On Monday, I’m going to see Prince William open New Zealand’s Supreme Court. I’ll be standing on the footpath, exercising my democratic rights.
Because, no matter which side of the Republican issue you’re on, it’s extraordinarily ironic that Prince William (potential future King of England) is opening our Supreme Court, which was established to replace the Privy Council, a bastion of the British Justice system.
Smart move by the Monarchy to get the Prince to do the deed. He’s young, popular and possibly a future King. But is he our future King?
Have nothing against him, or the Royal family generally. But I’m a republican. Our future lies in independence. Standing on our own two feet as a nation. We are approaching that point, I believe.
On Monday, the Republican Movement will unfurl a banner telling Prince William, and everyone else present: “It’s Time For A Republic”.
There is a better way to govern ourselves than borrowing a Prince from Britain to open our Supreme Court.
Come along:
Where: Outside the Supreme Court building – Lambton Quay, Wellington, across the road outside Bowen House.
When: Monday 18th January 2010, at 10:00am (official opening is at 10:30am, public walkabout by William is at 11:30ish)
I have Dual citizenships both British and a NZ due to my mother being from Liverpool, coming over when she was six. I identify with both cultures from having a lot to do with my grandparents, my grandfather especially missed ‘home’.
I seem to see things from both sides and I haven’t made up my mind where I sit on this issue.
@ A Mother – I think it’s really cool that we have this royal family and all that tradition
I don’t really see what we have to gain by throwing that away.
Man it’s great that you have dual citizenship.
Hey Claire, thanks for supporting the protest. I LOVE it. I sure hope you can get past the allegations that your actions may be “impolite” or “embarrassing”. Sheesh.
@ N, athan Mills – great comment!!!! You’re absolutely right, they do have no right to force it on us.
Now if only we could stop that cringe worthy protest.
@ Nathan Mills
I’m not forcing my opinion down anybody. I know that 40% of New Zealanders (a minority) favour NZ becoming a republic. However 50 years ago you would not even had 5% of NZers wanting a republic. See the difference? So it will happen. Just not now.
Also that’s not true that there will be considerable costs to changing the sovereignty. Lewis Holden mentions it in the Republican book. Also think of the costs that we have now. i.e. William coming over or anyone else at a later stage, having the Governor-General (that rakes up quite a bit, and we don’t even choose the Gov-General).
The NZ Republican Movement is not a protest group. We promote discussion on NZ becoming a republic.
And just to make it clear MP_Labour isn’t one. Trevor
The invite on the NZ Republican Movement website to attend their ‘protest’ led me to believe that it was, well, a group that was inclined to protest!
(plus various refs on here to same)
MP_Labour, I certainly wasn’t having a go at you as an individual, phrased badly and I apologise for that. My problem is with groups who know full well that there is less than majority support for their cause who, instead of seeking to change people’s minds through reasoned argument, choose instead to demand it through protest.
I mean honestly, 50 odd percent of people are opposed to the concept of a republic at the moment. They switch on the news and see a group of people unfurling a banner saying “It’s Time For a Republic Now” in protest at one of the few popular Royals. He’s here opening the Supreme Court for us, which is in anyone’s book handing over an important step toward independence anyway, and they’re protesting it?!! Do they think it’s going to win monarchists and undecideds over?
“the Treaty is between the CROWN (government) and Maori, not the Queen and Maori.”
I support becoming a republic, but that statement is simply false. When the Treaty was signed, there was no New Zealand government. The Treaty itself says, “Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government…” It follows from that alone (all other historical evidence aside) that there was no settled form of civil government besides the Maori at that time.
It was between the Queen and Maori. The term “Her Majesty the Queen of England” shows up in the Treaty like 10 times. The term “Crown” appears nowhere. Those who claim otherwise are either not reading the Treaty or simply trying to sweep a difficult issue under the carpet.
There is some confusion about this. It seems to me that Maori deal with the NZ government precisely because the GG as representative of the Queen is at the top. He does have the power to withhold assent, and the government is Her Majesty’s government, right? If the Queen through the GG believes that the promises made in the Treaty are being threatened by NZ’s government, Maori should expect assent to be withheld.
It is good to get this out in the open. If the Queen is not there as a complete and final check on Parliament, Maori are losing her as protector of their Treaty rights. With one quick swoop, Parliament (now completely supreme and independent) could abnegate the Treaty and start stripping lands and rights away. Foreshore and Seabed is just the tip of the iceberg of what could happen. On the other hand, renegotiating the Treaty and making it entrenched constitutional law would give them more protection than they have now.
It is called the Crown not in some abstract way. It is called that because there is someone at the top wearing one. Do governments with no monarch at all call themselves “the Crown?” Have to go back to my country again, because we were also a colony of the UK. We do not use the term Crown for government. India would be another good example as a former colony. They don’t use the term either. How about Ireland? Nope. Maybe those countries are too big. Namibia?…nope. Is someone seriously going to argue that “Her Majesty the Queen of England” is synonymous with the New Zealand government?
Read the text on the Tribunal website:
http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/english.asp
If Maori don’t care in the slightest about this, whether the Treaty is with the government or the Queen, that’s something else entirely.
A public conversation the the whole constellation of issues related to being a republic is in order.
Sorry, I meant abrogate, not abnegate. Getting late.
‘night!
sure hope you can get past the allegations that your actions may be “impolite” or “embarrassing
It IS impolite to the prince and others and it IS embarassing to the Prince and others (including potential voters). He has come to open the court. How rude to be greeted by a bunch of protestors who are going to steal the thunder of the actual opening. Frankly I’ve lost a lot of respect of the republican movement for this rude move and the people involved in it.
“And just to make it clear MP_Labour isn’t one. Trevor”
!!! I hope the weather improves for you.
Thanks for that Trev – I was sucked in
@N, athan – Agreed
Andy
Back in the 19th century Maori went to see Queen Victoria to complain about what happened to them – the Maori were turned away.
When the foreshore and seabed debacle happened, the Maori didn’t go to the GG. They didn’t go to the Queen either. The Queen doesn’t offer the Maori any protection. It’s the Crown’s job. (Or us as voters if you want to look at it another way).
The GG’s the Queen’s representative in NZ. The Queen appoints the GG, AT THE ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER. This is where the system is broken. So it comes back to the government.
Shane Jones (a Maori Labour MP) said that any protection that the Queen provides to Maori through the Treaty is mythical.
Added just a little bit more. It was Captain Hobson (an agent of the British government) that signed the Treaty on the Queen’s behalf.
@MP (in name only)
So what you are saying is that the Queen has denied her Royal Protection, and Maori are flailing around, trying to find someone to protect them. They want their Treaty rights, especially since their sovereignty is still given. The best they can get is a political solution, negotiations with the NZ government.
That means that in fact the Treaty “is a nullity.” And it is so because one party has withdrawn from it, the Queen. The NZ government has no obligation whatsoever to enforce the Treaty. What it gives is not a matter of Treaty law, but generosity and politeness. It can take away whatever it wants from Maori, although the source of that power remains to be seen. No wonder Maori place such importance on the tino rangatiratanga flag. It is also no wonder that some Maori are asking for British privileges; this is just another test of whether the Treaty will be enforced or if the Queen has simply moved on. Perhaps Maori should seek a declaratory judgment from the European Court of Human Rights on whether the Treaty is void and whether Maori get their sovereignty back. The UK has a constitution now, even if NZ doesn’t. The UK did the unthinkable and Parliament bound itself in the future with regard to the EU.
In a contract, if one party breaches, the other party is no longer obligated to give what was agreed to. It is absolutely not the case that when one party breaches that the aggrieved party owes their obligations to a 3rd party uninvolved in the original contract. Sovereignty is not something that can be permanently given away. As soon as the Treaty is abandoned, sovereignty automatically reverts.
Maori have not given up absolutely everything with regard to sovereignty. They can still negotiate regarding their residual sovereignty rights. They may have given it all to the Queen, but they can still decide as a nation(s) what to do with their sovereignty in the future should the Treaty die and they get their sovereignty back.
That “sovereignty contingency” is something Maori and the NZ government could talk about. An entirely new constitutional arrangement could emerge. This is an extremely big deal for NZ.
I don’t think Maori have anything to fear from the Queen or future King.
Perhaps William will take it upon himself to protect Maori from the settlers’ government? What a can of worms.
Settlers’ government? But Maori people are MPs and members of the government.
You are right about that, Spud. On the other hand, some parties are seriously talking about stripping Maori of their seats. And the Maori who are in other parties are not there by right; they were invited, which is nice but not required. So, the settler’s government attempts to gain legitimacy by including Maori, even though there are no constitutional arrangements to guarantee it. Some parties resent even giving them as much as they get. That should be an indication of the constitutional status they hold. The government is not bound by the Treaty; that is the long and the short of it.
Hey, I am a settler. I won’t deny that. And when I vote in the government elections, I don’t pretend that I am doing Maori any favours. I am just getting a choice in the settler government, and I appreciate that as a non-citizen I am given that privilege. It is ironic, though, that my vote as someone who has been here 7 years and not a citizen weighs the same as a Maori person’s.
That is not to suggest stripping votes from perm residents, but that Maori need to be given far greater rights and representation in government if their Treaty rights are to be protected. In a business-world partnership, two partners would have an equal say in how the business is run. Maori really need 60 seats for that status.
Hm. Perhaps I will set up a Facebook Group to advocate that.
I will call it Maori60.
Group created.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=430406150351
This is what our tax payer money is paying for?
Why not try doing something useful
I’m fond of tradition. I love the monarchy, not only the British/New Zealand one, but all the other ancient ones.
I lived under the republican system for 31 years! Results? A bunch of corrupt politicians, a corrupt system, presidents who only looked after the rich people.
As I understand it, Queens and Kings of monarchies exercise a symbolic position, and herald respect for tradition, more than anything else. All the silly decisions are made by the Prime Minister and their allies, am I wrong?
So people, today NZ is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Why change it to a Banana Republic and even embarrass everybody else with a silly protest against someone who will not have the power to do anything about it?
Give us a break, please!
I find it a bit offensive when you call it the settler’s government, I don’t consider myself to be a settler.
But Spud, what else can you call it? When that government came into being, it was for settlers. If your family has been here for 5 generations, then you are the descendant of settlers. I see that very clearly in my case. My ancestors came first to the US in 1712. They were clearly settlers.
I came here in 2003 and bought a house in 2004. I am a settler.
The only people here who were not settlers were Maori. There have been greater and lesser attempts to include them in the settler government, but no matter how much inclusion was given, Maori were *never* equal partners in that government. Act would strip them of their guaranteed seats.
People give a fillip to the notion of 50% Maori government today because Maori are only 15%. Let me ask you this. When the NZ government was first instituted, what percentage were Maori then? Were they given the right to vote themselves into Parliament? Were they given the power in that government to restrict the number of settlers allowed in? It is the settlers and their laws who caused the Maori to become a minority.
That about settles it for me. 60 Maori seats or renegotiate the Treaty so they have self-determination.
@#$$@%@???!!!!!! Your facebook group asserts that
“The USA didn’t need to offer half of Congress to tribes because they didn’t strip them of 100% of their sovereignty rights.”
Do you actually realistically believe that Native American rights haven’t been subverted in the USA? Deluded much?!
And, by, the way, Maori are as much settlers, under your logic, as the average white person born in New Zealand, insofar as their own history tells of their arrival from Polynesia.
I am not a settler I was born and raised here! The Maori settled here after travelling some distance in their wakas! I think the only non settlers are the native birds.
But saying that I don’t consider any person born here of any race to be a settler and I find it rude that you keep calling me a settler when you know it offends me. I’m leaving this thread because you are driving me nuts! Goodbye!
William won’t protect Treaty rights any more than the other monarchs before have. There are several paths to take with a republic.
1. Maori become just another minority group, soon to be smaller than Asians; Treaty is history
2. the Treaty is renegotiated and made binding law
3. NZ adopts a constitution and makes the Treaty rights part of it, or not
4. a political solution gives Maori enough political power to protect themselves and as a coequal national power they get 50% of the representation.
When the original 12 US states got together and made a constitution (treaty), they created a senate with 2 votes from each state as well as a lower house based on population.
There are important principles there.
If we recognize that Maori are a nation and they get 2 senators, and NZ is a nation and they get 2 senators, then you have a government of four senators.
On the other hand, if you have a house based on population of the whole area, well, that is similar to what NZ has right now. (modified by MMP)
Maybe, instead of 60 Maori MPs, how about setting up a senate with 50% of those as Maori senators?
That would accomplish the same purpose.
Ok, Spud, you can call yourself the great-great-great-grandson of a settler. The fact is that that is how you got here. That is how we all got here. You didn’t appear out of pixie dust. Being a settler is your heritage. It is my family’s heritage in America. It is silly to pretend otherwise. Find me a history book anywhere that says NZ is not a settler society and we can have a reasonable disagreement on that.
And yes, Maori were the first settlers. No question. But being the first settlers, they get special rights. That is why the Queen felt it necessary to make a treaty with them. You don’t make treaties with a fellow British subject. The Queen didn’t make treaties with the settlers who arrived later.
I don’t remember signing a treaty with the Queen when I arrived here.
Non-Maori people in NZ today want to make Maori into non-special fellow citizens. That is why the government feels free to strip lands or anything else from them, just like it can do with the “settlers.” That is why Don Brash or any other politicians can, with a straight face, say we are all one people. Any Maori who have a different theory are called radicals.
I don’t know. It just does not sit well with me.
If you visit Dunedin sometime, you might want to visit the Otago SETTLER Museum. Right by the train station.
If you have a problem with the term settler and “settle,” you need to write to your government and change the immigration page called “Apply and settle”
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/
When you come here, you settle. Q.E.D.
I’m sorry to be so insistent on this point, but it really goes right to the heart of the relationship between Maori, the Queen, and other NZers.
I would really like to know why the term settler is so offensive. It doesn’t strike my ear that way at all.
When I go to the Settler Museum here, I see it as informative history. It does not strike me the same way as the Virginia Historical Society Museum, wherein you see all the implements of brutal slavery. As a matter of fact, some of my ancestors did own slaves. Do I like that? No. And I was so happy not just as a Democrat but as someone with that heritage (whether I liked it or not) to vote for President Obama. It felt good.
Maybe you are embarrassed by what some of the settlers did. Or what their government did. I certainly wouldn’t blame you for that. When other people do wrong, though, I think we all have an obligation to set it right. As people with settler heritage, I think we should feel that especially.
Andrew, maybe being referred to as a settler doesn’t offend you. It obviously does Spud. Why is it difficult for you to respect that? Lack of empathy or just plain ignorance?
I myself am uncomfortable with the term settler as you insist on using it. It does nothing to heal the wounds of the past to make a percentage of a population feel less a natural part of their nation based on the actions of their ancestors.
Interesting that you state that you wouldn’t blame Spud for being embarassed by what his ancestors did. Yet in your Facebook group you hasten to differentiate between the situation here, and that back in America. Perhaps you’d like to explain the difference?
Thanks for driving spud away. People (or vegetables) that are always right are such bores!
Honestly don’t know why he got offended. If he said you were the descendant of a slave owner, I would have said yes, that’s right, and then listed the things I was doing to improve things in that respect. High on that list is supporting President Obama. As you will see below, there is a cross-connection between Maori and Hawaiians and President Obama.
I was waiting for someone to mention the United States with respect to Hawaii, where Maori come from. We also took their sovereignty away. At least, the American and European settlers did so right before forming their “Republic” of Hawaii. They later petitioned to be admitted as a state.
HOWEVER, in 2009 Senator Akaka introduced a bill to give sovereignty back to Native Hawaiians. How’s that for timely?
http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home&issue=Akaka%20Bill&content_id=24
“The Obama Administration Justice Department formally made its position known on the legislation: “The Department of Justice strongly supports the core policy goals of this bill, and I am pleased to testify on this historic legislation,” said Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch in his prepared testimony. “In recognizing a Native Hawaiian sovereign entity, Congress would in effect determine that Native Hawaiians constitute a distinct community as it has done with Indian tribes. The history of Native Hawaiian sovereignty and the extent to which Native Hawaiians continue to function as an organized community – engaging in collective action and preserving traditional community and culture – are relevant to this analysis.”
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act does three things:
* It establishes the Office within the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States.
* It establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group to be composed of federal officials from agencies that administer Native Hawaiian programs. The Interagency Coordinating Group will be lead by the Department of Interior.
* It provides a process to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States.
“government-to-government”
That is *exactly* what Maori need. That kind of recognition and self-governing right.
I will be contacting my congressional delegation in Indiana as well as the White House in support of this.
I am sick of being associated with settler legacies in the States, and I will support efforts like this to remedy them.
If the Obama Administration strongly supports sovereignty for Native Hawaiians, I think the Labour Party (politically on the left, just like Democrats) should support sovereignty and self-determination for Maori.
Post #1 Jan18
Trevor, I am officially making a complaint about Nathan and Mandy, as someone else apparently did about me.
Red Alert has a “be nice” policy.
These two have accused me of:
1. having a lack of empathy
2. being ignorant
3. being a “vegetable,” and
4. being a bore
The very worst thing I did was say that there was a settler government here and that Spud was the descendant of a settler. In fact, I didn’t start out saying Spud was a settler at all; he took my argument as directly at him personally (which it obviously wasn’t; we have gotten along great on many other threads).
I then said I am a settler. I said things one can discuss rationally. Spud fumed off with hurt feelings and Nathan and Mandy just hurled verbal attacks. Is that how things work around here?
Is “settler” some kind of code word for a curse? If that’s so, again, you better get that taken off the Immigration site so you don’t offend people immigrating here. And the “Settler’s” Museum should change its name so as to protect the eyes of children and others passing by.
Trevor: Please explain how I am being over the top, and name-calling is ok.
Post #2 Jan18
Andrew,
Spud asked, nicely, that you refrain from calling him a settler, as he didn’t appreciate the term. Replying that “whether you like it or not, it’s a fact” is rude.
But hey, if you want to lay an “official complaint”, my comment toward your apparent ignorance and lack of empathy is cheerfully withdrawn.
Andrew,
BTW, my question re your Facebook group was regarding Native American treatment, not Hawaii.
@ Andrew Straw (6:26pm) – perhaps the clue is in the word “Museum” rather than the word “Settler”? It’s to do with the past, not the present. And certainly not the future.
@ Andrew Straw (6:31pm) : … and if you’re born here, the child of a settler?
@Andrew Straw (6:37pm) : Am I embarrassed by what the settlers did? To a certain extent. I certainly would have liked to be able to see a Moa, for example, but the first settlers hunted them to extinction. And it would be kind of nice for our racial diversity if there were more Moriori about.
“The long-term solution, I would argue, is to begin a genuine dialogue about what a New Zealand republic might look like.”
This was mentioned earlier on in the debate – I agree. Its time we had an informed debate as a country around this – with the pros and cons and all the woolley bits disclosed and then, maybe, kiwis could actually discuss this and make a decision that is informed.
@patrick “But with a monarchy we have absolutly no choice. The monarch could in theory be a corrupt womaniser, but we have no recourse, nor an option to vote for a different head of state.
In the 21st century that is simply unacceptable. ”
For me, this has hit the nail on the head. Just because you are ‘born’ into a ‘royal’ family does not make me, as a kiwi, with NO affiliations to the UK, want to rush out and embrace you – for my loyalty, you need to earn it, and I live in a democracy – so I vote for the people who should make a difference – having it handed to you on a plate is so NOT 2010, and while some people like the whole idea of kings and queens etc… I couldn’t care less. It perpetuates the whole class structure myth, that by being a ‘royal’ they are better than the rest of us. I don’t think so – different – not better.
We do live in a democracy – so go for it today Clare – I am not sure if its helpful, but its your right to do so, and it would not hurt his ‘royal highness’ to understand that not everyone lives and breathes the whole ‘royal family’ drama.
I’m not sure I understand the fervour of some peoples comments or what the big deal really is – and I sure don’t understand why some people need to resort to being rude and make unhelpful comments (some of the comments to Clare have been rude) to others as they discuss/debate this issue on here. Its very childish and shows a lack of maturity. Remember, we live in a country that allows us to disagree on issues – the sky will not fall down if we do not reach agreement – all the more reason to have a more public debate on it. Thanks Red Alert for having the sense to engage with the public.
oh, and as an aside, I see our ‘esteemed’ leader managed to fob off the whole debate with anther of his non committal fence sitting remarks. Great leadership – not.
ps May all be a storm in a teacup if the fog refuses to budge…
Why does this country show more interest and support for royalty that have spent all their time conquering nations and taking the resources and riches of those countries yet give no support to a king in this country (Maori king) which would make more sense as a figure head. We need democratic rule but also a figure head like the Maori king. British Queen is irrelevant all she does is take money from this country and gives nothing back in terms of functionality.
@Hippy – I personally support the Maori King! I also support the Queen! It’s cool that we have two royal families!
How many countries can boast that? 
@N, athan Mills – Thanks for standing up for me
I won’t be reading any more of Mr Straw’s comments.
Looks like democracy has spoken. Media are saying thousands went to see future King William in Wellington while Clare and Keith and a few or 30 (I don’t know exactly it didn’t get much coverage… juicy for a conspiracy) unfurled their banner.
Well, if 45% of Kiwis want to retain a Monarch, 3,000 people lining up to see Prince William isn’t that many, is it? If there were a person visiting who represented independence and a republic, would they get a similar crowd?
Say, Barack Obama? Think his crowd would be as big? In his 8 years as president, he might visit here at some point, and I’ll be interested to see how big his crowd is. How popular is he in NZ? Gotta poll?
He represents not only independence and a constitutional republic, but also minority success. He appointed the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court as well (second woman). If anything is the “American Dream,” it is equality of opportunity no matter what your ethnic heritage. His election realised a little bit of that dream.
Prince William will *never* represent equality of opportunity, much as I like him and am sad about what happened in his family.
Post #1 Jan 19
NZ doesn’t fail in equality by any means. The GG is a minority. The PM’s background is Jewish. There are plenty of Maori MPs, and one Chinese minister. You had a woman PM, and that is rare anywhere.
There is a lot good going on here. In fact, having a Monarch from an eternally white, protestant family on top of the heap is really the exception, rather than the rule. It sticks out like a sore thumb considering all the other progress Kiwis have made towards equality. I’m sure there is a lot more to come.
Post #2 Jan 19
As a Dunedin resident I’m embarassed to have an MP from my city carry on like this, does parliament not already provide you with a forum?
You must be running out of the R’s, Phil tried Racism now were on to Republicanism, in desperation to appear relevant.
We had a preview of an “independant NZ” under with Labours “nation building” from 1999-2008 and it wasn’t pleasant, simply a bland backwater lacking character.
In terms of the Supreme Court, your views are incredibly simplistic and lack insight into the practical issues. The Privy Council provided a removed and objective forum for final appeal. We don’t have the judicial talent in NZ.
An example would be 50+ errors of law the Privy Council found in our Court of Appeals David Bain judgement! and where are those wonderful insightful judges now well they form the Supreme Court. So some stupid nation building has potentially affected proper Justice for all NZers.
Oh and by Justice I mean actual Justice, not the silly subjective “joostuce” term you lot like to throw around to justify things.
I agree with everything you said, except for Goff and racism, I don’t consider his speech to be racist, I think he was arguing for the opposite.
“having a Monarch from an eternally white, protestant family on top of the heap is really the exception, rather than the rule” – So what you’re saying is that New Zealand have people in positions from a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds good for us!
But I don’t like your negativity towards the Queen just because she’s white. It’s could be read as racism. 
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but an equal society actually does include white people too. And disliking someone being in power purely on the basis of their light skin isn’t any better than disliking someone for having dark skin.
I would have thought that Labour has somewhat sullied their reputation with Maori, with their disrespectful treatment over the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and “last Cab off the rank” comments. If Maori see the Treaty as being between themseleves and the Queen (King) so be it.