Recourse to the Privy Council is no longer an option under our ANZ law.
Since when? Ah, I see, well that's a shame.
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.
The G-G can be fired by the Prime Minister at any time, without cause.
Not without cause. Read the legislation, Rich.
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.
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-
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.
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-)
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.
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- :)
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.
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.
That (Imperial Conference) I am going to spend some serious time on. Apopo. Thanks!
This was the concern in the Whitlam affair --- that Whitlam would get through to Buckingham Palace while still Prime Minister, and advise the Queen to withdraw Kerr's commission, at which point Kerr becomes meaningless. (I am unsure what would have happened if Whitlam had told Kerr to his face that Whitlam was advising him to resign.)
the degree of pride I feel that we didn’t simply oust or behead our monarchs
It's easy to forget that beheading and slaughtering other contenders, and then proclaiming it was divine will, is however how this current lot originally got here.
Mostly monarchy's claim to the god-given right to rule comes from being descended from the guy who killed the other guy on the field of battle and then was able to kill anyone else - and their friends and all related, who put their head up with a claim - or might have.
More or less, the monarchs since the constitutional monarchy was forced on them in the 1600s, have been a pretty mixed bunch of lunatics, the self obsessed, the dim, philanderers and the hopeless. The current Queen, despite her rather hapless lineage over the past few hundred years and her own offspring seems to be one of the best of the bunch, as was her father, although perhaps that was because he wasn't trained for the job unlike his idiot pro-Nazi brother.
Not a lot to take pride in though.
Not a lot to take pride in though.
I believe that there is pride to be taken from the fact that us commoner’s were merciful/merciless enough to forgive(?)/retain the monarchy in its current adulterated form as a reminder of all that went before, without chopping off heads and leaving the family destitute. I take pride in that. I think it shows a greater degree of foresight and cultural awareness than what we've seen in other nations' where monarchies have been dissolved entirely.
From the Cohen quote you posted, a couple of things stuck out for me:
because the British are not allowed to vote for their head of state. Charles Windsor constantly interferes in politics and promotes every variety of reactionary superstition and new-age quackery.
And now it’s the population’s God given right to ignore every whimsical utterance that passes his lips.
Yet whatever his personal failings, he will be King because he was born to the right mother.
In terms of this lineage aspect, I feel that post Elizabeth, the heirs have had the bar raised in terms of our expectations of their decorum and public politics to the extent that they’re as likely if not more so to behave in a manner that is in keeping with those in public office. Big shoes to fill as it were.
When looking at issues such as the recent case of Prince Andrew. There’s something about the visibility that the Royal family enjoys that provides us a highly detailed window to the goings on of a largely invisible class we would otherwise not be privy too.
This dying breed of elite represent. And in many ways I feel that if anyone is losing in this deal it’s them. More pragmatically, in this increasingly globalized and connected world with its many problems, being consumed by the heady desire for NZ to extricate itself from benign, potentially useful relationships, seems altogether an extravagance.
I don’t see a pressing need for NZ to extricate itself from benign potentially useful relationships.
Um, we pay for the buggers to visit here, chris. And, I wouldnt call some of the parties/issues/causes here, that have had UK funding, benign -
I wouldnt call some of the parties/issues/causes here, that have had UK funding, benign -
I don’t disagree with you, The UK is that annoying sometimes downright rude uncle, and yet that $10k Kate and William donated to the Christchurch earthquake appeal is more than I could come up with. It’s not as if they had to.
True- but we’ve raised several millions to help our own. And several millions have been raised by other humans round the world to help CHCH (not least by Japan.) The K&W 10,000k has a bit less lustre when compared to some of the cakestall & art efforts originating here-
I don't doubt that Islander, and good on you. Tangentially I've been trying to find if and how much the UK Government donated, noting that the Chinese gave $500k and one Cn businessman alone donated 100k, it'd be interesting to see some comparisons there, if for nothing more than to gauge who our real friends are.
Coming late, and not having yet read the preceding, and perhaps overly pedantic...
(well, the "overly" might be redundant)
There is a distinction between the Body Corporeal and the Body Politic, which gives us "The King is dead, long live the King!", meaning that the character of the individual monarch is irrelevant to the institution of the monarchy, thanks to the reforms of the last half millennium (Idiot/Savant for one, seems to think that the current monarch is King John). That is, the sovereign may die, but the sovereignty continues, and in theory, a sack of potatoes could fulfill the role and the institution as it is now would be none the lesser.
It is simply fortuitous that E II R is good at her job... though, I have to say, it does seem that politically and diplomatically, she does seem to be personally astute and useful and this may be related to the fact that she has to be. Maybe therefore C III R will be a good King...
While I revere the practice of representative democracy, I do feel that having someone around for a long time, and by whatever means, is a boon. Government must, I believe, have a long-term perspective, and if representative democracy cannot ensure that, then a complicated system that includes a component that is in place for a long period is a good thing. I don't think that this is inconsistent with a representative democratic executive government.
New Zealand is de facto a republic anyway. Whether it is such de jure seems to be merely symbolic.
Monarchy is something that I support insofar as it is an institution of constitutional monarchy, not executive monarchy, and as such, discussions of elitism seem irrelevant.
On the night of the wedding, I watched a Werner Herzog documentary, not to make a point, but simply because it interested me. Kate and Wills do not interest me; I feel no sympathy or antipathy for them at all.
Also, to me, the most appealing thing about a constitutional monarchy is its intrinsic anachronism and absurdity. I'm deeply suspicious of "perfect" systems. Setups that are imperfect, but which we have had the time to adapt to, and have adapted, are probably far better and more practical than things that work best in theory. Possibly in a few hundred years we'll get a republican system to work with the necessary quaintness and theatricality, but the state of America today doesn't bode well.
I found that Chinese donation especially heartening chris – not least because there’d been a hefty earthquake there with hundreds dead-
and Kracklite – I think we’ve already got a century of homegrown quirks as to the way we do things: I truly dont think we need ritualistic UK stuff transplanted here
any more. (Note: almost all of our public ceremonies have – at bare minimum- an initial Maoritaka componenent, and – very probably- elements of the 3rd official language.)