Today, all being well, Transmission Gully opens to traffic. I look forward to driving along it for the first time this weekend.
I thought it opened yesterday, when I read the headlines on Google News. But then I remembered that we live in the post-truth era. “Officially opened” just means opened to government officials, in particular, opened to the current Prime Minister and her cronies. Plebs like us have to wait until the very early hours of this morning.
The official name of the new road is Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata. Te Rangihaeata was a Ngāti Toa chief and nephew of the Ngāti Toa warlord Te Rauparaha. In August 1846 he led the Ngāti Toa forces at the battle of Battle Hill, which overlooks the new road roughly halfway between Paekakariki and Pauatahanui. Te Rangihaeata is also famous for having been a signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi in June 1840, and for his involvement with his uncle Te Rauparaha in the Wairau Affray in June 1843. During the latter confrontation, which was the first major skirmish of the Land Wars, a stray bullet killed Te Rangihaeata’s wife, Te Rongo. In an act of vengeance, Te Rangihaeata bludgeoned to death the nine special constables of the New Zealand Company who had been taken prisoner. Later, the newly appointed second Governor of New Zealand, Robert Fitzroy (former captain of the HMS Beagle), investigated the incident and exonerated Te Rangihaeata and Te Rauparaha, on the grounds that the New Zealand Company had attempted an illegal land grab.
These days New Zealand is a less bloody interesting place, but still a place blighted by corporate grift, government graft and endemic low-level corruption. Here’s a timeline of the Transmission Gully project’s 103-year history. Have a read of the history of the project, especially since construction commenced in 2014, paying particular attention to the steady stream of delays, build errors, cost overruns, and silt running into the harbour. I think it’s hardly plausible to deny that some of those involved are on the make.
Someone once said, never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. But why not both?
Tuhoe Terrorist Racist Radical Tame Iti Shoots New Zealand Flag.
Important note: In no way do I seek to belittle or disparage New Zealanders from enjoying their Maori heritage and culture.
What I am highlighting is *Racist Maori Radicalism* and all the anti-British colonialism here in New Zealand… all the vile Race hatred and Despicable revisionist history which not only rots out the minds of all whom are imbibed with such Propaganda… generating hatred…. all for the sake of Filthy lucre… but also ensnares many Maori in victimism and welfare dependence… while enriching a political class that profits from the ongoing misery of their own people.
Maori are at virtually the top of every negative social statistic, *because* they are not taught to take responsibility for themselves… not taught that in Freedom and equality… their own prosperity, and the well-being of their Children *depends upon them Living according to Strong personal ethics*… not because of any Accident of Birth.
Tame Iti is a posterchild for the Victimism and dependence mindset.
He should have been jailed for Terrorism…. yet only escaped because of bungling By the Legislature and police.
Conversely, New Zealand as a whole is extremely proud of all the *positive contributions* of Maori Culture…. song, Haka, Carvings, etc… and all of these things can prosper under Freedom and equality…. as the Maori people would do once free of Waitangi appartheid/ Treaty separatism… and New Zealand establishes *One Law for all*
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian, and Activist to End the false Treaty Separatism.
I know many Kiwis will cringe at me using this *Australian poem*, yet not only does it hold *Equally true* for our flag, it is also a testament to *the common values and heritage* that makes Commonwealth nations the very best in the world, and Unifies us as a collective.
Tim Wikiriwhi,
It’s time for some more second-rate drivel on constitutional matters. While I have no right to claim credibility on such issues, I feel that ignorance, bigotry and small-minded denigration are not at all out of place when demolishing the case for a New Zealand republic. So I pass off the following ignorant rant as informed comment. Because it is. Badly cobbled together assumptions, fundamental errors, and rank ignorance are important debating tools for the limited thinker whose mind is closed.
The case for a New Zealand republic sets out the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall into three categories:
Independence — New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state; Nationhood — the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand’s national identity, culture and heritage; Democracy — New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.
I’ve already demolished the “Independence” argument that New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state. In this post, I’ll take a look at the Republicans’ argument that the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand’s national identity, culture and heritage, under the heading “Nationhood”.
Nationhood
“The case for an independent republic of New Zealand is summed up in one word — nationhood. It is a statement to the world and ourselves that New Zealand is a mature nation, that we possess a constitutional framework that best suits New Zealanders.” — Michael Laws, Mayor of Wanganui.
Well, according to the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand, the case for an independent republic of New Zealand is actually summed up in three words — independence, nationhood and democracy. So why quote Michael Laws—of all people—if you consider him not even half right? Last I heard, Laws was claiming that the city of which he is mayor does not possess a name that best suits New Zealanders. His opinions on what constitutional framework best suits New Zealanders are surely tendentious.
New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state should reflect this.
There’s no argument here. Just the assertion that New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state should reflect the fact that New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. Why should New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state reflect this? And how? It’s unclear.
A republic affirms New Zealand’s sense of nationhood
“We exhibit symptoms of retarded nationhood: a widespread insecurity about what others think, a search for applause and endorsement by visitors; and, conversely, a begrudging willingness to extend applause here at home.” — Simon Upton former minister and National MP.
I frankly confess, in my teen years I used to exhibit symptoms of retarded nationhood. I felt insecure about what others thought of me and sought applause and endorsement by visitors. If the young folk of today can be spared the terrible angst I endured simply by promoting Dame Susan from Governor-General to Head of State, then I must be all for it. But I remain skeptical.
Becoming a republic and electing New Zealand’s head of state will foster a deeper and more sophisticated sense of nationhood. It will clarify to New Zealanders, and to the world, what New Zealand stands for.
What do you stand for? Republicanism can help you answer this important question. Perhaps you have some idea but you’re not clear. Or perhaps you’re just shallow and unsophisticated. What you need is to wake up one day to find yourself living in a republic, and everything will come swimming into focus. You will carry on living as before, but now with a deep sense of nationhood.
How New Zealanders understand their place in the world is crucial to New Zealand’s success in an increasingly globalised world.
We’re a small nation of 4.5 million people in the South Pacific. It helps to know that.
New Zealand excels in sport, in its human rights record, in business and in the arts. New Zealand’s constitution lags behind these achievements.
New Zealand’s constitution lags behind Nathan McCullum’s dismissal of England’s Joe Root at Trent Bridge. Does that even make sense?
Our current constitutional arrangement causes confusion overseas as to whether New Zealand is linked to Britain, or whether it is part of Australia.
I think overseas confusion over whether New Zealand is part of Australia is caused by ignorance of the geography of the South Pacific, not by our current constitutional arrangement.
We send conflicting messages about who we are and what we stand for.
I don’t think I do. Perhaps the author is using the “royal” we. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
The debate and discussion around becoming a republic affirms the values that are important to New Zealanders. It will promote discussion about New Zealand’s history and future. It will clarify the values we all see as important. Becoming a republic will be a celebration of New Zealand’s unique culture and heritage.
No, it won’t. New Zealand is a bicultural nation. While many Maori (and, indeed, non-Maori) go to strenuous lengths to preserve Maori culture and heritage, many Pakeha seem hell-bent on severing all connection with their own. New Zealand originated as a British colony. Becoming a republic will be a deliberate repudiation of our colonial heritage and cultural past which has its roots in Great Britain, Ireland and Europe.
It will demonstrate New Zealand’s confidence and independence and it will symbolise a shared sense of nationhood.
I’m going to close on a serious note here. The last time I read someone banging on and on about a shared “sense of nationhood” was when I read the opening pages of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. Let’s be clear. All talk of and nurturing of “nationhood” is thinly disguised fascist social engineering. There, I’ve gone and done it. I’ve invoked Godwin’s Law and completely and utterly demolished my own argument.
Feel free to name-call in the series of strange comments below. Diatribes welcome.
(But first, check out the Republican Movement’s logo above. What is it? A stylised letter ‘R’? A misshapen black nodule? Or a badly drawn smiling frog-face? Whatever it is, our people do not want it disgracing our national flag.)
The case for a New Zealand republic sets out the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall into three categories:
Independence — New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state; Nationhood — the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand’s national identity, culture and heritage; Democracy — New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.
In this post, I’ll take a look at the Republicans’ argument that we need a New Zealander as the head of State, under the heading “Independence”.
Independence
New Zealand will not be fully independent until we have a New Zealander as head of state. New Zealand likes to think of itself as an independent country. However, it cannot objectively be argued New Zealand’s current head of state represents this.
Never mind the head of state. New Zealand will not be fully independent while half of its citizens are dependent on state welfare. That’s a much bigger problem to address.
As the United Kingdom’s one-time head of state, Margaret Thatcher, once said, “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.” How are we to look after our neighbour when we, ourselves, are reliant on government largesse? New Zealand society will never be independent until such time as its men and women and families are no longer reliant on state welfare handouts and “tax breaks”.
Add to this the fact that the New Zealand’s external debt is the vicinity of $90 billion dollars. We have a long way to go before we can declare our financial independence from foreign lenders.
A republic means a New Zealander as head of state
“Is New Zealand to continue to have an appointed Governor-General… or should we move to an elected president? This will not happen because of any lack of affection or love for our Queen in London, but because the tide of history is moving in one direction.” – former Prime Minster Jim Bolger.
Do we really want someone like Jim Bolger as our head of state? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or John Key?
I’m not a stalwart royalist like my mum, but I’m more than happy with the Queen. Next to spending time with my family, Her Majesty’s message is the highlight of my Xmas Day. (BTW, Happy Birthday Your Majesty!)
Our current head of state is not a New Zealander and does not represent New Zealand. When the Queen travels overseas, she does so in order to represent Great Britain.
The Queen works to strengthen British economic and political ties, and does whatever the British Government asks of her. In fact, whenever “our” head of state visits New Zealand, the Queen has to ask for permission from the British Government to leave Britain.
You have got to be kidding. She’s the Queen! Her subjects answer to her, she doesn’t answer to them!
If the Queen wanted to be a citizen of New Zealand, she would not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. The Citizenship Act 1977 requires an applicant for New Zealand citizenship to have been resident in New Zealand for five years before citizenship is granted. The Queen has spent a total of no more than six months in New Zealand.
The Governor-General is not a proper head of state. While the Governor-General may increasingly act in ways that befit a head of state, the reality is that New Zealand is still not regarded as being fully independent of Great Britain. Appointing the Queen’s representative in New Zealand is inadequate. A New Zealand head of state will make it clear that New Zealand is an independent country. It will signal New Zealand’s independence and maturity to the world.
I’ll be honest. I don’t actually know who the current Governor-General is. And that’s exactly how it should be. A head of state so off the radar that only Wikipedia knows his or her true identity.
Deciding the rules for ourselves
In recent years, the British Parliament has attempted to amend the succession law. The problem is the Statute of Westminster 1931, the law which granted independence to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Oops! Looks like the Republicans just shot themselves in the foot. By their own admission, New Zealand has already been granted independence!
The Statute requires “consultation” on changes to the succession before any changes to the succession law. While this provision is not binding, it is still an important constitutional convention. The most recent attempt in 2008 failed for this reason: the British Government did not want to have to consult with all the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms. New Zealand’s Parliament could change the law of succession unilaterally, but that would go against the convention established by the Statute of Westminster. Change can only be enacted if the governments of all the 15 Commonwealth realms are consulted, probably by Britain. In a republic, the rules governing New Zealand’s head of state will be made solely by the New Zealand Parliament. They will change as New Zealanders decide they need to, not because of events in Great Britain.
Er, well, that’s it. Pretty lame, huh. (Part 1 of 3.) So far, I’m fully not convinced that New Zealand needs to become a republic. And, as I commented on Facebook yesterday
Why do we need “a New Zealand republic with an independent head of State.” I can’t think of a good reason. Change? Why change? Haven’t you people got more pressing concerns?
