|
|
Post by shamus on Feb 4, 2013 13:04:50 GMT 12
At the moment the New Zealand Constitution, and I am told we do have one, is under review. The powers that be seem to want to change it and this has brought forward a number or articles in newspapers both for and against. Whatever our individual beliefs are, I believe that a constitution should be;- A list of rights of citizens,
a list of responsibilities of Government to these citizens, and a bill limiting the power of Governments.
Under the heading of responsibilities of Government I believe that defence of the country is high on this list. At the moment, without an Air Force strike wing we as a country are virtually defenceless.
Perhaps we should be promoting this need now, before the review is completed and set in stone. I suspect that this review will become more controversial as detail comes out. Watch this space.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Feb 4, 2013 13:43:14 GMT 12
At the moment the New Zealand Constitution, and I am told we do have one, is under review. The powers that be seem to want to change it and this has brought forward a number or articles in newspapers both for and against. Whatever our individual beliefs are, I believe that a constitution should be;- A list of rights of citizens, a list of responsibilities of Government to these citizens, and a bill limiting the power of Governments. Under the heading of responsibilities of Government I believe that defence of the country is high on this list. At the moment, without an Air Force strike wing we as a country are virtually defenceless. Perhaps we should be promoting this need now, before the review is completed and set in stone. I suspect that this review will become more controversial as detail comes out. Watch this space. Don't need Air Force - have LAVS. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bobajob on Feb 4, 2013 14:26:29 GMT 12
The "Lavs" used to out door dunnies
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 4, 2013 17:19:19 GMT 12
Thanks for bringing this up Jim. How can people make a difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 4, 2013 17:48:57 GMT 12
If it's under review I would presume that there would be some facility for submissions from members of the public. Apart from that start annoying, ahem I mean lobbying, your local MP and govt and opposition defence ministers / Defence spokespersons. Use people fromthe forum with contacts to get articles into the mainstream media. Things like that. Wind up the RSA & the RNZAF Association.
|
|
|
|
Post by shamus on Feb 4, 2013 20:32:37 GMT 12
I went to the Government website but found nothing relating to making a submission.
One of the Political Party's says, that they are not yet open for public submissions.
Will post something when I hear they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Feb 4, 2013 21:03:47 GMT 12
The problem with any sort of written constitution is that, once it is down on paper, the smart Lawyers start looking for loopholes, out clauses and unintended exemptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 4, 2013 21:06:55 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair5517 on Feb 4, 2013 22:04:04 GMT 12
If the National/Maori coalition push this review through - and unless NZers get off their apathetic arses and start making enquiries of their MPs, it will happen!! - then the Treaty of Waitangi will become the document that everything is based around with the treaty industry hitting a gear not yet seen.
This goes WAY deeper than the NZ Defence Force, guys; that was toast when Helen got her hands on the tiller....
|
|
|
|
Post by shamus on Feb 5, 2013 9:43:42 GMT 12
An article by Sir Michael Cullen in this morning's NZ Herald, says, 'We are about to begin to move to the next phase where the material will become part of a period of public discussion which will then provide the material for our report to ministers. What the panel hopes is that all New Zealanders will feel able to participate in this discussion and will be confident that their views will be listened to carefully and taken account of in the panels final report.'
Listened to carefully? I wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 5, 2013 10:00:49 GMT 12
What is the actual reason for changing it, where do they think it is not working?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair5517 on Feb 5, 2013 14:36:08 GMT 12
As far as I can make out from here, this is Key fixing to hold onto power by getting the Maori Party onside by allowing this travesty to see the light of day. And if anyone believes a word Cullen says, well.....
I can only hope that NZers stop this bullshit before it goes too far; mind you, no-one has had the stones to stop the country haemorrhaging cash to the treaty industry yet....
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 5, 2013 16:53:18 GMT 12
As far as I can make out from here, this is Key fixing to hold onto power by getting the Maori Party onside by allowing this travesty to see the light of day. And if anyone believes a word Cullen says, well..... I can only hope that NZers stop this bullshit before it goes too far; mind you, no-one has had the stones to stop the country haemorrhaging cash to the treaty industry yet.... Well I have a different view considering that the treaty was ignored and broken by the crown right from the beginning with subsequent illegal land confiscations. So there is more than one side to this story. One of my tupuna signed the Treaty. I totally agree that it has to be written in such a way that future pollies and lawyers cannot twist it to suit their purposes and their mates. As far as I am aware the current constitution is not enshrined in law like the US one is nor like the Treaty of Waitangi. So it needs to be truly enshrined in law. I think that needs to be the first and most important thing. |
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 5, 2013 20:18:31 GMT 12
What is the actual reason for changing it, where do they think it is not working? A few ideas from this article: www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10743091"If you mention that there is no constitutional impediment to the current Parliament extending its term from three years to 20 years, then they pay a bit more attention. Likewise if you mention that the Prime Minister can sack the Governor-General. Then if you mention that Parliament almost passed a law which would have made it illegal for someone to state on Facebook what they think of a current policy issue, they may get alarmed that there is no constitutional protection to this. And they may get even more alarmed when they find out that Parliament once retrospectively amended the Electoral Act to prevent a by-election caused by an MP taking out Dutch citizenship. With that precedent, you could retrospectively over-turn election results, and do it all legally." So a few important reasons right there. No doubt there are more and I think it's too important an issue to just gloss over. I think it is about holding the state to certain specifics concerning government, as well as ensuring that citizen's freedom of speech is protected too. If I recall my American Revolution history lectures correctly off the top of my head, the US Constitution specified the rules and powers of the various branches of the government. A legislative branch, presidency and judicial branch. It also specified the length of terms of service of each one (Senate/Congress/President/Judiciary) and how often elections/nomination were to be held. It had these staggered in such a way that not all would come up for re-election at the same time and a later amendment to the constitution specified that a presidential candidate must be an American Citizen. Then of course there are the first, I think ten amendments to the constitution, known as the Bill of Rights e.g. 1. The right to free speech. 2. The right to bear arms. etc. perhaps we go down a similar path, not in 'aping' the American constitution but enshrining certain rules about government and citizen's rights in a supreme law. A law that is only subject to amendment by a clear majority e.g. 75%. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair5517 on Feb 6, 2013 1:11:39 GMT 12
Well I have a different view considering that the treaty was ignored and broken by the crown right from the beginning with subsequent illegal land confiscations. ... and haven't NZers been paying for that in monetary terms for quite some time now?! This is why that damned treaty must not be used in any re-writing of a constitution for NZ; it's the 21st century, for crying out loud; not the middle of the 19th! |
|
|
|
Post by aeromedia on Feb 6, 2013 8:39:46 GMT 12
The treaty was an effective tool to achieve something when it was signed. New Zealand is a totally different place today and we need a new tool to reflect where we are now and where we are heading. The Treaty was drawn up between Maori and the British Crown. As proud as I am of my ancestry and roots, I would actually be pro NZ moving towards a republic, drawing a line under the treaty gravy train and setting up a constitution that places ALL New Zealanders on an equal footing.
It's the only sensible way forward and the only way to stop the nonsense that has perpetuated ad nauseum for decades.
Yes, encourage the preservation of the culture in a positive way by all means, for those that wish to partake, but, live and let live, for all of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 6, 2013 14:57:54 GMT 12
Well I have a different view considering that the treaty was ignored and broken by the crown right from the beginning with subsequent illegal land confiscations. ... and haven't NZers been paying for that in monetary terms for quite some time now?! This is why that damned treaty must not be used in any re-writing of a constitution for NZ; it's the 21st century, for crying out loud; not the middle of the 19th! Well if you want to go down this road I suggest you start reading your NZ history and Michael King is as good an author as any. After that look at the history of the Māori Land Court and how it was used to alienate Māori land right up until today. Look at who drafted the treaty and who translated it into Māori then look at the English version and the Māori version. They are different. Note the term "Mana" is not use anywhere in the Māori text which is what the Chiefs unbeknowningly gave up. Tinorangitiratanga and kwangatanga is used which were words made up by the missionaries to explain dominion and I think empire was the other concept. It came nowhere near the concept of mana which if the Chiefs were told that they were signing away they would have never agreed to the Treaty. They thought that they were signing away something that they didn't have mana over and that the Treaty would bring English law to deal with the Pākeha settlers who were causing problems. The Chiefs knew that if they dealt with the problems the Māori way they would lose the trade. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 6, 2013 17:15:16 GMT 12
This is getting all too political, but I'd like to ask something that I asked my university lecturers when we studied the signing of the treaty, and none of the experts could answer it. By 1840 there were several Maori people who had travelled to Britain and had lived there for some time, learning to speak, read and write fluent English, and studying at places like Oxford and Cambridge. They had returned to New Zealand armed with a solid British education - this was confirmed to me by the lecturers. I asked if any of them were present at any of the signings, and yes, some were. There were also many Maori who had learned to read and write and speak English here in NZ from the missionaires. Hone Heke was one who was fluent and he siged the treaty.
So my question is why did none of these educated or fluent Maori people not pick up on the descrepancies at the time? Surely they must have read both versions? Why is the blame always aimed at the British??
The translation was done not by a politician nor a lawyer, but by a neutral British missionary who'd lived in NZ for years and who was very close to the Maori people. He spoke Maori, taught English to Maori, and and was acting for the good of all, he thought, but he cocked it up.
The fact that as a written language Maori was new, and that the British soldiers and officials did not speak Maori should not be held against them, as many of the Maori didn't speak English fluently enough to feel comfortable with either written language either.
We can ultimately blame the translator who was not at all acting deviously on behalf of the Crown, as far as I am aware. But I feel we can also blame those other Maori who had the opportunity to check the documents and ensure their people knew what was being signed away, they didn't.
It was not a deliberate hoodwink. It was a misunderstanding. The hoodwinking has come later thanks to lawyers finding every bloody loophole they can to bleed land and money out of either side.
I actually know a direct descendant of that missionary by the way, and she gets pretty firey about the subject.
Lastly, I really find it amazing that our entire legal system can be based on and so much rides on a document that no longer exists in its entirity, having been mostly eaten by rats whilst stored in a damp basement under Government House or some such building many decades ago. it's time to scrap it and redraw the entire foundation of the nation as far as I am concerned.
Also imagine how bad things would be if the Treaty wasn't signed. The Maori could have been wiped out by the British in their usual way, or worse, speaking French right now!
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 6, 2013 17:37:22 GMT 12
Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that for here on the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair5517 on Feb 6, 2013 20:28:43 GMT 12
Good call!!
|
|
