.
We also need a good understanding of our guest’s tikanga so that we know how to look after them properly.
Pākehā settlement and introduced legal system has not and can not change these fundamental values and principles but it has made it very difficult for us to carry out our responsibilities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
9 (-9)
Tena koe JH me o whakaaro rangatira, ahakoa poraru ke. I was present when Harry Lusk delivered this speech and I must say, I was positively captivated by it. JH, you seem to have a very skewed view on tikanga and kawa Maori and a highly misguided interpretation of the kupu MANA WHENUA which leads me to believe that you are positively kirihou, plastic, or in favour of being Maori when it is fashionable. Your idea of manawhenua
Mana – authority, power, control, ownership, status, influence, dignity,
Whenua – land
Meaning, because we are Maori, we somehow have “authority, power, control, ownership” over land? Please, go back to kohanga, see if they will teach you the basics. You can’t own whenua. You can only belong to it. We are merely the kaitiaki, never owners or governors. And your concepts are thousands of years old. The basis for tikanga is still true, but it has to adapt to the changing world.
“We have a duty of manaaki manuhiri – we are obliged to look after our guests and ensure they are well-treated and respected.
And if they decide to stay then they need a good understanding of our tikanga so that we can all live here in harmony.”
This is impossible without compromise, which I am loathe to admit is a concept that most Maori do not understand nor accept. Understanding of tikanga is fine, but it isnt written rule that EVERYONE must follow it. You seem to be under the illusion that sovereignty exists for Maori. It does to an extent. But as of 1840, the British Monarchy has had governance over Aotearoa. Something I personally thought most Maori would be keen to change. A British Monarch having governance or a New Zealander Head of State. Which is the lesser of two evils?
Im down for a republic. It would be Epic bro. Then at least we could have a part in making the decision about the figurehead of our nation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)