“God of Nations at Thy feet,
In the bonds of love we meet,
God defend our free land.Hear our voices, we entreat,
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
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://
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
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
Nicky Bell – CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi NZ & board director, Auckland.
A Professional spin doctor.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Fly the Red Blue Red on March 7th and Say No to Prince John and the TPPA.
Notes in reply to TV 3 Story segment on this article.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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.
“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. ”
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.
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.
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.