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)
William for King!!!!
“I keep hearing “disrespectful.” How can that possibly be so?”
1, He’s a member of our royal family.
2, It’s a ceremony about opening of supreme court, not classy place to hold a protest.
3, He’s come all this way to do something nice only to be greeted with a banner, one that opens a can of worms over an issue he has nothing to do with.
4, People like me will cringe with embarassment that he’s being greeted with that.
Clare, I got a question
How do you expect us to get past the treaty we have that says the british queen has sovreignty over our land?
Hi Clare
You realise of course, and I trust the irony is not lost on you, that the democratic rights and freedoms you exercise are due to having such a stable democratic system. So, enjoy waving your protest banner to protest against the very thing that allows you to wave your banner.
I trust too you realise that William (or Elizabeth and the rest for that matter) is as much part of the NZ royal family as he is the British royal family. Or 14 other countries royal families for that matter. Sharing is such a good thing in these days of disunion, disillusion, and disharmony.
A bit odd to knock the Privy Council as a concept. Perhaps you would have preferred Aotearoa to have had a different legal legacy? Perhaps something French or Spanish? Or do you have your own legal ideas in mind?
As for protesting. I am all for that. But, in this case, it is one sure way to ensure we get a lot of world respect t … pestering a world renowned, respected and much loved figure. Very classy.
Oh, and please stop talking about us becoming independent or mature. It really is an insult when you get right down to it. It implies we kiwis are weak, pathetic individuals at present. You and your 4 republican mates might feel that way, but the rest of us are feeling pretty happy and confident.
So go knock our Prince. I mean, it is so much easier to knock down than build up. Viva la revolution!
Oops
Sorry, but I think Spud’s won the day.
Thanks, Anne.
@Jen83
Independent, yes. That is what it is about. Mature? Not sure how that word helps matters.
I think what Clare is planning is good, and that she has good, patriotic intentions and does not plan to embarrass or denigrate the good prince. The thing that makes me really feel like this event could backfire, though, is this:
You need something truly symbolic for people to rally around. The fact that the prince is here to support NZ self-determination in the form of the Court hurts a protest, it doesn’t help it.
It would be great to really get his views on these steps towards independence. An interview would go a long way.
Maori seem to have similar aspirations towards self-determination. Perhaps they should have a legislature and court system too? They’ve already got a flag.
@Spud – Despite how much you might want William to be King of New Zealand – because we live under a monarchy which is determined by inheritance, we have absolutly no say, whatsoever, as to who our head of state is. So I hope you’re equally looking forward to having Charles as our head of state, because that’s what you’re getting.
@P, atrick – I know Charles less popular than William, but I don’t know what there is to dislike about him. He’s alright, talks to his plants, I’d be just as happy if he were King.
I dread the day when kiwis are bickering over who the next head of state will be.
@A, ndrew – I’m sure the protestors have the best of intentions and in no way want to offend William, but their protest will detract from the ceremony itself and will cause embarassment.
@Spud – the fact is, I’m sure many, many New Zealanders would prefer William were the next head of state as opposed to Charles. Polls have shown that to be the case in the UK as well.
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.
We have sent people to war to fight for democracy before and without a doubt we will do so again. If we can’t do it ourselves then how on earth can we ask people to give their lives for such a noble cause?
Charles will likly abdicate if William is married by the time the current queen dies. It’s ‘cos he’s divorced. His mother does not approve…. He’s also a bit anal to quote diana…. We could have the interesting situation of charels being king for a short period and then William taking over. Someone before stated that William is a political figure, they must live on another planet. The Royal family is doing everything it can to not be political. (See hunting and the royal family)…. William has absolutly no say in wether NZ becomes a republic or not. That is what I have against this protest. What would you like him to do? Disown NZ? If we want to be a republic then our politicians need to get off their bums and get to parliment and hold a refferndum or something and find out whether NZ want to be a republic or not. By protesting you make all NZers look stupid. Leave him alone he’s just here to visit and he’s just doing as he is told. BTW I couldn’t care less if we were a republic or not.
Guys we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute one, the royal family doesn’t actually have any say in what we do so why be so keen on getting rid of them?
Since we are a british colony they serve the same function here as they do in the UK, they are a figure head, they are there for us to honour our history and our culture, they dont actually DO anything.
I mean, if the crown has actually DONE anything in new zealand/has told us what to do since we gained home rule, please enlighten me.
And the thing is, it would actually take alot of effort to become a republic, and as I stated earlier (but I was ignored) we have the Treaty of Waitangi giving sovreignty over our lands to the crown. So, to get rid of the royal family we would have to get rid of one of our most important historical documents while we did it, the treaty of waitangi, all while we already rule ourselves. It wouldn’t be worth it.
@Patrick, British Parliment does have a great influence on the monarch and if there was great discourse then it is more than likly that the monarch would abdicate. As a politically neutral constitutional monarch parliment can make life very difficult for the King or Queen if they want to. See Edward VIII. (Also related to why Charles wouldn’t be king)
It can get confusing. The prince comes here to celebrate this new institution, and there is a protest. The logical next question for an outsider to ask is, “should Prince William oppose the new Court?”
It takes some explanation to help people understand that what is desired is *more of the same.*
But if that is the case, perhaps a toast with the prince is a form protest could take?
@P atrick – I doubt Charles will play around on Camilla. If the uk feels the same way then maybe they will pressure Charles to stand aside. Maybe people do prefer William, but having Charles wouldn’t be detrimental to either place.
@n, 0exit – well put.
@D ylan – good point
A, ndrew – interesting points.
How about welcoming the dude and leaving our debate to our own?
Dylan, you make a great point about the Treaty. As soon as you pluck the monarch off the top of the government, what happens? Maori then talk to London about the lands here, because they signed the treaty with the monarch, not the settlers who moved here afterwards. All bets would be off, then.
The Treaty specifically says it is between the Queen and the Chiefs. If Royal Protection for Maori is abandoned, then we have a problem. Seems like the Treaty is abandoned, and we are going to have to think up a solution, and quick. And if Royal Protection is not abandoned, that pits the UK against the NZ government. Taking away the Foreshore and Seabed would not be an internal issue, but a tripartite issue between the Queen, the NZ government, and Maori.
A vacuum could happen. Maori instantly get their sovereignty back, and would have every right to demand that the rest of us leave. I’m not sure that is the intended result of all this.
Perhaps the NZ government could negotiate a replacement treaty now with Maori? Something they would be more satisfied with.
It is the Maori who stand to lose (or gain!) the most from abandoning the Treaty. A conversation needs to happen.
No one will be made to leave because we are all interbred now.
Yee Haa!
I don’t see why the treaty couldn’t be renegotiated. Coming from my own experience, we have amended our US Constitution 27 times in the past 219 years. There is nothing sacrosanct about the original document. An amendment can change anything.
So, who has asked what Maori would like a new treaty to look like?
This seems like an integral part of becoming a republic.
@Spud — I like that!
But isn’t that a Don Brash line?
I guess renegotiating the treaty then opens everything up again, a potential headache that a banner won’t fix. Sigh, me with no liquor in the house.
I actually think it could be quite exciting all the way around. NZers could decide on the style of government they would like, and Maori could establish a new sort of arrangement that better suits them.
It doesn’t have to be a negative thing. And yes, I think for the future king to be here when this discussion happens could be very formative and educational for him. For my own part, I think the advice of the Crown and involvement would be helpful.
Maori are in the enviable position of having a say about both. That is a real privilege.
@Andrew
Is a constituion the same as a treaty? Does it have the same flexibility? And the problem with the idea of changing the treaty is, the Maori have got to accept the changes too… it could be a second chance at rejecting the white settlers.
And yeah we are interbred but that hasn’t taken away the Maori’s cultural identity.
I’m thinking about the unnecessary cost of change to me the taxpayer. I have no particular interest in the royal family, but the current system ain’t broke and is fairly stable. Why bother with republicanism?
A more interesting question maybe why the whole of the Cabinet was on the guest list, a couple of Labour MP’s – no Wellington Electorate Mps, and only a handful of lawyers.
I guess the big difference between a treaty and a constitution is a treaty is between two recognized nations, and a constitution is meant to govern one nation. It is possible to have a federal system like the US or the EU have, with individual nations (states in the US or nations in the EU) underneath the federal government.
A treaty can be changed by renegotiating it and re-ratifying it. A constitution is changed by the mechanism set up within it to do so. Amendments canbe easier or harder. In the US, it has to pass both houses by a 2/3 majority, and then 3/4 of the states must ratify. (president is not officially involved) As a matter of fact, the US Constitution is really a treaty between all of the states. Each of the states is its own separate country, and they all have constitutions, legislatures, and laws. There are 50 states, and 51 constitutions. That may explain why Yanks always talk about constitutions. We are saturated with them.
In a NZ context it would be possible to have something like that. The two states are Maoridom and the NZ government. Each could have its own jurisdiction and laws, and recognize each other government-to-government. It would be up to Maori if they wanted their state to have a constitution, and what it would contain. Same with the NZ government. Representation to the outside world could be worked out between them on a treaty basis.
“A more interesting question maybe why the whole of the Cabinet was on the guest list, a couple of Labour MP’s – no Wellington Electorate Mps, and only a handful of lawyers.”
Such guest lists are always symbolic. Parliament is supreme, hence the whole Cabinet. There has to be at least a little bit of recognition for who actually created the Court, hence the couple Labour MPs. Lawyers? Perhaps the symbolism of not having many there is to say this is not a litigious society?
Vive la republique!
Though if the Prince is desperate to become our head of state he’s welcome to marry me for citizenship and then make his way up through more democratic, less archaic means.
For various reasons I have been unable to access a computer all day. Have been aware of all the comments but unable to read them all in depth yet. Am also aware that this post has created a stir, beyond what I anticipated.
A few comments:
My intentions were to express my genuine views, certainly not to speak for anyone else. I believe it’s a healthy thing for us to be able to express views, whether verbally (on this blog) or physically by attending a gathering, protest, whatever you want to call it.
I am an advocate of peaceful protest and demonstration of one’s views.
I am in favour of a republic, it’s on the record, it was part of my maiden speech.
I believe our Supreme Court is an important institution and support the law that established it as the highest court in our land, replacing the Privy Council. The opening of the new court is a sigificant occasion.
I have no desire to disrespect the Monarchy. Or anyone else’s views, as long as they are expressed with dignity and non-violence.
Perhaps naively, I believe that as a politican, you expect me to express a view, and take a position, even if you disagree. Perhaps some of you don’t believe that extends to physically expressing a view outside of parliament, but I don’t agree.
Hre’s a bit of info about our Supreme Court and why it was established:
“The Supreme Court Act 2003 establishes the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
The Act establishes within New Zealand a new court of final appeal comprising New Zealand judges:
- to recognise that New Zealand is an independent nation with its own history and traditions; and
- to enable important legal matters, including legal matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, to be resolved with an understanding of New Zealand conditions, history and traditions; and
- to improve access to justice.
For appeals from New Zealand, the Supreme Court of New Zealand replaces the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council located in London, and came into being on 1 January 2004.
Im sorry, but I cant seem to get worked up about the Monarchy or republicianism.
Prince William seems to be like a really nice guy, the sort of chap you could have a beer with, and he has the same effect on people that his mother has had – with that respect, I think he would make a very fine king, and he would be able to claim back a lot of lost mana for the Royal Family.
To be honest, I dont really think a protest would be appropriate, I mean, the guy doesnt really deserve it. Its not like the guy’s a bloodthirsty tyrant.
I’m sorry, but as much as you think the monarchy in New Zealand may only extend to tacky merchandise and weekly paparazzi shots in tabloids, the monarchy does actually have REAL power in our country.
Granted, it has not yet been abused, or caused any real problems for us, but is has elsewhere in the commonwealth. See Australia 1975 or Canada 2008.
We actually need a political system that is accountable to the people of New Zealand. It seems like such a simple thing, but some people think that in some sort of “grand tradition” we are so deeply wedded to Buckingham Palace that they know best. I can’t see that as anything other than a pathetic cop-out.
I bet the people saying that it’s “inappropriate” to protest over something so important because we might offend someone are the same people who complain about “how PC our country has become”.
Firstly, I know it’s going to be dignified and not offensive at all. And secondly I don’t think people should EVER feel that someone’s heredity is grounds for not challenging them, or that anyone demands some sort of respect so great that they can’t even make a statement about something like their own country’s system of governance.
It’s wrong for a member of the Royal Family to open the thing we’ve created to cut our links with them. So we have a reason to protest. If this is, as some people say, a symbollic “passing of the torch”, then he shouldn’t be too offended if some people stand there with a banner asking him to pass the torch.
Nicola, I really hope it will be dignified
My concern is that for every person like yourself in NZ that chooses to present their concerns in a mature manner, there’s another who sees it as an excuse to act like a complete tool.
If you’re really really lucky maybe Valerie Morse will turn up. Yay.
“If this is, as some people say, a symbollic “passing of the torch”, then he shouldn’t be too offended if some people stand there with a banner asking him to pass the torch.”
The above confuses me. What’s the chant gonna be then?
What do we want? For you to do what you’re doing!! When do we want it? Well if we’d shut up and let you get on with it, right now!!
Hmmm….catchy!
@n, athan – I agree. And why is he being challenged? He has nothing to do with this. This is a decision that needs to be made by NZs. It’s not like he’s stopping this. This protest is rude, unneccessary and I’m embarrassed. Plus, it’s just pushing the agenda of something that is not urgent and not the wish of a significant percentage of voters.
@Nicola Wood – there is a huge difference between common courtesy and politeness on the one hand and Political Correctness on the other. If the distinction isn’t obvious to you at the moment then perhaps you should devote some time to considering it.
@Spud makes a nice point. A demonstration of the sort being organised would seem valid if the monarchy was dictating orders from on high, imposing their will upon us.
But they are not.
Her Majesty has always said that it is up to the countries concerned whether they want to become a republic, and she will always respect their decision.
This is a discussion for us to have as a nation by ourselves, and we need not drag an outsider into the debate unneccessarily.
We are an independent nation that has control of all our affairs, even with our head of state thousands of miles away. Those that still believe we are subservient to England needs to wake up and see that we have made it in the big wide world on our own without mummy holding our hands.
What I like about the monarchy is that they are apolitical, above politics – their main job is to ensure we have democratic government, a job the Governor-General performs on Her Majesties behalf every day.
Instead of saying “I want a republic”, what you should be saying is “I have a plan for a republic, come and discuss it with me and let’s put it to the people”. Instead of talking about the possibility of a republic, let’s look at our constitutional arrangements, and see how we can make them more “kiwi”, so that they best work for all New Zealanders. Instead of standing on the pavement with a banner, let’s submit new laws that creates “kiwi” institutions like our own Supreme Court.
Yes we need the debate, but let’s have a decent debate.
Agreed.
Anyway, what is wrong with the constitution we have now? Nothing, I say if it aint broke don’t fix it.
I get stuck on this idea that the royals are apolitical. It is true that their positions have nothing to do with politics, because they are not elected, and never will be.
On the other hand, one of the biggest roles of the GG is to give assent to laws. Laws *are* political. Even if the GG never refuses to agree, the possibility of this happening is a political potential.
Presumably, if NZ adopts an elected head of state, that person will be elected. That will be a political act. So, replacing a monarch with an elected official is certainly a political act. If the monarch agrees with that change, that is a political agreement. If the monarch disagrees, that will be a political disagreement.
I would like an explanation of how the royals are not political, given the above.
Royals are not political because they go to extreme lengths to ensure that they do not interfere with politics. Yes they must sign off on laws, but even if they were given laws which removed them as constituional monarchs the queen would sign off. This is because the royal family know that they are now only of a historicle value. Interfering with politics would cause discontent and as I said before parliment can make life difficult for a royal if it wishes to. It has been quite some time since the royals were political figures. William was barred from going to protests about new hunting laws in place as that would be a political act. Having the queen sign off is just a formality. It’s not like having a president sign off, where the possiblitiy of being vetoed is quite real. Royals are taught from their early days to not be political figures as thier existence depends on the support of the public….
Spud : “I say if it aint broke don’t fix it.”
In the early 80s I worked for a software company. We techies used to say that the company motto was “If it ain’t broke then fix it till it is”. The company made a lot of money this way.
I can’t help but think that extremists of all political colours take this approach to their crusades to radically change society in the image that they and a small number of others want.
They search around to find tiny fault lines in society, and having found one or two try to cause as much fuss around them as possible hoping to fracture things and develop division and discontent. Republicanism. Smacking. Flags flying on bridges. How to pronounce place names. How to spell place names.
It’s all political mischief. But we need to aware that it may be carried out with more sinister long-term ends.
I can see how all that relates to republicanism!
There’s certainly irony in having a member of the royal family open the Supreme Court, but did we really need it? Way too late to bring the Privy Council back, but it really was a shame that five judges took away one of the few parks left in central Wellington. Their offices must be close to the size of football fields. They seemed perfectly happy where they were, and their judgments having provided much humour for the international legal community, particularly the House of Lords, certainly justifies leaving them where they are: in the basement below the High Court.
All of this talk of political status makes me want to reflect on my position as a permanent resident, and what NZ grants and withholds to such people.
1. we get to pay taxes here
2. we get to vote here, both locally and nationally
3. we are not allowed to stand for elected office, either locally or nationally
4. we can become barristers and solicitors based on foreign qualifications
5. we can become members of the Supreme Court so long as we have held a legal practicing certificate for 7 years
So, we are fully-functioning political members of society with respect to everything but holding elected office. We can fill the tank with petrol, but you have to be a citizen to drive the car.
Citizens can make the laws, but permanent residents can interpret them (narrowly or broadly, and distinguishing) on the new Supreme Court.
If there were an entrenched constitution and bill of rights, permanent residents could potentially invalidate laws passed by citizens as inconsistent with the entrenched law.
These are not complaints, just observations.
It is interesting how opposite things are back home in the US.
1. Kiwis pay taxes
2. Kiwis generally cannot vote
3. Kiwis cannot run for elected office
4. Kiwis are eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court without becoming citizens. This is so broad that a PM from another country could be appointed to the Court while still in office.
And…the Supreme Court since 1803 has been invalidating statutes inconsistent with the Constitution. That includes state constitutions.
A Kiwi could potentially be vote number five and have a *huge* influence on US society.
All sounds good to me!
Spud, I think you’ve captured the essence very well. As for the argument of a treaty versus a constitution. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge before we get to the point where we can start to discuss a consitution (something I’m all for) – and Prince William’s presence or absence has very little to do with that.
By the way, where’s Lewis gone? He was pretty vocal at the beginning of the comments!
I agree, a lot more water needs to go under the bridge, we’re not ready!
LOL
I think L ewis may have got sick of it.
Water is flowing under the bridge in Auckland, and soon a Maori self-determination flag will be flying above it. Time to get ready to talk about these things, I’d say.
I’m all for New Zealand to become a republic. It’s about time I say. The Treaty will still be valid under a republican system, because the Treaty is between the CROWN (government) and Maori, not the Queen and Maori.
Jen83 pointed out that the reason Clare was able to protest, was because the Monarchy protects our democratic rights. This is a shallow argument from monarchists, and the NZ Republican Movement book points this out. The Monarchy DOESN’T protect our democratic rights, the government does.
Jen if it would be so bad to become a republic, then why isn’t it like that now? Whether political systems work or not is based on socio-economic factors, not constitutional ones.
By the way the Chairman of the Republican Movement is Lewis Holden, a member of the National Party.
Hey mp – I know asking is futile, but please stop this protest.
MP_Labour,
Now turn your argument around,
As a republic:
Treaty, unchanged, democratic rights, unchanged. Political system, unchanged due to unchanged socio-economic factors (aside from the not inconsiderable costs involved in movement to republic) So what’s the point?
There IS no great harm in becoming a republic IMO, but less than half of the population favours it at present (Movement’s own research circa 2009), so under your way of democratic thinking, what gives you the right to attempt to force it on the majority?