DUE AUTHORITY A VERY SILENT COUP:

TPPA -Flags & The Assassination of the NZ Democracy.
 Fly the Red Blue White and Say No to Prince John and the TPPA.
nzflag
“God of Nations at Thy feet,

In the bonds of love we meet,
God defend our free land.Hear our voices, we entreat,
Guard Pacific’s triple star From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar, God defend New Zealand”.  

Notes Regarding the TV3 Piece on this article which aired on TV3 Story on 8/9/2015
Read Below.             
The nature of heraldry dates back to feudal times when the flags where not just things you waved but a coat of arms stated to whom you pledged allegiance to. It showed what your rank was, entrenched your legal status from what power or Due authority your knight exercised his rights and privileges, the Crown or the State. One of the frustrating things about the change being made to the NZ flag is that no one has considered that change of heraldry and how it impacts on the very notion of DUE AUTHORITY. 

As a graduate of both political science and history the flag issue has been gnawing away in my head for months. I knew that the change had major legislation consequences but I could not put my finger on what the con being waged was exactly. It was only when I went back and began to research what exactly was the aim of heraldry and what it importance was to the legislative nature of the states authority that I came across the term DUE AUTHORITY which I recognised immediately.
It was at this point the penny clicked on just how dangerous any change to our flag is.DUE AUTHORITY in a nation like NZ is represented on the NZ flag by the Union Jack and signifies that we constitutional monarchy. The point is underscored in the beehive sanctioned article ‘New Zealand’s constitution – past, present and future’http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/NZ%20Constitution%20Cabinet%20Office%20backgrounder.pdf“10 Some links and institutions inherited from the United Kingdom remain. Some are “core”…..to our current system of government:
10.1 the Queen as head of state of New Zealand;
10.2 New Zealand’s status as a Realm, including the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and
the Ross Dependency;
10.3 appointment of the Governor-General by the Queen;…
12.3 THE UNION JACK ON NEWZELAND FLAG
12.4 the appearance of the Queen on New Zealand notes and coins; and
12.5 “God save the Queen” as one of New Zealand’s anthems.
13 These links could be reformed without changing New Zealand’s constitution in any fundamental way. They are, however, important in reinforcing New Zealand’s national identity as a constitutional monarchy. For this reason, any change to these links may evoke strong feelings in the community.14 It is important to note that a constitution is not at end in itself – it is simply the means by which a nation state is structured and ordered. Constitutional arrangements reflect a nation’s sense of identity. For that reason, a change to any of the elements listed in
paragraphs 10 and 12 above – whether the change is large or small – is likely to require a lot of time, public involvement, education and discussion”.

 

 

13 These links could be reformed without changing New Zealand’s constitution in any fundamental way

DUE AUTHORITY Take off the Union Jack we remove the protection of monarch constitutional system and the bill of rights and open our selves wide to the slavery of the TTPA

DUE AUTHORITY
Take off the Union Jack we remove the protection of monarch constitutional system and the bill of rights and open our selves wide to the slavery of the TPPA

A change of flag means not only that we have taken a major step to removing the DUE AUTHORITY of the crown. It also means we take away the very power which enforces both the 1990 Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing NZ has to an entrenched Constitution) and the founding plank upon which the Treaty of Waitangi has meaning. It does not matter if your pro or anti monarchy but if you take away the DUE AUTHORITY of law (which includes our flag) you then open the gates of hell or to be precise the means in which John Key can legally sign the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement), Currently if the matter was taken to court it would undoubtedly end up at the Supreme Court.

The Privy Council is our former chief court and unlike the new US styled NZ supreme Court has its legal interpretation interpreted by Judges picked by the Law Lords of the Common Wealth. In the new system those Judges are picked by parliamanet – uh oh.

At the moment it is likely that a legal challenge could be mounted against the TPPA, even if John does sign it, even with the Suprem Court Change, in that it breeches the 1990 Bill of Rights and the Crowns obligation to iwi as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi.

However if the DUE AUTHORITY of the State can be removed then the TPPA can not only be signed but it then means that once signed the DUE AUTHORITY of the TPPA would superseded the power of any NZ laws already in place. Such as the 1990 Bill of Rights etc.

This and the specific appoint of the 12 New Zealanders appointed as members of the Flag Consideration Panel who will “engage” the public about a possible new New Zealand flag, all indicate that the flag change has a very sinister element behind it

TTPA1
The panel will be chaired by former deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Canterbury Emeritus Professor John Burrows, ONZM, QC of Christchurch who was co-chair of the constitutional Advisory Panel along with – Sir Tipene O’Regan, former Chairman of Nga Tahu and controversial ex mayor Peter Chin. In a decidedly right wing leading body.The other 10 members are:
Lt Gen (Rtd) Rhys Jones, CNZM – Former Chief of NZ Defence Force.Chris Trotter note how Jones also sit on the panel of John Key’s “Free thinkers” which Key has drawn around him to act as his personal advisers.Jones dedication to democracy is also underscored by his mis handling of Jon Stephenson who was spied on for daring report the truth of NZ involvement in Afghanistan a job which had NZDF writing manuals classifying Investigative Journalists as “subversives”http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/11/06/risk-and-resilience-introducing-john-keys-free-thinkers/#sthash.oC1NMjg1.dpuf
John+Key+Rhys+Jones+B13NBPn017Om
Nicky Bell – CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi NZ & board director, Auckland.
A Professional spin doctor.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=3097381Julie Christie, ONZM – Director of Julie Christie Inc. and board member, Auckland. Christie also known as ‘The Bitch of Broadcasting’ is famed as the creator of reality TV (and if that does not inspire you with confidence) and is another professional spin doctor.Ms Christie hit the new in the 1990’s after verbally abusing Bill Ralston after a television crew pursued her and Ellis around the TVNZ building last week after Ellis drug bust. Her other close associates include entertainer legal Karen Soich famed of the MR Asia Heroin drug ring and the late Neil Robert the CEO of TVNZ who avoided jail despite being busted on the Auckland Harbour Bridge with a kg of cocainehttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10342895

PETER CHIN - Would You Buy A Used Stadium Off this man.

PETER CHIN – Would you buy a used Stadium off this man.

Peter Chin, CNZM – Former Mayor of Dunedin, director and trustee, Dunedin Chin whose nick name in Dunedin is “corruptchin” pushed through the $400 million Dunedin Stadium as wanted by investors (who sold the land for the Stadium to the council at 600% above government valuation) the Farry Family and Casino Magnate Earl Hagerman.

At the time Chin was the Commissioner of Gambling. So he was in breach of his charter to never put himself in a position where he could be accused of a conflict of interest. He was also a paid employee of Webb & Farry during his entire tenure as Mayor of Dunedin. At the 43rd Otago University School of Foreign Policy, on people power, China gave the key note speech in which he declared ‘I think public participation in the political process is sometime undesirable “as it allows the silent majority to be drowned out by the disgruntled and those with an grudge to bear”.

Way to go Chin buy your self a wedding dress & a pair of high heels & just call yourself Emelda Marcos.

Chin, who is known to have ambitions of making NZ’s top judges, maybe even the first of Key desired supreme court, has also being appointed to insure public participation on constitutional amendment to make as the government clearly wish to become a republic which give the TPPA more power than a constitutional monarchy built upon the Magna Carta

http://www.nzcpr.com/radical-forces-plan-to-replace-our-constitution/

Hana O’Regan – Academic, Maori Flag Consideration Panel members announced studies and te reo Maori, Christchurch.

Her father Tipine O’Regan sits on the same Constitutional amendment chair as Chin, is a senior Nga Tahu chief and can be pretty much be anticipated to direct any ideas towards the interest of Ngai Tahu an iwi which seems quite happy to run rough shod over the interest of its lesser hapu to insure the new aristocracy get their silk boxer shirts.

Ngai Tahu -TTPA Mineral Exploitation - No Worries John. Scratch our back will scratch yours.

Ngai Tahu -TTPA Mineral Exploitation – No Worries John. Scratch our back will scratch yours.

Rod Drury – CEO of Xero and technology entrepreneur, Havelock North of Ngai Tahu who is vehemently anti Greens an anti Mana (a violent opponent of Kimdotcom) and a pure National zealot all the way. His position regarding National is recorded in the Northland paper the Standard where he is quoted as saying of National “What I’d like to see is the Government have another term because they’ve had two terms where they got the debt sorted” No no bias their – Yeah Right.

http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/influentials-string-pullers-and-networkers/

Malcolm Mulholland – Academic and flag historian, Palmerston North also of Ngai Tahu – that the panel is distinctly absent of any other major iwi, asides from Ngai Tahu, is proof of the dirty deal unfolding between the tribe who made it way up the food chain massacring smaller tribes with European muskets and European boats. Today they have swapped musket for pen but the principal remains the same.

The board also includes light weight sport heroes Beatrice Faumuina, ONZM – Olympian, Commonwealth gold medallist an All Black Sir Brian Lochore and people with no real political nouse
such as youth Stephen Jones – an Invercargill Youth Councillor and Kate de Goldi a children’s author.

These are the people who will shape the DUE AUTHORITY of the new flag.

download (3)
Shape it so it serves those who gain to benefit from NZ signing the TPPA.

A treaty which will allow multinational’s to poison our waters, risk our workers safety, rip up our race relations, in a treaty which once singed will supersede all NZ laws and our rights. A treaty which will be entrenched whose due authority will never be able to be removed by any legal means or public protest once signed.

Say good bye Magna Carta say hello to Neo feudalism as it heralds under, the DUE AUTHORITY of Prince John and his hand picked henchmen, an age of corporate slavery which the blue background, four stars, an union jack, has never being associated with.

“God of Nations at Thy feet,
In the bonds of love we meet,
God defend our free land.Hear our voices, we entreat

nzflag

 

Fly the Red Blue Red on March 7th and Say No to Prince John and the TPPA.
https://www.national.org.nz/news/news/media-releases/detail/2015/02/25/flag-consideration-panel-members-announced

Notes in reply to TV 3 Story segment on this article.

http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/story/flag-change-massive-conspiracy-to-pass-the-tppa-2015090819

1. Claimed Due Authority does not exist is a made up term any one who bleive this just good the word due authority legal dictionary/ due authority heraldry.

2. Never gave me a chance to respond to their claims oddly did not list this website (claimed the story began on face book) which allow the readers to read the comments which I pass with out censorship except where the tone is abusive.

3. Failed to report how  many of these issues since this article was first written I have expended on or are adressed in my follow up article Supreme Folly http://www.postmanproductions.org/?p=3179

4. Claimed this was kay of anti Keyism anti national fanaticism (see Supreme follow for my political affiliations).

5. Made the repeated mistake made by every critics todate (and the biggest error on there behalf) that trys to make out my claims relate to the flag change alone.

The article above notes (citing parliament records own website – which also stated the Union Jack stands for our “democratic traditions) the flag is “symbolic”.

However the issue cease to be symbolic when combined with the COMBINED constitional changes

Stuff notes “Vidgen is of course correct in that a constitutional shift away from monarchy would require a serious discussion about the Treaty of Waitangi, and that the Bill of Rights Act is often ignored by the Government of the day.” .*The article claims my view about politics creeping into judical decision is unlikely but thats an opinon whcih I would counter with the cases of David Fisher vs Crown, Mike Sabin Vs the Crown, John Banks vs the Crown, Bradley Ambrose vs the Crown (Tea gate) where decision where deferred until after election or name supression given in manner which could leave the courts open to criticism of making ruling which favoured the polticians of the day.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-flag-debate/71661495/flag-change-three-conspiracy-theories

6. Tv3 falsely states the flag has no constitional implication and a flag is just a flag.

Again that not what parliament own website stated.  It in fact at the time I wrote this said the Union jack stood for our “democratic traditions”.

And historically the very reasons given for a proposed flag change in 1973 was it was important first step you need to undertake if you wanted to make NZ a republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_New_Zealand

7. Fail to report the flag change in the context of the change to our court system and the current constituional reforms http://www.ourconstitution.org.nz/ including our coat of arms and our head of state which in affect moves us towards becoming a republic. Note the NZ flag was not signed with the Republic of NZ it was singed by the Crown. Todate the reivew has recieved virtualy zero media coverage.

8. TV3 story called this just another trade deal again this is not the case as the TPPA has wider implcation concerning our soveringity and this very issue and its lack of transparency was raised by no less than the former Minister for Foreing Affairs Don Mckinnon in 1998 in relation to the TPPA predecessor the MAI.

“It should be on important issues to New Zealand such as the Treaty of Waitangi…”The Government also believed the MAI process in the OECD was not open enough to the public. Don Mckinnnon – Minister Foreign Trade & Affairs 1998

9. In a nut shell this is not the best article I have ever written I admit this.  It was one of hundred of article I have written on a new website which I have not even begun to promote (namely as we still have number of proofing and design issues to deal with). I had no idea it would cause the storm it has. Does it contain statements, or draw conclusion, which are open to debate – you betcha.

But it core arguments are solid – and it is not “nuts” to raise these issues the flag change is not a branding exercise for the sake of it. It is part of overall constitutional change which have witness being over a decade ago.

All of which relate directly to the issue of soverignity.

The Flag symbolically goes to the heart of this issue and if you change this you are sending a clear message that you are indeed changing the nature of soveringity as we know it. This is both a fact of political science as will as an empirical argument which can be proved historically by the motives for past discussion to change the flag for the reason of making NZ a republic.

Those combined constitutional changes (not just the flag change) will have far reaching consequences and if passed potentially will make it easier for those wishing to bring in the TPPA to get their way  as it goes to the heart of soverignity.

In the  1990’s during the attempt to fositer the Multilateral Investment Agreement   (the predecessor to the TPPA)  one of the very issues raised was the the MAI would under mine NZ soverignity especially the Treaty of Waitangi a document singed not with the ‘Repubic of NZ’ but with the Crown.

“The deal could affect the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, despite assurances to the contrary, she said.

Unlike the Treaty of Waitangi, the TPP would be legally binding on the Government” writes Professor jane Kelsey.  Point of order the Treaty is signed with the Crown.

So what happens to the Treaty if all the mechanics which ties us to the crown are knocked out??

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=n95dH0Q_FWMC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=treaty+of+waitangi+multilateral+investment+agreement&source=bl&ots=s_6AiZ-J2V&sig=A0fjyoyXymLLwQ_j4JGraF0ldtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEQQ6AEwB2oVChMIsfHik_D3xwIVwSWmCh2d7wol (see point 14)

MAI  The threat to sovreignty from The Jobs Letter No.64 / 7 August 1997 Corso National Officer and spokesperson for the fair trade coalition GATT Watchdog,

AZIZ CHOUDRY, stated in that article “As drafted, the MAI could prevent governments from limiting what foreign investors can own (whether strategic assets or rural land) or from imposing obligations on them to use local content, hire local managers or staff, or share technological knowhow. It would facilitate easier access for investors to be able to move assets – financial instruments or production facilities – across borders – regardless of social and environmental considerations. It would guarantee the free transfer of all payments relating to an investment in and out of a country. Moreover it could allow investors the right to challenge, and even sue governments to overturn laws which they view as violating their “rights”. These could include laws to protect the environment or those designed to support local businesses and develop economically deprived areas. It could override the Crown’s fundamental obligations to tangata whenua as guaranteed in the Treaty of Waitangi” So much the better if their no crown around to begin with.

http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl06410.htm

New Zealand is not yet satisfied that new negotiations on the OECD’s proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) will lead to an agreement New Zealand could sign, Foreign Minister Don McKinnon said today… earlier this year, we became concerned that the MAI negotiations were not leading towards an agreement which would promote trade, investment and sustainable development and be acceptable to OECD and WTO members….We were also concerned that the draft agreement was not as clear as it should be on important issues to New Zealand such as the Treaty of Waitangi…”The Government also believed the MAI process in the OECD was not open enough to the public. Don Mckinnnon – Minister Foreign Trade & Affairs 1998

http://beehive.govt.nz/release/oecd039s-proposed-multilateral-agreement-investment

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8605428/Talking-about-a-New-Zealand-constitution

“A group of esteemed Māori leaders and academics, including Dr Papaarangi Reid, Moana Jackson, Rikirangi Gage, Angeline Greensill, Hone Harawira and Moana Maniapoto have filed a claim and application for urgent hearing today in the Waitangi Tribunal. The claim alleges that the government’s actions in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPPA) are a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles……The next steps in the Waitangi Tribunal process will involve a response by the Crown and other interested parties.

http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2015/07/crown-rejects-proposal-for-independent-review-of-treaty-of-waitangi-exception-clause-in-tppa

“On 23 July, the Waitangi Tribunal held a hearing on whether to grant urgency to Māori claimants seeking to challenge the Crown’s entrance into the TPPA. As discussed in ourprevious article, Māori have raised several concerns in relation to the proposed TPPA, including a claim that it will adversely affect Māori intellectual property rights.

In the course of last week’s hearing, claimants proposed that an independent barrister review the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause. The Treaty of Waitangi exception clause is a clause in free trade agreements that allows New Zealand to provide preferential treatment to Māori, where required to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The other parties to the free trade agreement cannot challenge this preferential treatment to Māori. ”

http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2015/07/crown-rejects-proposal-for-independent-review-of-treaty-of-waitangi-exception-clause-in-tppa/

Again this issue is raided by peope with Labour themselves who note the TPPA has the potential to undermine the Treaty fo Waitangi and again so much the better if all the constitutional mechanics courts, flag, coat or arms, head of state, which tie us to the crown have being removed first.

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/11/04/by-their-fruits-shall-ye-know-them-theres-nothing-moderate-about-john-keys-government/

My claims on the Bill of Rights are were Im weakest – my bag ( ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”) but the key issue on this point can be undermine in the kind of Constitional review that key has planned for us around the corner. The Bill which is not the cloest thing to a consitution but perhaps it better to say a constitutional protection could be undermined depending on the wording of the reivew once it is made public. Unfortuantely no one is discussing or asking what is the planned vision of the proposed constitution (certainly TV3 Story) under consideration [in cases by the very same people Key is paying $650 a day to change our flag)] is and how exactly will these issue relate to “Duties to International Agreement” for example.

TPPA /  FLAG CHANGE - ITS ALL ABOUT TAKING AWAY OUR ABILITY TO BE THE MASTER AND COMMANDER OF OUR DESTINY.

TPPA / FLAG CHANGE – ITS ALL ABOUT TAKING AWAY OUR ABILITY TO BE THE MASTER AND COMMANDER OF OUR DESTINY.

The TPPA has the pontential to under mine our national soveringity and the flag change (combined with the other changes to our constitutional implcations) like wise has the potential change the nature our soverignity (when combined with all the other step) as a part of the overall process to change the constitional mechanics of nation.

So to say that are not related will that not only nuts thats simply delusional.

DUE AUTHORITY A VERY SILENT COUP:

Comments 95

      1. Post
        Author
        Ben Vidgen

        Think of government as car all these things make up the mechanics/parts. Not my view but one aspect being examined by th current constitional panel.

      1. John Riley

        if folks would like to remember back to the Waitangi tribunals hearings of the 80\’s Tipine O’Regan was on pretty much every committee getting a % of the take the man made millions off of everyone elses backs the guys about as slippery as jelly and I certainly wouldnt mak a deal with him on a handshake he would sell his soul for a dollar and pinch all the change in the plate DO NOT GET RID OF THE FLAG the TPP is made up of Rothschilds corporations check them out you can do a NASDAQ search on each one all the NZ ans Australian banks Rothschilds is the owner follow the shares the reserve bank of New Zealand is a private bank its not govt owned its owned by guess who Rothschilds yep whos behind this

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Cheers Robert that was corrected in the edit but for some reason shows up on the social media promo – a little dyslexic cyber moment.

  1. Slippery

    I’m glad others have also finally come to this conclusion
    I’m not sure who exactly wrote this but I cut, pasted & saved this info for such an occasion, it pretty much backs up everything you say (if not as well, but good to see others on point)
    “3Flags come under Admiralty law/commerce law #NZFlag
    Regarding the changing of the flag and it’s relation to the TPPA,
    what most don’t understand is that by changing the flag,
    NZ PM John Key is able to invalidate the Treaty of Waitangi and the^ *1986 Constitution (which includes the Treaty of Waitangi) that was signed under it.

    Our Constitution covers the Bill of Rights Act 1990, Human Rights Act 1993, Five Principles of the Treaty 1989, Magna Carta 1297, laws relating to individual rights, eg Education, Social Security, Privacy Act 1993, Public Works Act 1981.

    While ‘the changing of the flag’ does appear to be a red herring to divert from other issues, this in itself is required for the TPPA to go ahead to full potential. Our Constitution (including The Treaty of Waitangi) and the TPPA can not co-exist.

    Key has tried to get claims settled and has been hit with the fact that the Maori never intended to sign away sovereignty of NZ, but were told they were signing an agreement for joint rule. Key knows he can’t just make this ‘go away’, so he is deceitfully looking to invalidate the Treaty.

    REFERENDUM suggestion (Please SHARE): Rather than boycott the referendum as your form of protest, we ALL need to be PRO-ACTIVE in this so JK can not turn around and say “no one cared to vote which shows no opposition to the new flag”. Instead of voting for one of the 2 new flag options, we need to ADD our current flag to the list and tick against that option. Now, this will be marked as an invalid vote, BUT, JK can not say no one cared, AND our goal should be to FLOOD the referendum with as many of these invalid votes as possible to make sure our opposition is overwhelmingly heard. We need to spread this info to all. If you have a way of getting it into the media then do it.

    People need to know it’s not only the ‘cost’ of the flag that we need to be objecting to, but also JK’s underhanded and deceitful measures to invalidate an honest and legally binding treaty and Constitution, to in-act a secretive back room deal that sells our people out to Corporate power”

    1. Post
      Author
    2. Kathryn

      Well said….all my thoughts exactly…this flag change and now the national anthem debs key brought up by Andrew Little all part of dissolving our ties to the monarchy and becoming a Republic or another state of the USA…make no mistake.. The Labour part are in on this well and truly with Helen Clark being the main instigator of the TTPA several years ago

  2. ros ludewig

    Can a petition be organized to stop this bloody monster John key from selling our freedom and rights.?how he sleeps at night without guilt beggars me

    1. Post
      Author
  3. John Whyte

    Thanks for this much needed and timely exposition. As a layperson lover of Truth and Justice issues, I can wholehearted relate to the statement: “As a graduate of both political science and history the flag issue has been gnawing away in my head for months. I knew that the change had major legislation consequences but I could not put my finger on what the con being waged was exactly.” [Contextual data: TPPA and The (burgeoning) Capitalist Threat (To authentic democracy) George Soros Feb 1 1997 – “Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat” http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/02/the-capitalist-threat/376773/

    1. Post
      Author
  4. mark kalksma

    john key was voted in to work for all of nzers and not the choosen few , nzers have been faced with a dictator who believes its ok to belittle anyone who wishes to speak up about all his injustices , he has single handedly put our country in more dept than any other priminister of nz history and he has no plans to stop yet, he’s sold nzers out to america so we now have no privacy in our own homes , his plans to date have nothing to do with the lower classes except subsidising the rich with the poors wages, jk is not the man who can bring this country to wealth unless you already have it ,slavery was abolished last century in most countries ,if all the laws and changes are made to whts left to our workers ryts we will pretty much be slaves who have no rights and certainly no way of bettering ourselves, think bout this why do we as workers get charged at 28% tax and the filthy rich get charged at 2.8% ??????? and thats fair ….

  5. Jax

    Club warfare .. Overseas Ownership and Corporate Welfare.. Immigration dilution of NZ voting population.. Flag.. Currency Change…. Currency…..Indebtedness…. TPPa… Mission Accomplished… Key’s list of intent and lasting legacy as first signalled in 2003.
    A+ Postie..

  6. Greg Keene

    I agree the TPPA could be very detrimental to our country but to make a link between that and the flag is wrong. Please retract. Write some real investigative piece about the TPPA and not try to scare the public with some imaginitive link between the flag and the TPPA. I’m really interested to see all the pros and cons with the TPPA but your article really says nothing about either and has a lot of half truths, straight out lies and unconnected dots that you have found a way to connect. Bad mouthing the flag panel has nothing to do with the TPPA. WOW!! I would expect better from a Dunedin man.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Greg

      You appear to be the only one who differs and does not agree with my verdict – which is excellent god forbid we all believe the same thing.

      A couple points one this is the only post I will post of yours. The eight other post to me you sent, all in one day, this was the only one where you try to be civil. My rules are simple. Im not obliged to answer any one chould I choose not to – you dont like it start your own paper. I will only answer those who behave in a civil manner calling me a criminal, a liars, blah blah, is not being civil.

      DUE AUTHORITY is explanation of a process and like the terms social contract you wont find it any “legal paper”.

      It does not change its meaning that the symbols on our flag represent where we draw our power from.

      This point is made clear in the section I quote from the Parliament article that singularly none of these things in themselves have impact but as collective they require deep discussion and public consultation.

      Yes the Bill of Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi can be used to mount legal challenges against the TPPA – unless you change the all the aspects which bond us to the Westminster system including our flag, our judicial system and our Constitution.

      I do not believe the flag panel with their history as spin doctors and mouth pieces for the far right and a class system (which has Ngat Tahu aristocracy alone speaking for ll Maori people) is a representation of true public consultation.

      Peter Chin’s status in Dunedin following the stadium debacle, built on nothing but lies and deception, for public consultation is mud.
      The rest of NZ have the right to know just how little credibility Chin has.

      That the same names or their close family members appear often n both panels only entrenches this position. of games being fixed from the start.

      And again do you think perhaps as this issue does go beyond ngai tahu we could perhaps have some other voices of maoridom involved as will – voices that dont have well established records of open partisanship with National.

      Cheers

      I did not go to the meeting as I made clear on the face book as I rushed out the door heading for know church and only discovered when got home I had the adress wrong. Sorry but as usal I was working on the weekend and time got the better of me.

      As for attacking my spelling – I think my dyslexia is by now ell established read my blog I frank ma I dont care – the vast majority of those who have respnded clearly understand the point you choose to over look.

      1. Ruth Cadman

        Thank goodness for people like you Ben…..everything you say is exactly what I believe. …Oh and I am Ngai Tahu from Dunedin….who has experienced Peter Chin and his greedy friends…..we the ratepayers now pay for their folly

        1. Post
          Author
      2. Peter Caulton

        Kiwis have short memories and have forgotten that the UK threw us overboard in the 1970`s after supporting them in their wars etc for all our European history.I would like to see a Proper New Zealand constitution with no reference to the treaty at all as it is a treaty which normally means an agreement between two sovereign states. Clearly the Maori were never a sovereign state but a collection of warring tribes. A treaty is a treaty and nothing to do with a constitution. Any attempt to give one race in this country special privileges over other kiwis is racist and as this whole treaty argument was the Maoris claiming their race was underprivileged should also be opposed by them to institutional racism against Te Pakeha in any legislation as the treaty clearly states it was designed for all New Zealanders as per the Littlewood document which is the last English draft of the treaty translated into Maori . We should be an independent nation with no allegiance to an unelected family and have our own identity. The flag is such an out dated concept and just another excuse for conflict and distraction as the smiling assassin well knows. Anyway the NZ national anthem is no longer God Of Nations but Wagon Wheel replacing The Gambler after Ten Guitars. And until we see some evidence of a God then we should stay out of that trouble making delusional behaviour as a nation with division of church and state. Of course you are pissing in the wind if you think any of your ravings will change anything in this apathetic, naive, ignorant, gutless selfish electorate that we have in this country. If 3 heroes of the 21st century, who put theirs lives on the line to expose the mass surveillance we have in this increasingly authoritarian fascist state and the world, who informed New Zealand that our elected prime minister is a lying prick and we are being mass surveilled and that disclosure results in a bigger mandate for the prick then how do you think you can achieve a turn around in that level of stupidity.

      3. Daniel Kempton

        I\’m afraid Greg Keene is completely right here. Your parallels between the laws mentioned regarding due authority and the flag look real on the surface, but as a lawyer with extensive experience in this area I can vouch that there is absolutely nothing to connect the flag change to any perceived loss of sovereignty, or the TPPA. You do a great disservice to those who have been hoping for this opportunity to change the flag, some since World War 2 when it was initially raised. If you\’re just well-meaning and want to oppose the TPPA, that\’s fine – don\’t drag the flag into it. But if you just don\’t want the flag changed, come up with a legitimate reason rather than this ridiculous scaremongering!

        1. Post
          Author
          Ben Vidgen

          I\’m afraid Greg Keene is completely right here. Your parallels between the laws mentioned regarding due authority and the flag look real on the surface, but as a lawyer with extensive experience in this area I can vouch that there is absolutely nothing to connect the flag change to any perceived loss of sovereignty, or the TPPA. Thats an opinon and you fail to show where Im flawed in my deduction. Your second laywer to think Im right your wrong is a legitimate critque whn it is not.

          I don’t care what the flag is beyond personal taste. I am concerned that flag change has constitional implication and this has not being fully explained and before we do kiwi need to know what a flag is and how it fits into the mechanics of government

          I sugest you also look at the case study of the proposed flag change in 1973 given on the grounds as an essential step in the proposal to make NZ a republic. So yes their solid empircal examples of the flag being linked to the isue of soveringity. I also suggest you look at this legally not from the angle of how the law and the state is now – but what how it will stand once the current constitutional review has being completes.

    2. Andrew Coffin

      The law discussed here is nearly entirely wrong. Changing the flag does not impact constitutional arrangements in any way. Parliament is still supreme and sovereign. This doesn’t depend on our status as a constitutional monarchy. They can still pass any law they like. The courts uphold this doctrine, as seen in cases such as Boscawen v Attorney-General and our reluctance in general to adopt Cooke\’s famous dicta in Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board. This doctrine is not threatened by changing the flag. The idea is that, regardless of how sovereignty is obtained (potentially illegitimately), parliament is sovereign now, with full power to make law (see s 15(1) Constitution Act 1986). The courts don\’t really examine where we got the power from – saying that a legal revolution did or did not occur doesn\’t impact current parliamentary supremacy. The \”deep public consultation\” just refers to the public having deep set opinions due to the symbolism of the flag and other symbolic, yet peripheral matters which have no real effect on the constitution. It would be unwise to change without consultation, but this doesn\’t actually mean anything legally. There is a reason why paragraphs 10 and 12 are separated in the article. Paragraph 10 involves significant constitutional matters, and paragraph 12 deals with the symbolic. Sure, becoming a republic would be a serious reform, but that\’s not what is entailed here.

      The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 is an ordinary statute. Parliament can amend or repeal it without any special procedures, as parliament is supreme. In no way would changing a flag impact the validity of NZBORA. Even if we became a republic, this wouldn’t impact parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty and hence NZBORA. Anyway, s 4 means you won\’t be able to strike down inconsistent legislation. Sure, you might try to bring an action for a declaration of inconsistency (which the courts may well be unable to ever be able to grant – you\’d be relying on dicta and the very recent High Court case). But this won\’t stop NZ from doing anything about the TPPA. This is off topic though, as your claim is that changing the flag in general has some legal effect.

      Currently, the Executive (ie government) can sign treaties without parliamentary permission, despite a parliamentary process to follow, though ratifying the treaty via statute might be problematic. Changing the flag or becoming a republic wouldn’t alter this.

      I’m happy to contest your insinuations of judicial bias (see the many Elias CJ dissents) and the effects of TPPA if you like, but that isn’t relevant to flag changing. A new flag doesn’t impact parliamentary power in the slightest.

      1. Post
        Author
        Ben Vidgen

        Thanks I dont claim to be a legal expert. I do however think you missing a couple of key issue from a poltical science view.

        1. The upcoming constitional review.
        2. The key error every one makes is it not jkust the flag change by itself thats the core issue but the flag change when taken in context with all the COMBINED constitional alteration which have taken place or about to which change the nature of what kind of state NZ which then alter the ability of the 1990 Bill and Treaty to protect national soverignity. Bias David Fisher vs Crown, John Banks deferment until after the election, Mike Sabin deferment name suppresion, Tea gate interpretation of privacy and the Crimes Act.

      2. Post
        Author
        Ben Vidgen

        Another your wrong statment without listing why.
        And again only looks at the context of the flag not the combined changes.
        You can contest all you like but I already privide cases which show this in fact is taking place.

  7. Jc

    “It is based upon Westminster laws (which in turn is based upon the very founding documents of democracy the Magna Carte)”

    You don’t think the Greeks could have something to say about this?

    The magna cart was more of a judicial thing wasn’t it? trying to limit the power of the monarchy, and more than likely entrenching the existing class structures.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Touche – but no the greek may have had ‘invented democracy’ but it application to the West Minster comes through the Magna Carta. But yes it principal was to limit the monarchy and yes helped entrench the ruling classes. This seem to be the norm a friend of my Walter McIntosh has done some very depressing research which show like wise the US Constitution was an exercise by the WIGS to entrench their power in the USA. And now NZ ‘constitution increasingly looks like an exercise by National to stack the deck as will –

  8. Lez Karaitiana

    We are now an Independent State of the South Pacific under the legal jurisdiction of the International Common Law Courts of Justice Zone 3…….By changing the flag John Key and associates have ceded their sovereignty to the Unite Sovereign Nations Peoples of Aotearoa i make this statement as of 3rd day of March 2015……

  9. Tuari Rapihana

    This is thuggery at the highest level it undermines all that constitues a nation striving to develop its economic fundamentality. I do not support this flaggelation nor its implied notion of independance under the TPPA NO THANKS.

  10. Anonymous

    If your thinking of changing the flag how about changing it back to the FIRST and RIGHTFUL flag of New Zealand, “TE WHAKAPUTANGA” because not in my name nor my tupuna before me before me will say “NO!” to the change of the flag

  11. Fayrestorm

    Thanks for the very insightful information. “At the moment it is likely that a legal challenge could be mounted against the TPPA, even if John does sign it, in that it breeches the 1981 Bill of Rights and the Crowns obligation to iwi as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi.” Are you aware of anything like this in the works?

    This is taken from the Action Station Petition Against Dirty Politics – “Our current democratic crisis is bigger than Dirty Politics. Last year the Law Society reported to the UN that our Parliament had been used to pass a series of acts stripping away citizens’ rights and freedoms.[2] Transparency International has expressed concerns about growing weaknesses in our public institutions.” If the Law Society has gone to the UN to bat for the erosion of our civil rights and freedoms there has got to be a way to get a legal action underway with the support of the Law Society, Local Governments and others?

    I know in my heart that John Key and National will go through with this, that the deal is already done and they will under no circumstance alter this trajectory. The only way to realistically stop them is by using the Laws as they stand to our advantage. Do you have any suggestions?

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Working backwards; The panel on the constitution and treaty includes several legal ‘experts’ on both those matters (e.g. Peter ‘Corrupt’ Chin).So yeah they could build in provision which negate this. Bear in mind at this point the interpretation of any judicial reform would be interpreted by the supreme court whose judges would be picked by the government of the day (national).

      Its worth noting that the process which brought in the supreme court (thus removing the privy council, another pin in that links us to west minster system of democracy and constitutional monarchy)was also backed by the Greens.

      The bill of rights can in fact be repealed in the old days a legal challenge to such a repeal would eventually end up at the privy council but now it will end up at the supreme court again picked by Johns mates.

      Bit by bit they are removing all the protections.

      Its IMPORTANT !!! to understand the treaty of waitangi was singed with crown not the new zealand government if you remove all parts of crwon from nz state – then the treaty falls over.

      The irony is a clique within the anti TPPA camp are very hot that any attempt to link the flag to the tppa camp needs to be shut down because Profesor Kesley said so. Yet Kesley also talks of the need to get leagl minds into the tppa protest to mount a legal defence. And if they did it be the like of Sir Geoffrey Palmer – legal expert on constitutional matters just like you find on flag and constitutional panels. Because this all boild down to the question of on WHOSE AUTHORITY are these laws legal.

      In fact she Kelsey when talking of the Flag being a distraction is her simply of how John is using the flag as distraction for the media
      (not that wide meaning is not relevant).

      The flags role as symbol of due authority which goes to the very heart of any argument on the nature of the sate and it social contract with the people.

      The camps in question who don’t want this argument aired to date appear in fact to be academics who unwittingly have sided with neo-liberalism, the advisory body of the Greens party, the neo liberal component of the Labour party and Ngai tahu.

      The later of which have come to dominate the $640 club and are the only iwi representation on any of these panels and the greens who as noted in fact support both the supreme council and the organisation know as the parliamentarians for global action an organistion which also talks of the need to dismantle sovereign nation states and create a central global government with it own currency, judicial authority – sadly neo liberalism is not just found in the camps of National and Labour but can also be found in the aristocracy of ngai tahu.

      No those march are great first step – nothing in the end is more powerful than people power – we just have to make sure the protest movement does not get hijacked by those who want the argument confined only on the terms they are comfortable with.

        1. Post
          Author
        1. Post
          Author
  12. Steve Edwards

    Hi Postman,

    it’s good to see someone attempt this possible connection. I’ve been thinking the same myself. I wonder if you could have another go at it, this time with more citations, less emotive slings (replace them with facts) and a thorough proof-read.

    In regard to evidence, it would be good to cite some books or well-referenced articles on Heraldry, flags and treaties, particularly those that nail the significance of flags. It would be great if you provided your readers with some references for the term ‘Due Authority’.

    Then, relate how the Trans-Pacific Partnership fits into the broader framework of ‘new constitutionalism’, as Stephen Gill has written about. These inclusions will strengthen your article and give your readers the confidence to refer other people to your blog site.

    Thanks,
    Steve

    p.s. In the Musket Wars, the main protagonists were Hongi Hika of Nga Puhi, Te Rauparaha of Ngati Toa, and Te Whero Whero of the Waikato. Ngai Tahu played a role, but this could be said of numerous tribes caught up in the upset to the balance of power by the introduction of the flintlock musket. The Musket Wars were predictable. Similar fights had occurred on the North American continent after first contact with European settlers. Inter-tribal warfare suited the British Empire very nicely.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Appreciate the feed back — as you will see by the comments it has hit resonance. Original it was written only as rough draft of my intended speech but that never happened (see my latest blog)

      Proofing sorry their is a reason why I called my paper the postman (“he spelt tyranny wrong”) my dyslexia is legendary but feel free to proof it and I will make amend accordingly if it bugs you that much –

      Again i brand my self as gonzo journalism – so emotion is legit – you want fair and balanced go watch fox

      Nor am I here to spoon feed people – these article all take time and resources (I don’t have)

      If you want to pay me I will do it your way other wise be realistic of what your asking a small publication where the author is also the salesman, delivery boy, and office man.

      Its not that hard to do this research and I have shown where the door is – you ask a lot.

      I have already seen at ess two people pick up the ball and run with it (three if I count tvnz flag piece).

      In saying that some truly contructive criticism and couple of name and idea which will stick in my head – as I go on to deal with the six or other main stories sitting on my desk.

      “p.s. In the Musket Wars, the main protagonists were Hongi Hika of Nga Puhi, Te Rauparaha of Ngati Toa, and Te Whero Whero of the Waikato. Ngai Tahu played a role, but this could be said of numerous tribes caught up in the upset to the balance of power by the introduction of the flintlock musket. The Musket Wars were predictable. Similar fights had occurred on the North American continent after first contact with European settlers. Inter-tribal warfare suited the British Empire very nicely.”

      True Im slanted from a south island and have huge knowledge gaps in my iwi knowledge base when it comes to north island iwi

      I will say however that in all these panels ngai tahu have entirely dominated as the sole iwi principal to be found participating
      and as with allowing off shore firm in drill for oil they are comfortable in being leading advocates for the TPPA

      http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/new-ambassador-to-chile-announced/

      Yes the love inter tribal warfare – divide and conquer is the SOP.

      Awesome feed back thank you so much.

  13. Sandra Wong

    Thank You so much for this article, even though i find it frightening in the way my rights and The Sovrienty of NZ and All its peoples is beeing eroded and the consequences of these actions. I have been against the TPPA since learning about it at a ” Stop selling our assets” protest march and have been vehemently against it.Needless to say as we all know the asset sales went ahead. Now i understand fully( i knew there would be more to changing the flag than i knew)what changing our flag entails . its a DEFINITE NO FROM ME!!!!!!

  14. Trevor Mills

    The present flag is the one our for bears were raised with, as was our present generation, and so should it be for our future generations to follow, and those to come.
    There is only one reason Key and his hand picked panelists want the change, and that’s to open the doors of hell for the TPPA. As explained, changing the flag first, removes all constitutional as well as democratic rights and protections, through a panel that Key has set up to do his bidding, thus relieving him of pressure of complete responsibility should anything go awry.
    I say no to any referendum, no to any flag change, no to Key and his minions.

  15. sarah

    You have completely misquoted from that beehive paper on NZ’s constitution, which was the entire backbone of your argument as I read it.

    The paper actually states:
    “12. Other links are more symbolic, for example:
    12.1 Queen’s Counsel (reforming legislation introduced, but not yet passed);
    12.2 inclusion of the reference to the Queen on the Seal of New Zealand;
    12.3 the union jack on New Zealand’s flag;

    13 These links could be reformed without changing New Zealand’s constitution in any fundamental way.”

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Your not correct sara I quote a section point 12 then I go ….. which shows I quo ting a section not the entire text.

      Point 12 12.1 12.2 were omitted as felt nit necessary to under score the point. I was making

      In that ” these links could be reformed without changing New Zealand’s constitution in ANY FUNDAMNETAL way. They are, however, important in reinforcing New Zealand’s national identity as a constitutional monarchy.

      So again a nice attempt to try and have me say something I did not say – and again no attempt to address my principal point that it is not the issue of the flag alone that is the problem. But the IMPORTANT issue occur when this factor is combined with the change to our senior court system and the nature of John Key constitutional advisory panel which also includes those with links to the flag panel.

      How many times

  16. Joel Holder

    Hi Ben.

    Thank-you for a very interesting piece. As a strong opponent to the TPPA, I’d hate to see the Key administration sneak through any means to ratify such an abominable idea for corporate empowerment.

    However, article 12 of the beehive sanctioned document, that you provided a link to, states that some of our links to the United Kingdom ‘are more symbolic’. This includes 12.3; ‘the union jack on New Zealand’s flag’.

    Article 13 then goes on to say: ‘These links could be reformed without changing New Zealand’s constitution in any fundamental way’. The links referred to, being the points made in article 12.

    Notwithstanding any changes to the points in article 10, which would indeed completely neglect the evolution of our constitution so far, I fail to see how changing a symbolic tie to the UK is undermining. Perhaps you could please elaborate.

    Cheers
    Joel.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Joel Holder – you need to read the other comments where I answer this point ad nausea and address in later post visa changes from privy council to supreme court. In addition to potential changes to our constitutional legislation (Treaty of Waitangi and Bill of Rights 1981) with the proposed National constitution.

  17. Sherrin English

    The Flag debate is vitally important because changing the flag will have a roll-over effect, and that will mean a new constitution. Because in 1986 Jeffery Palmers and the Labour Party repealed the 1852 Constitution to create the 1986 Constitution. But they soon realised they\’d made a huge mistake. They repealed the very act that Queen Victoria gave NZ government, that is the right to govern and make laws, so since 1986 the government has been an illegal entity. With National now in government they decided to take advantage of the opportunity to clear the road for NZ to become a Corporate State; which means a new Flag, a new Head of State, a new Constitution, amended, new and repealed laws in favour or the TPPA.
    The 1852 Constitution was a single document, and creating the 1986 Constitution that is not a single document because the government is only the Acting Crown, whereas the Queen is THE Crown to whom the government is responsible. Only the Queen can authorise the government as to what they can and cannot do. That is what the 1852 Constitution did, it gave the NZ Government the right to govern and make laws. It did NOT give the government the right to overstep the Queen. But the government did, and since 1986 NZ has been vulnerable. And now it is under threat. Corporate power came knocking at the current government\’s door – The TPPA! So for a complete corporate takeover all NZers have to do is CEDE their rights. How do we do that? Change the flag. Do that and NZ is doomed.

  18. Matt

    Hi Ben, Fully support your comments and this cause.
    Do you have any official links that back up the legal ramifications of a flag change. I am debating with a couple of friends. Everything I tell them seems to come from \’unofficial\’ sources.
    I know our allegiance to the flag is not actually a legal power, but it does still have power over us.
    Some links to official sites would be useful in proving the sinister motives behind a change of flag.
    Thanks

    1. Post
      Author
      1. Billy T

        Great article and you have got most of the info right, however there are a few points that have not been mentioned.
        The reason that the flag issue came up was that in 2010 when Prince William came to open the Supreme Court he noticed that the Sovereigns flag was not flying in the court (1835 Declaration Flag http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/flags-flying-waitangi-day) and asked John Key where the \”Partners\” flag was? John Key said that is the flag whereupon Prince William refused to open the Court and only opened the \”Building\”.
        This was reported in the Tongan newspaper Kele’a and thereafter On 22nd December 2009 the New Zealand Police issued case file number 091218/6055 against the N.Z. Prime Minister and his Minister for Justice on charges under the Crimes Act 1961.
        Another point is that the Chiefs of the Northern Tribes are still the Sovereign in New Zealand and Queen Elizabeth is the Partner (protector) which is why Nga Tahu is so heavily represented on the panel.
        The Chiefs continue to allow the NZ Company to run NZ for them and this is evident every year with the process which is followed. Firstly the Ratana Church invite the CEO of the NZ Company (John Key) to Ratana Pa at Ratahi on the 25th January every year to give him their blessing. Secondly the Maori Council invite the CEO to Waiting to give him their blessing and thirdly the King invites him to Turangawaiwai to give the final blessing. The Company now has approval of Church, State and Monarchy to govern for another year.
        One final note, the Treaty of Waitangi expired in 1939 (99year treaty).
        Remember Hong Kong was given back to China when their treaty expired but what happened here was that the Government waited 7 years (statute of limitations) and in 1947 brought out the Treaty settlements act and many others which put the Upper House into recess. Maori Council appear to be the Upper house.

        1. Post
          Author
  19. Ron Knight

    I knew all along that the flag was more than just a pretty wall decoration. I am glad that someone had the will and the knowledge to put all the pieces together. I would bet that not even John Key had previously done so. As one who has just found out that a distant relative of mine was severely wounded at the Battle of Salamanca whilst carrying \”The Colours\”- and killed at The Battle of Waterloo while still only 20 years old- I know a little about the significance of flag design. All of that tells me that if we are to change the flag sometime in the future, the first thing that should be done is to educate the general public on the true meaning and uses of the National flag. And also all the possible constitutional ramifications of doing so.

  20. Wendell Chan

    I\’m sorry but this is so incorrect, on so many levels. It is very clear that you have never studied the law, as you obviously have no idea about it. Having been a constitutional lawyer in New Zealand for the past 25 years, I can emphatically say that there is not a shred of truth in anything you have said.

    Perhaps do a little research before you try and indoctrinate people with your overly misguided views

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Sorry Wendell but ‘I’m right your wrong is not an argument’ I expect from a constitional expert. My view point comes as a graduate of political science.

      1. Wendell Chan

        I’ll elaborate then. Despite repeated comments that you’ve misquoted the Beehive document, you maintain that you were correct. All the document is saying is that the Union Jack on the NZ flag is symbolic of New Zealand’s statehood and historic links to the UK, and that it can be altered without too grave an effect. Nothing more. All a flag change will do is slightly alter our national identity, it won’t have any legal ramifications. By omitting sections of the document, you seem to be trying to mislead the reader by making it appear that the Union Jack is a core feature of our government.

        Multiple times you refer to the concept of due authority, and gave shaky references to define it. Those sources show that due authority lies with the Crown when making decisions regarding flags, coats of arms etc. This is exactly what is happening in NZ, the Crown (Parliament acting at the Queen’s pleasure) is making decisions regarding our flag, which they have the power to do! Heraldry does not carry much relevance in modern times, as flags are merely symbolic of a nation’s identity.

        You make frequent references to the Bill of Rights Act 1981 – there isn’t one. I’ll assume this was just a mistake. You provide no evidence to show how a flag change would remove the power of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, probably because there is none. Do you not think New Zealand’s lawyers and constitutional law lecturers would stage a loud and emphatic response if a flag change posed such a threat. And yet there is silence…

        The NZ Supreme Court’s only similarity to the US Supreme Court is in name. In the US, judges are politically appointed, whereas in New Zealand they are appointed independently of Parliament. I’ll grant you that judges are appointed by the Attorney General, but that is merely symbolic. Judges are chosen from the top ranking lawyers in NZ, with discussions between the Chief Justice, other judges and the NZ Law Society. Parliament has no input in the selection process. Having appeared in the Privy Council, I can assure you that the NZ Supreme Court is better at dealing with NZ issues. If you look at the majority of Privy Council judgments regarding constitutional issues in NZ, you will find that they refer the case back to the NZ Court’s because they feel that they are better equipped to deal with the issue. Judicial independnece is guaranteed in Part IV of the Constitution Act 1986 (Thats not a constitution by the way!!) Perhaps you should read up on the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary – though I would have thought that a graduate of political science would have known all about this concept.

        Again back to due authority. You have clearly misinterpreted the definition of due authority in the sources you put forth. Due authority lay with the Crown in medieval times to decide on flags and coats of arms etc. Due authority does not extend to laws and treaties such as the Bill of Rights Act or the TPPA agreement, it lies with the Crown solely. Due authority does not have relevance anymore, due it solely concerning a nation’s heraldry, something which is undisputably the power of the Crown today.

        The Flag Consideration Panel was created to ‘consider’ our new flag. It is made up of a range of people who cover most areas of the public and private sectors, and academia. Nothing sinister here!

        As I said in my previous comment, this article is wrong on so many levels. I suggest doing a bit more background reading to correct this. Also, I suggest contacting Professor Claudia Geiringer or Dr Petra Butler at the Victoria University Law School with regard to matters concerning NZ constitutional law, and the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 respectively. They will set you straight.

  21. Breanna

    I am having problems with your argument because I cannot find any support for the following claims. Can you please clarify and justify?

    1. What is \”due authority\” as is not a recognisable legal term or academic theory from any international jurisdiction;
    2. The Bill of Rights Act 1981 does not seem to exist?
    3. The NZ Supreme Court is not styled like the US at all, there are protections for the independence and neutrality of the judiciary found in the NZ Constitution Act so how you explain that they are politicised as seen in America?
    4. There is no explanation of the role of the Governor-General here as the Head of State? What do you suggest his role (symbolic), the use of convention and the Governor-General\’s reserve powers plays in all of this?
    5. Also, where is the authority that the 1981 Bill of Rights Act is the closest thing we have to the entrenched constitution in New Zealand? General NZ constitutional knowledge would explain that New Zealand neither has a written constitution, nor entrenched constitutional legislation. (This is different to entrenched provisions regarding Parliamentary terms within a legislation that are not doubly entrenched and therefore can be repealed with a simple majority)

    I would appreciate some enlightenment to understand the basis for your argument.
    Thanks.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Thats not correct Due Authority is the term used to describe the heraldric code 1.http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_french/law_general/2770769-act_with_due_authority.html
      see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_heraldic_arms
      2. My bag that should be 1990 Bil of Rights Act (Ithink it first reading was 1981).
      3. That subject to debate but if we look at the role of Teagate/John Banks/ Sabin/ David Fisher we can find case where the judicary have side with poltical expendiency over the public right to know so to ay the judicary in NZ are not poltically swayed not correct (in my view).
      4. As I understand that be will adress in the proposed new constitution -which like the TPPA were not getting told a lot about.
      5.http://www.ourconstitution.org.nz/NZ-Bill-of-Rights-Act-1990 the key word here is “closest”

    2. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      On that note I believe Tipene O’regan is lobbying heavily to be the first NZ president under the constition in that only Ngai Tahu can be found on the flag change/ constitutional panel.

  22. tracy collyer

    Can you outline the \’major legislative consequences\’ you envisage?

    International law provides the context for the Treaty of Waitangi; a treaty being a contract between nations, rather than the nz bill of rights which \’corals\’ citizen rights already protected under various existing legislation.
    Parliament\’s authority is symbolically represented in the parliamentary coat of arms – not the flag. Worth a look if you\’re not familiar with it.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Refer to 1973 flag change proposal by Labour. Put forward basis before we can become republic we had to alter the constitutional mechanics the flag being the first step. We have already changed the curt system and the proposed constitutional review has the head of state as being the next thing on the list.

      The major consequence to the Treaty can be found when you go back and look at the attempt to introduce the MAI (TPPA part one) in to NZ during the 1990’s

  23. David Johnson

    I have an issue with your deceptive writing.
    You list the Union Jack on the Flag under the \”core\” to our current system of government. When you know this is completely wrong, it actually, specifically says \”Other links are more symbolic, for example: the union jack on New Zealand’s flag\”.
    It\’s people like you that are the problem, spreading lies, miss information, and misunderstood opinion.
    There is no link from the Flag changing to TPPA, at all.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      “When you know this is completely wrong” and you know this how?

      “It actually, specifically says \”Other links are more symbolic, for example: the union jack on New Zealand’s flag\”.

      And I largely say this not only here

      “These links could be reformed without changing New Zealand’s constitution in any fundamental way. They are, however, important in reinforcing New Zealand’s national identity as a constitutional monarchy. For this reason, any change to these links may evoke strong feelings in the community.14 It is important to note that a constitution is not at end in itself – it is simply the means by which a nation state is structured and ordered. Constitutional arrangements reflect a nation’s sense of identity. For that reason, a change to any of the elements listed in paragraphs 10 and 12 above – whether the change is large or small – is likely to require a lot of time, public involvement, education and discussion”. My source parliament own website.

      But also raise the flag is only suymbolic in a follow up article Supreme Folly and on several post on my social media page. So sorry no decption.

      Also you make the same mistake every single other critque has. Namely it not just the flag change but all the recent and upcoming consitional amendments which are important when combined -expecially the chqange to our court system in 2004.

  24. Lindsay tatton

    Interesting account. Obviously much research has been undertaken. Would it be possible to have some references. Its not that i don\’t take this seriously, just that I find i understand and commit more to memory if i have had chance to do a little reading of source material. Helps to place events in chronological order and tie things together. Also when was this researched and written>
    Many thanks, look forward to hearing from you.

    1. Post
      Author
  25. Skalisko

    Ben, if you could clarify the connection between the Treaty and Bill of Rights I\’d appreciate it.

    Here\’s my problem with the assertion you\’re making: the Bill of Rights was borne out of NZ signing the UN International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1976, which required signatories to have a functioning Bill of Rights. However, some recent legislative changes, erosion of the legal aid system and inhibition of freedom of movement, for example, which contravene articles in the ICCPR, suggest our Bill of Rights is non-functioning and unentrenched in Law, which Geoffrey Palmer has all but admitted. If this weren\’t the case then those legislative alterations could never have been made.

    Therefore, I can see little connection between the flag, due authority and the Bill of Rights and any connection to the Treaty, or claim that one has relevance to the other is tenuous, at best.

    \”We were obliged, due to Maori opposition, to drop the Treaty from the Bill of Rights. That was a great pity and it is a step that I advocate be taken still in the context of having a superior law Bill of Rights. \” Geoffrey Palmer, 2013

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      1. Ben, if you could clarify the connection between the Treaty and Bill of Rights I\’d appreciate it.

      Go back and look at the MAI issue in relation to its percieved impact on Maori rights – same thing
      Bill of rights two count A; After we sign the TPPA say Corporation tried to make worker work in dangerous condition we say bugger off and the Bill of Rights would be our protection. But if we change the flag the first step to changing the constitution -(see Laboutr flag change 1973) then the Bill of Rights could be undermined. Note the proposed constitution talks not just of citizens rights but citizens “duties”. The probelem is we dont know what in it yes. But if their is any truth to the charge this is conspiracy “theory” it based upon examination of who exactly sits of the flag /constitution panels.

      “However, some recent legislative changes, erosion of the legal aid system and inhibition of freedom of movement, for example, which contravene articles in the ICCPR, suggest our Bill of Rights is non-functioning and unentrenched in Law, which Geoffrey Palmer has all but admitted.” That pretty much correct. The second part of my logic. It is unentrenched so once we have a new constitution its becomes null and void and no threat to he rights ebing granted to corporate under the TPPA.

  26. Jay

    It\’s a shame the grammar really detracts from the message. I would like people to take it seriously, but its easy to scoff at such a masked national anthem. A re write would do you credit

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      Jay the site is sitll in constuction and Im dsylexic.
      Im still working on sorting the proofing issues out and when wrote the article in no way antivpated this sort of attention for a site Im not even marketing my self at this point. Thanks for the feed back.

  27. Pingback: The Haki Conspiracy | THE CO-OP

  28. Common Sense

    I don\’t even know where to begin.

    There is no \”1981 Bill of Rights\”
    If you actually mean the NZ Bill of Rights 1990, it is subject to any other enactment regardless of what our flag is (section 4)
    The executive has always been able to enter into trade agreements with other nations without the consent of Parliament. By convention Parliament can make a non-binding recommendation.
    International Agreements are not enforceable domestic law, in NZ we have a \”dualist\” system (unless incorporated into statute by a majority in Parliament… making them an ordinary domestic statute which overrides the Bill of Rights regardless)
    What our flag is has absolutely no constitutional significance whatsoever.

    You have a silly political science degree where you can play with theories and history as much as you like. Crawl back onto your inactive blog and leave the law for those on a higher pay grade and stop trying to mislead the population with your blatant and unjustifiable misrepresentations of fact.

    Cheers.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      There is no \”1981 Bill of Rights\” It 1990. The flag change by itself is not the big deal. It is the change when combined with all the other recent or proposed changes to our constitutional mechancis

      “The executive has always been able to enter into trade agreements with other nations without the consent of Parliament. By convention Parliament can make a non-binding recommendation. International Agreements are not enforceable domestic law, in NZ we have a \”dualist\” system (unless incorporated into statute by a majority in Parliament… making them an ordinary domestic statute which overrides the Bill of Rights regardless)” — irrevlant to the point being made here.

      “You have a silly political science degree where you can play with theories and history as much as you like. Crawl back onto your inactive blog and leave the law for those on a higher pay grade and stop trying to mislead the population with your blatant and unjustifiable misrepresentations of fact.” Yes your right you reasoned tone has me 100% convinced (er …Yeah Right).

  29. Pingback: The flag conspiracy theories | Kiwiblog

  30. MF

    Like Breanna, I struggle to see any basis for your argument – as it seems entirely unsupported. To assist, could you:

    1. Please provide evidence for the assertion that changing the flag affects the foundation plank on which the Treaty of Waitangi has meaning.

    2. Please provide evidence for the assertion that a change of flag has any legal consequences of any nature whatsoever, let alone affecting the \”power which enforces the 1990 Bill of Rights Act\”.

    3. Please advise what you consider to be the \”power which enforces the 1990 Bill of Rights Act\”.

    4. Do you dispute that the Government of New Zealand (i.e. the executive) currently has the existing constitutional right to sign treaties? If so, on what basis? How does changing the flag affect existing constitutional rights?

    5. Please advise who you think passed the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

    6. Please provide evidence for the assertion that the TPPA (absent domestic legislative support) would override New Zealand legislative instruments.

    7. Please provide evidence for the assertion that changing the flag has any affect on the legal nature of a treaty entered into by the Government of New Zealand.

    8. Please advise why you think the Bill of Rights Act 1990 is the closest thing we have to a constitution.

    9. Please advise why you use a Parliamentary document as evidence for your argument, when the document actually states that the flag is only a symbolic link which could be changed without changing New Zealand’s constitution in any fundamental way.

    10. Please advise evidence for the assertion that the concept of \”due authority\” has any relevance of any nature (legal or otherwise) except in respect of the right to grant \”arms\” (heraldic symbols).

    11. Please advise evidence of the assertion that changing the flag would change the Crown\’s (in right of New Zealand) existing \”due authority\” to grant arms in New Zealand.

    1. Post
      Author
  31. Sus Laws

    Have you ever heard of the saying \”A little knowledge is a dangerous thing\”. It describes situations where someone learns a few small bits of information then mistakenly believes they have the big picture. It is particularly common whenever people talk about constitutional law and the Treaty. For example \’the crown\’ does not mean Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth. Queen Victoria did not sign the treaty. She was just a figurehead. Removing the Union Jack symbol from the flag might actually help Pakeha New Zealand realise that they are the treaty partners.

    1. Post
      Author
  32. Bobby

    Amusing to see Ben getting hauled over the cols by TV3 today for what was really always a pile of tinfoil hat level rubbish.

    I knew this was beyond ridiculous the moment I read \”DUE AUTHORITY in a nation like NZ is represented on the NZ flag by the Union Jack and signifies that we constitutional monarchy.\”

    This is straight-up nonsense. The Union Jack represents NZ\’s historic links with the UK and little else. It doesn\’t even signify NZ is a constitutional monarchy. If it did, then Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea all have some explaining to do. They\’re also constitutional monarchies under the same monarchy as NZ yet none of them have the Union Jack on their flag.

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      And thats why the NZ Parliament own web site says it repsentes nZ “democratic tradition” but you probably also think Mediawork fair and balanced.

      1. Bobby

        They didn’t really need to put what you said out of context I agree. But early on in your own item above – the part I mentioned about the Union Jack/Constitutional Monarchy – you shot yourself in the foot pretty badly. The Union Jack on our flag has no impact on our law-making. None whatsoever and you were wrong to imply that a Union Jack necessarily indicates a Constitutional Monarchy. Fiji disproves this.

        The fact you also cited the 1981 Bill of Rights Act (a fairly easy to mistake to make to be fair even since it disappeared 25 years ago) and consistently got the legislation naming format wrong (the year always goes AFTER the act name unless it is necessarily part of the act name) shows a bit more reading of posts by Wendell Chan etc would be in order if you want to be both persuasive and remotely credible to a larger audience.

        Being joke fodder for the news is an indication of how far from the mark this was on some really basic points.

        1. Post
          Author
          Ben Vidgen

          “They didn’t really need to put what you said out of context I agree. But early on in your own item above – the part I mentioned about the Union Jack/Constitutional Monarchy – you shot yourself in the foot pretty badly. The Union Jack on our flag has no impact on our law-making. None whatsoever and you were wrong to imply that a Union Jack necessarily indicates a Constitutional Monarchy. Fiji disproves this”

          Sigh!! Agreed the Flag change by itself has no legal ramifcation even the parliament website notes (as I put in the article) these links could be reformed “without changing New Zealand’s constitution in any fundamental way”. The legal aspect comes into play when you consider the COMBINED changes (to the court/and then the change to our head of state [currently under consideration] which is something I have repeatedly stressed in follow up articles and posts for over seven months now.

          If we are no longer ties into the crown where does that put the Treaty of Waitangi (singed with the Crown) and what happens if foreing firm want to mine in areas gift to the crown by indigenous iwi – this was all raised during the MAI and accepted as valid reson to reject the MAI.

      2. Bobby

        I should have posted alongside the other one – mentioning TV3 wasn’t a nod to either their integrity or reliability. It was highlighting the fact that if you’re getting mocked senseless by TV3 then you are likely to have either been really right about something, or comically wrong. They think it’s the later and from the comments above by others and the opinion of legal experts who’ve commented on it it seems like it’s the later.

        1. Post
          Author
          Ben Vidgen

          Fair call – except 1. Most pieces they give the author a chance to reply to their claims that never happened here. Much of the critic I respond to in follow up article supreme folly 2. Go ask some laywer friends if the term due authority exist – I think most will instantly agree but according to their “expert” it seems to be made up word. Which is just absurd.

  33. Pingback: The Finlayson scale of nutiness | Kiwiblog

    1. Post
      Author
    1. Post
      Author
  34. Grace

    Is there a reason you have misquoted the national anthem? I believe it reads \”God of nations at thy feet/In the bonds of love we meet/Here our voices we entreat/God defend New Zealand\”. You have the third and fourth lines back to front in a number of places, and I wondered if this was deliberate or intentional? Thanks

    1. Post
      Author
      Ben Vidgen

      God of Nations at Thy feet,
      In the bonds of love we meet,
      Hear our voices, we entreat,
      God defend our free land.
      Guard Pacific’s triple star
      From the shafts of strife and war,
      Make her praises heard afar,
      God defend New Zealand. – so not sure what the issue is here.

      Is how it cuts and paste from wikapedia and what we have here – so sorry not sure w

  35. Pingback: What Is Due |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *