Hard News: Any excuse for a party
197 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
That is an interesting take (word meant in both languages) on the subject chris-
one of the things that Kai Tahu have found over the past decade is that - education works. Working in the general community (of the South Island mainly, but also north)- works. Making our huiatau/annual meeting open to everyone - works. There is waaay less racism/anti-Maori feeling now, than when I was growing up - indeed, for much of my adult life. There may have been a poll that showed "over 37% of New Zealanders want the Treaty removed from New Zealand law"- but I'd really like some details on that figure e.g: number of participants? Wording of question? Area/s participants came from? -
Islander, in reply to
Email
David Bain? Retried in an ANZ court - and what a fiasco that was.
I emphatically do not think our court system perfect: the case of Peter Ellis remains as a kind of suppurating judicial sore... -
Paul Williams, in reply to
Email Web
I’m unfamiliar with that poll Chris. Fortunately, neither a poll nor even for that matter a majority of electors of even MPs is sufficient to excuse the crown’s responsibilities under the Treaty. It is a matter for the courts, international courts if necessary as it was a Treaty between two sovereign parties. Any process toward republicanism would necessarily involve an agreement transferring any responsibilities owed by Elizabeth R to the NZ government. Anyone advocating for republicanism on any other basis is either wrong or foolish.
-
As the link says Islander; 2700 participants, but like any survey, it’s never going to give you a particularly clear indication of the feeling of the greater population, but it’s a high enough figure to cause some concern.
David Bain? Retried in an ANZ court – and what a fiasco that was.
Via the Privy Council.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
2008? Mmhmm – and not a lot of other info-
and what precisely makes you think that ‘the British’ would be coming to the aid of Maori if the Treaty was ditched? Even if intervention was to 'their' possible advantage?
Paul Williams - +1
-
chris, in reply to
and what precisely makes you think that ‘the British’ would be coming to the aid of Maori if the Treaty was ditched?
Simply that the maintenance of the British/New Zealand relationship leaves other legal avenues open for New Zealanders.
Were New Zealand already a republic, for better or for worse such an avenue wouldn’t have been available to Bain.
Can there be such a thing as too much justice? Looking at this case, arguably perhaps, but the odds are that the next person in need of this instrument may be more deserving.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
"other legal avenues"?
Urm, which ones precisely?
Our relationship - currently- is that of sovereign nation states who - regrettably, currently - happen to share the same head of State.You're possibly talking about an appeal to Elizabeth Windsor in person?
-
Email
the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.
The G-G can be fired by the Prime Minister at any time, without cause.
The British have zero input, except as one of 192 members of the UN. Even when the Privy Council was the highest court of NZ (that changed for cases after 2004) it acted as a hired adjudicator to interpret *NZ* law.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
That avenue hasnt been available to Peter Ellis , chris- and I think it would make buggerall difference to his especial circumstances.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Email Twitter
I don’t think I know better than anyone here Islander. Perhaps I’m wrong, I simply worry that over 37% of New Zealanders want the treaty removed from New Zealand law, that if this number were to increase significantly, then the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.
You are wrong, as we don't have any recourse to a British system any more. Which renders all of your points rather pointless.
-
chris, in reply to
“other legal avenues”?
Urm, which ones precisely?
the one I just mentioned.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
Recourse to the Privy Council is no longer an option under our ANZ law.
-
chris, in reply to
Since when? Ah, I see, well that's a shame.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Email Twitter
Were New Zealand already a republic, for better or for worse such an avenue wouldn’t have been available to Bain.
That avenue was only available to Bain because his original trial fell within a timeframe where the Privy Council was still the top level of appeal. See Wikipedia
-
Ah I see, sorry, I've been out the country a while, well it seems like New Zealand Republica be all systems go!
Now I guess it's just a case of whether those who would retain the treaty can keep up in the baby race against those who would abolish the treaty.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Email Twitter
The G-G can be fired by the Prime Minister at any time, without cause.
Not without cause. Read the legislation, Rich.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
October 2003 - the legislation did not hinder cases already under appropriate consideration.
-
Um, I don’t suppose there’s any chance I can backtrack to this strand:
That kiss(es) was a beautiful scene. I think social/ political investment in that moment benefits us as people and as a nation.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
Weeellll - if it has general application, posseeebly...humanity always likes a party and future hope!But...quite a few of us prefer it to be something relevant to here. And now- cheers anyway chris-
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Email
Recourse to the Privy Council is no longer an option under our ANZ law.
It's my understanding that even before appeals to the Privy Council were abolished, they were useful in very few cases. This was because NZ legal precedents over the years have diverged from British case law, and the Privy Council was increasingly unqualified to make rulings on NZ cases. So the NZ Supreme Court was a natural progression.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
As I understand it (person with a few units of an Ll.B from a miserably long ago time!) that is correct.
Every so often, a murmur arises about us having a high(er) appellate court with judges from jurisdictions with a similar body of case law (Australia - difficult: Canada, more so, but it is a possibility...I've never heard of anyone suggesting
the Court of the Hague - or the United Nations as real alternatives, but I'd be interested to learn differently-) -
Sacha, in reply to
the maintenance of the British/New Zealand relationship leaves other legal avenues open for New Zealanders
I'd say you're romaticising that, even beyond the now extinct Privy Council relationship. The monarchy didn't even send a representative for the funeral of our most trusted New Zealander. Though they do seem to have been rather fond of a barbeque or two since.
-
Islander, in reply to
Email
Ahem - if this a possible mention of the fact that people of Maori descent (not to mention other ANZ groupings) tend to breed rather more often than people of Pakeha* descent...well, forgone conclusion-
*I come from both Kai Tahu and Pakeha(peoples of other origins born here) descent: I mean not an iota of disrespect to anyone when I state the fact -Maori have recovered as a human grouping to outbreed other groupings here. No superiority or assumption that resultant bred (me & mine for a kickoff) are in
any way better- :) -
chris, in reply to
Ahem – if this a possible mention of the fact that people of Maori descent (not to mention other ANZ groupings) tend to breed rather more often than people of Pakeha* descent…well, forgone conclusion-
Still a way to go there population wise Islander, but this is a strong positive IMHO.
I’d say you’re romaticising that, even beyond the now extinct Privy Council relationship.
Yes Sacha, romanticism is the main basis for my feeling on the topic. The Forbidden City as a thriving expansive tourist trap to be led around by Roger Moore audio commentary, is all well and good (in its way).
Yet I feel acutely aware of the expansive void that fills the niches that history and tradition once inhabited, and in due course the numbing artifice of the substitutes transplanted to fill it.
It’s hard to know which useless body part the monarchy is most akin to. If one is the type to book into surgery to shake off a few grams of body weight, there are many cost effective and natural ways to improve oneself.
Maybe it’s being here, that enhances the degree of pride I feel that we didn’t simply oust or behead our monarchs, but it seems to me that the monarchy’s influence in New Zealand is diluted enough that you can either take it or leave it as an individual persuasion, and so I can’t see it being in dire need of replacement.
Queen’s birthday is as enjoyable holiday as any.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Email
Read the legislation, Rich.
Could you provide a link to this statute?
Because my understanding is that this is covered not by statute but by the Letters Patent and by convention. The G-G is appointed and dismissed “at the pleasure of” the queen on advice of the NZ government. Conventionally, the monarch would automatically implement that government’s advice. (The words “at the pleasure” imply that the role, like that of a minister, is held subject to the whim of the PM, as opposed to being subject only to dismissal for cause, like a judge or public servant).
EDIT: It was declared at the Imperial Conference of 1930 that “the constitutional practice that His Majesty acts on the advice of responsible Ministers applies ..
The Ministers who tender and are responsible for such advice are His Majesty’s Ministers in the Dominion concerned"Which is fairly clear and puts the appointment of the G-G firmly into the areas where the Monarch acts on advice.
(It is likely that in a constitutional crisis, particularly an overseas one, the monarch would take the least controversial course of action – which would almost always be to act on the advise of ministers. The opposite approach would risk the institution of monarchy, which would be anathema to a Windsor).
BTW, thank you for prompting me to look into the Imperial Conference, which is a little known cranny of our constitutional history.
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.