Talk:Independence of New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Independence of New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

"The concept of a national "Independence Day" seems foreign to the New Zealand psyche." --> ANZAC and Waitangi day crossed have the potential to become that day, imo Brian | (Talk) 10:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add when the UK actually made a law binding on NZ, I for one have no idea when that was. Also, when did the monarch start appointing the Gov-Gen on the advise of the NZ PM rather than the UK PM? Oh, and saying good riddance bye to the Privy Council and hello to the SCONZ (honestly "scones" is our highest court!) would also be important in independence. --Midnighttonight 10:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking also about the sillySC.
Re. GG- after the Balfour conference (1926). However we 'clung' on to the old way for a while. Brian | (Talk) 10:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Midnight - there's a number of statutes that bound NZ. Our flag was acutally a product of one (the Colonial Navy Act or something) and of course the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Is that the one you meant?

Brian - yeah, although I think the change was basically because of the way the Colonial Office worked. Australia didn't appoint its first Aussie GG till the 60s as well. --Lholden 01:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, the first non-British GG was appointed in 1952.--Mathew5000 09:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bolger

"Bolger later argued that he did not believe the 'Queen of England' should be New Zealand's head of state."

New Zealand has never had the 'Queen of England' as our HoS, the last 'Queen of England' was Queen Anne in 1701, some 300 years ago. Brian | (Talk) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's the direct quote from Bolger however. However, the term "Queen of England" is used to describe Queen Victoria in the Treaty, which just goes to show how badly drafted the Treaty was... --Lholden 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand citizenship

According to some quick research, New Zealanders gained their own citizenship under The British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 from 1 January 1949. Prior to this Act (which came about as a result of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947) all New Zealanders were automatically British citizens. --Lholden 02:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Be care full of the no Original Research rule Brian | (Talk) 02:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just quoted the effect of the Act, so it's not research. --Lholden 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere about, until early the 70s passports had NZ citizen/British Subject in them, can anyone confirm? Brian | (Talk) 11:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It was in the movie The World's Fastest Indian, so it must be true.--Mathew5000 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be right, the citizenship law was changed early in the 70s by the 3rd Labour govt. --Lholden 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Independence

"New Zealanders overall have little interest in asserting a definitive independence break from Britain as a focus of national identity, preferring to stress ethnic co-operation and an independent foreign policy as marks of nationhood while maintaining a nostalgic connection with their former metropolitan power." Isn't this a little POV? Who's speaking on behalf of all New Zealanders here..? Alan Baskin 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it probably is Alan. Any suggestions to remove the POV? --Lholden 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"New Zealanders overall have little interest in asserting a definitive independence break from Britain..." What links to Britain prevent NZ from being independent? --gbambino 16:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Head of state Gavin. --Lholden 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, shouldn't the sentence read: "New Zealanders overall have little interest in asserting a definitive independence break from the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms"? The convention as laid out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster states that any alteration to the line of succession relies as much on the consent of every realm beyond the UK as much as it does on the consent of the UK itself. However, as it's only a convention (ableit an important one), NZ can actually unilaterally alter the line, or become a republic. With the freedom to alter legislation as it sees fit, how then is NZ not independent? --gbambino 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the freedom to change the status quo does not mean New Zealand is independent; we have the freedom to ACT independently of the other realms, but that does not equate to independence under the status quo - freedom of action and independence are not one in the same things. East Timor had the freedom to become independent from Indonesia in 1999, that doesn't mean they were "independent" of Indonesia prior to voting yes to independence. Secondly, the "definitive break" from the Commonwealth Realms is a misnomer. We wouldn't be "breaking" from the Commonwealth Realms, anymore than we would be abolishing the Sovereign in New Zealand. The Queen would remain Head of the Commonwealth. --Lholden 22:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Commonwealth Realms are the countries of which the Queen is head of state - the Statute of Westminster stipulates that the agreement of the fifteen others to adopt a parallel alteration to the line of succession should be sought before any one realm alters the line within their jurisdiction.
Your East Timor analogy is not pertinent. Before independence, East Timor was under the jurisdiction of a higher power. Since at least 1986 no country other than NZ has the power to legislate for NZ - regarding anything, including the monarchy. As I said below, voluntarily sharing the same head of state, by your own laws, does not make a nation dependent on, or subservient to another. Two people who willingly purchase something with the intent of sharing it do not suddenly enter into a stratified relationship - each remains equal and independent despite a link to one another through their shared object.
So, really, the sentence I quoted from the article is misleading. New Zealanders can't show an interest in asserting a definitive independence break from Britain because there is no more independence to be gained. However, saying New Zealanders don't show an interest in removing New Zealand from the shared monarchy relationship is something different all-together. --gbambino 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
First, on the East Timor point: You claim that a state is only independent when it has the freedom to act. That is exactly what East Timor had in 1999 prior to voting in a referendum for independence. You emphasised the freedom to act, which is analogous to New Zealand having the freedom to act. The analogy is pertinent.
Second: "New Zealanders can't show an interest in asserting a definitive independence break from Britain because there is no more independence to be gained". We are dependent on the United Kingdom for our Head of state, our law states so. We can gain more independence should be we become a republic; we would have our own Head of state. The "definitive independence break from Britain" refers to the fact that our Head of state, by our law, is the British Monarch. The fact that the other Commonwealth Realms share the same monarch is irrelevant. Your argument ignores the simple truth that the Sovereign of New Zealand is declared to be anyone under the Act of Settlement who is the Head of state in the United Kingdom. Should Britain become a republic, our Head of state would, under our law, become the President of Britain (And no, you wouldn't have to amend the Act of Settlement for Britain to become a republic). Your edit will make little sense to most New Zealanders, monarchists included, because the general populace view the Queen as Queen of the United Kingdom, and would find it perplexing that we're somehow breaking a bond with other Commonwealth Realms by becoming a republic.
Third: Your purchase argument isn't analogous. If two (or more) people who willingly purchase something with the intent of sharing it, they have entered into a partnership. The New Zealand situation is akin to a contract, whereby our law states that whoever is Head of state of Britain is Head of state of New Zealand, thus we have a contractual relationship. --Lholden 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the question is: given that NZ law states the Monarch of New Zealand will always be the same person who is Monarch of the UK, and given that the UK no longer has the ability to legislate for NZ, if the UK parliament unilaterally altered the line of succession, would the change have effect in New Zealand? As no law passed in the UK extends to NZ, it would seem to me that if the UK altered the Act of Settlement without NZ's consent, the end result would be two Acts - one (altered) pertinent to the UK, and one (unaltered) pertinent to NZ.
Despite that, however, even if NZ did depend on the UK for its sovereign, a republic isn't necessary to end the situation. Canada is a Commonwealth Realm, but one which alone has control over the line of succession to its throne. If Britain altered its line of succession, or became a republic, the change would have no effect in Canada.
As for your point regarding my edit: articles aren't written to conform to what the general populace thinks - which is more often than not incorrect. If people find it perplexing that NZ's becoming a republic would split it from the shared monarchy relationship with the other fifteen countries under the Crown, then they've come to the right place to find out all about it. --gbambino 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh? You mustn't have read what I wrote. I was making a legal point on the Act of Settlement. The last part was simply to note the public perception. I didn't say that that was the reason why I amended your edit. --Lholden 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I asked a question regarding the legalities around the Act of Settlement. I then made a comment about common perception, which wasn't necessarily tied to the preceding question. --gbambino 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that any change in laws pertaining the Queen/King of the Commonwealth Realms, such as Act of Settlement, must be agreed to by each of the Commonwealth Realms. Does that sound right? Admittedly, my background in law consists of Boston Legal... Sigh. -- Greaser 06:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, by convention that is the case - New Zealand's agreement is required to amend the law regarding the succession. However, we could unilaterally amend the Act ourselves, which is Gavin's point on independence. --Lholden 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Act of Settlement

"Supporters of a New Zealand republic have often argued that because the Act of Settlement 1701 (the Act governing the succession to the British throne) is a statute of the United Kingdom, and because the position of New Zealand's Head of state is thus reserved for a person from that country, New Zealand is not fully independent. In response, supporters of the monarchy argue that New Zealand could amend the Act of Settlement if it so desired, and is thus fully legally independent of Britain. Amending the Act would mean that the succession of the New Zealand monarchy would differ from that of other Commonwealth Realms however."

Something's contradictory in this statement. If the Act of Settlement for New Zealand remains a statute of the United Kingdom then the monarchists are wrong that New Zealand can alter the act unilaterally. If the Act of Settlement is an inherited part of the New Zealand constitution (as it is in Canada) then the republicans are wrong that the Act is a statute of the UK. Which is correct? --gbambino 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a statute of the UK that is effective in New Zealand as received law. The NZ Parliament can amend it, but any such amendment would have effect only with respect to New Zealand. --Mathew5000 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Gavin, if you read the wording of New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986, you'll see that it refers to the "English Act" (the Act of Settlement). Moreover, so does the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 (the New Zealand Act defining what Westminster statutes are effective in New Zealand). Unlike the Constitution Act (or first was an Act of Westminster) the Act of Settlement hasn't been patriated. --Lholden 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I see, thanks. It would seem that if NZ has the power to amend the Act, with the amendment being only effective in NZ, then the country is independent. Willingly sharing the same head of state with another country does not automatically make either country subservient to the other. However, despite the fallacy of their argument, I suppose the opposite is a republican argument, and should be acknowledged as such. --gbambino 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I’ll disagree with you there Lewis; the Constitution Act 1986 stated that the Parliament of the UK no longer had the authority to legislate for NZ. Also legislation by “request and consent” was also ended (as was allowed by the Statute of Westminster). So imo any change to the law of succession in the UK would have no effect here.

Noel Cox has once noted “Any alteration by the United Kingdom Parliament in the law touching the succession to the throne would, except perhaps in the case of Papua New Guinea, be ineffective to alter the succession to the throne in respect of, and in accordance with the law of, any other independent member of the Commonwealth which was within the Queen’s realms at the time of such alteration. Therefore it is more than mere constitutional convention that requires that the assent of the Parliament of each member of the Commonwealth within the Queen’s realms be obtained in respect of any such alteration in the law”

I know that I’m a bit late to the above argument, but oh well that’s my two cents Brian | (Talk) 01:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change my argument Brian - the point is, New Zealand's Head of state is so because our law states "whoever suceeds under the English Act of Settlement is Head of state in New Zealand". Noel Cox may very well be correct that changes to the succession might not be effective in New Zealand but - say for example Westminster changed the male primogenture rules but NZ didn't; we'd still have the same Head of state. --Lholden 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We might with Charles, but who knows down the track, if the UK changed the male primogenture rules, the UK would have one person, however the other 15 realms will share a different HoS. Brian | (Talk) 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You know that that is not likely; the alternative is to break the constitutional convention on the succession; which would of course ignite the republic debate. --Lholden 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court

Should the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2004 be noted somewhere? Ending appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London would seem to be relevant to any discussion of NZ independence. Lisiate 01:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

Hae amended the bit about NZ forces in Middle East not under NZ control which is not true, see Ian McGibbon in Kia Kaha: New Zealand in the Second World War Hugo999 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)