"The real problem is the ongoing challenge to the core idea that Parliament is the sovereign voice of the people"
Technically that is not correct. King Charles is sovereign. Parliament sits at his pleasure. If Parliament really was "the sovereign voice of the people" the tensions between Te Pati Maori and other parties would rapidly dissipate or would never have arisen.
We live in the real world where for very good reasons an increasing number of tangata motu, both Maori and Pakeha, are not happy with the constitution imposed on us by British force of arms. In such circumstances it behoves everyone, not just Maori, to tread carefully.
The Treaty Principles Bill was a reckless provocation which resulted in massive protests outside of parliament followed by the haka incident within parliament. The parliamentary majority then decided to up the ante with its proposal (not yet implemented) to ban Te Pati Maori representatives from the House for 21 days. In other words to disenfranchise 87973 TPM electors. The system already disenfranchises all those whose favored party fails to clear the 5% threshold, all those whose chosen representative refuses to pledge allegiance to King Charles, and all those who vote for a defeated constituency candidate.
None of these abuses of democratic process would be possible under a whakaminenga/rangatiratanga model of governance.
So it is natural that tangata motu may at times show scant respect for the niceties of parliamentary procedure. Should we not tolerate a few ructions in parliament if it means we avoid returning to nga pakanga in the bush?
It is true that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, but that does not mean King Charles is the source of sovereign authority. Under our constitutional arrangements, sovereignty is exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament — that is, through the House of Representatives acting with the assent of the Crown and the Governor-General. In effect, it is Parliament, composed of elected representatives, that holds the decisive democratic authority.
Parliament is not perfect. It reflects tensions and disagreements within our society, including longstanding grievances held by many Māori about the constitutional foundations of the state. Those grievances deserve respect and serious engagement. But disagreement with the system is not the same as an exemption from its basic rules. The integrity of Parliament relies on a shared understanding that all members — regardless of who they are or what vision they hold — must operate within its processes.
The parliamentary website itself states that King Charles is sovereign, and I take Parliament at its word on that. Certainly Parliament is the legislature, and Parliament determines the make up of the government, but the monarch, through the Governor-General, actually appoints the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
As things stand, none of this will be of much practical significance unless or until there is a serious political crisis.
Then everyone within the system will need to figure out which way they will go. Monarch or parliament? Because the military owe direct allegiance to the monarch, and because of other relevant considerations, their likely line of action is predictable.
I would anticipate that the elected members of Parliament as a whole would take a similar line to William Lenthall, which would fall well short of outright defiance, and therefore would be ineffectual.
The first Fiji coup and the ousting of the Whitlam government in Australia give warning of the dangers of New Zealand's present system of government which can be characterized as "constitutional monarchy without the constitution".
Thus democracy, such as it exists in New Zealand in a diminished and compromised form, is a fragile plant. Never mind the supposed threat posed by a haka in parliament. From a democratic perspective the constitutional fundamentals are unsound.
Personally I agree that if you choose to function within a given political system you should operate within its processes. For that reason I believe that tangata motu should withdraw from parliament and wholly revert to Te Whakaminenga as our own institution of sovereign authority. So you and I are not really at cross purposes on that. But separation would only present a new problem of how to deal with a rival political structure that might amass a greater degree of popular legitimacy than the Realm itself. In the long run, it might be easier to tolerate a few breaches of parliamentary protocol.
The sovereign is the one who has sovereignty. Are you trying to argue otherwise?
The question is, who is sovereign within the Realm of New Zealand? King Charles or the House of Representatives?
Given that all members of the House of Representatives must pledge allegiance to King Charles, given that the House itself declares King Charles to be the Sovereign, given that King Charles' representative has the authority to block laws enacted by the House, given that King Charles' representative has authority to dissolve the House, and given that King Charles' representative formally appoints the Prime Minister and Cabinet to their offices, I would say that in the New Zealand system of government Charles is sovereign and holds sovereign authority even if he chooses not to actively exercise that authority in the normal course.
If there was to be a crisis, and King Charles did exercise his sovereign authority, I fully expect that his intervention would be accepted by the judiciary, the military, the police force and the House of Representatives as a whole.
Not necessarily by the people of Aotearoa however, and certainly not by tangata motu who are genuinely committed to the principles of democracy (as in rangatiratanga) and national independence (as in mana motuhake).
With respect, Geoff, your position conflates ceremonial status with actual constitutional authority.
The King is "the" Sovereign which is a ceremonial office. In a constitutional monarchy like New Zealand, sovereignty is not wielded personally by the monarch. It's exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament, which consists of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General, and the Monarch, all functioning according to the rules of responsible government. Which is to say with Parliament in control.
The moment you claim Charles “holds sovereign authority,” even if he doesn’t exercise it, you're drifting into fantasy. He doesn’t. He can’t. Not without triggering a constitutional crisis and being removed.
The reserve powers of the Sovereign are real and undeniable. The fantasy is in your extraordinary denial that they exist at all.
You go on to say that Charles can't exercise those (supposedly non-existent) powers "without triggering a constitutional crisis and being removed". That is, without provoking a revolution.
That may be true. But who would stage a revolution against the monarch? The military who swear "I ... solemnly promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to our Sovereign Lord the King, His heirs and successors, and that ... I will loyally observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His heirs and successors, and of the officers set over me, until I shall be lawfully discharged. So help me God"?
Parliamentarians who swear "I ... swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."?
Are you saying that these people would violate a solemn oath taken in the presence of God?
If so, why would we trust them to rule over us now or at any future time?
As far as tangata motu are concerned, the political system you seek to impose over us is ungodly and dangerous, and no amount of obfuscation along the lines of "the Sovereign is not sovereign" can change that.
a further comment - you seem (listening to n2N rn)...to be saying Parliament must rule utself, and the House must rule itself. Which is it? Presumably Parliament is sovereign, rather than the House of Representives.
Following on from my previous comment....it is hard to imagine the House being characterised by rational deliberation rather than government dominance in the near future....but Parliament acting qua Parliament can and should be better.
Rethinking this after reading some of David Runciman's The Handover this morning (on group minds vs groupthink, discursive dilemma etc)...and thinking about why Chris Hipkins' speech about the 21 day sanction was persuasive....
If Parliament's sovereignty is to deserve legitimacy, it needs to have a mind of its own independent of what the government of the day wants, and that's why it's a problem that the privileges committee decision seemed too much like a government majority decision. Hipkins raising the expectation of rationality, that rationale be provided for the specific sanction, is entirely appropriate. Self-rule, autonomy, requires rationality.
The lesson of 1642 is not that parliament has supreme authority. Neither is it that the King himself is sovereign. The real lesson of 1642 is that sovereignty can and will be contested.
Various forces are constantly vying for supreme power and at certain times and in certain situations these struggles come to a head.
Liam takes a stand for the sovereignty of parliament, and it might seem that I am countering that by advocating for the sovereignty of the monarch. However that is not the case. I am merely trying to point out that within the system as it exists the competition for power between the institutions that comprise representatives elected by popular suffrage and the institutions which represent the continuity of the state (the King along with the military, judiciary and security services) is always present and that if it should ever resume an acute form, the permanent elements of the state will almost certainly prevail over its democratic components.
There are two reasons why. The first is that the monarch has control of the armed forces, police and security services. The second is that the sovereignty of the monarch is evident in law. It follows that the judiciary, appointed by the monarch, will uphold the sovereignty of the monarch as a matter of clear principle. Parliament, confronted by the combination of force, lawful right and tradition will be disposed to surrender.
A recent case in point is the first Fiji coup of 1987 in which "a section of ten masked, armed soldiers entered the Fijian House of Representatives and subdued the national legislature.... Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka .. ordered the members of parliament to leave the building. They did so without resisting". Subsequently Queen Elizabeth's representative, the Governor-General Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, "dissolved Parliament and granted amnesty to Rabuka, while promoting him to the position of commander of the Royal Fiji Military Forces".
As was the case in Fiji, the parliament and people of New Zealand would have no legal way to resist a coup carried out with the blessing or tacit acquiescence of the British monarch.
Such a coup could and probably would take place if members with nationalist sympathies were to gain a majority in the New Zealand House of Representatives. There are measures in place to prevent such a situation ever arising (such as the requirement that all elected representatives must pledge allegiance to the British monarch) but if it was to happen there can be no doubt that the colonialists would use force against us. By canvassing the prospect of imprisonment for a mere handful of current elected members of the House who are deemed to be nationalist sympathizers and who had engaged in purely symbolic gestures of defiance, the colonialists have revealed a clear willingness to maintain their regime by force.
Liam might argue that there was no serious thought of imprisoning Te Pati Maori members, but those of us who have been inside the regime's prisons as political prisoners have a better understanding of just how far it will go in the effort to maintain its power over the people of Aotearoa. Colonialism has resorted to force countless times in the past, and it will not hesitate to do the same in future.
Let us now widen the argument over sovereignty. The question of sovereignty is not just concerned with potential conflicts between the New Zealand parliament and the British monarch. We have a different concept of sovereignty. To us authority is not something imposed on us from above or by outside forces. It is a relationship marked by mutuality and mana. I accept authority as an act of free and revocable choice. In the first instance I accept the authority of Ihoa o nga mano which has existed not just from 1840 but from the beginning of time and not just over the islands of Aotearoa but over all the inhabited earth. I am free to renounce my submission even though I know in my heart that I never shall. Then I accept the temporal authority of Te Whakaminenga, even in the loose form in which it exists to the present day. Finally, I accept the authority of the Marae Committee. None of these allegiances are forced. I choose them, and they bring me great blessings. They are subsumed in the word "rangatiratanga" which one day will be recognized as the birthright of all the people of Aotearoa.
"The real problem is the ongoing challenge to the core idea that Parliament is the sovereign voice of the people"
Technically that is not correct. King Charles is sovereign. Parliament sits at his pleasure. If Parliament really was "the sovereign voice of the people" the tensions between Te Pati Maori and other parties would rapidly dissipate or would never have arisen.
We live in the real world where for very good reasons an increasing number of tangata motu, both Maori and Pakeha, are not happy with the constitution imposed on us by British force of arms. In such circumstances it behoves everyone, not just Maori, to tread carefully.
The Treaty Principles Bill was a reckless provocation which resulted in massive protests outside of parliament followed by the haka incident within parliament. The parliamentary majority then decided to up the ante with its proposal (not yet implemented) to ban Te Pati Maori representatives from the House for 21 days. In other words to disenfranchise 87973 TPM electors. The system already disenfranchises all those whose favored party fails to clear the 5% threshold, all those whose chosen representative refuses to pledge allegiance to King Charles, and all those who vote for a defeated constituency candidate.
None of these abuses of democratic process would be possible under a whakaminenga/rangatiratanga model of governance.
So it is natural that tangata motu may at times show scant respect for the niceties of parliamentary procedure. Should we not tolerate a few ructions in parliament if it means we avoid returning to nga pakanga in the bush?
With respect, you are completely wrong.
It is true that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, but that does not mean King Charles is the source of sovereign authority. Under our constitutional arrangements, sovereignty is exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament — that is, through the House of Representatives acting with the assent of the Crown and the Governor-General. In effect, it is Parliament, composed of elected representatives, that holds the decisive democratic authority.
Parliament is not perfect. It reflects tensions and disagreements within our society, including longstanding grievances held by many Māori about the constitutional foundations of the state. Those grievances deserve respect and serious engagement. But disagreement with the system is not the same as an exemption from its basic rules. The integrity of Parliament relies on a shared understanding that all members — regardless of who they are or what vision they hold — must operate within its processes.
The parliamentary website itself states that King Charles is sovereign, and I take Parliament at its word on that. Certainly Parliament is the legislature, and Parliament determines the make up of the government, but the monarch, through the Governor-General, actually appoints the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
As things stand, none of this will be of much practical significance unless or until there is a serious political crisis.
Then everyone within the system will need to figure out which way they will go. Monarch or parliament? Because the military owe direct allegiance to the monarch, and because of other relevant considerations, their likely line of action is predictable.
I would anticipate that the elected members of Parliament as a whole would take a similar line to William Lenthall, which would fall well short of outright defiance, and therefore would be ineffectual.
The first Fiji coup and the ousting of the Whitlam government in Australia give warning of the dangers of New Zealand's present system of government which can be characterized as "constitutional monarchy without the constitution".
Thus democracy, such as it exists in New Zealand in a diminished and compromised form, is a fragile plant. Never mind the supposed threat posed by a haka in parliament. From a democratic perspective the constitutional fundamentals are unsound.
Personally I agree that if you choose to function within a given political system you should operate within its processes. For that reason I believe that tangata motu should withdraw from parliament and wholly revert to Te Whakaminenga as our own institution of sovereign authority. So you and I are not really at cross purposes on that. But separation would only present a new problem of how to deal with a rival political structure that might amass a greater degree of popular legitimacy than the Realm itself. In the long run, it might be easier to tolerate a few breaches of parliamentary protocol.
It says he is the Sovereign. Do you see the difference?
The sovereign is the one who has sovereignty. Are you trying to argue otherwise?
The question is, who is sovereign within the Realm of New Zealand? King Charles or the House of Representatives?
Given that all members of the House of Representatives must pledge allegiance to King Charles, given that the House itself declares King Charles to be the Sovereign, given that King Charles' representative has the authority to block laws enacted by the House, given that King Charles' representative has authority to dissolve the House, and given that King Charles' representative formally appoints the Prime Minister and Cabinet to their offices, I would say that in the New Zealand system of government Charles is sovereign and holds sovereign authority even if he chooses not to actively exercise that authority in the normal course.
If there was to be a crisis, and King Charles did exercise his sovereign authority, I fully expect that his intervention would be accepted by the judiciary, the military, the police force and the House of Representatives as a whole.
Not necessarily by the people of Aotearoa however, and certainly not by tangata motu who are genuinely committed to the principles of democracy (as in rangatiratanga) and national independence (as in mana motuhake).
With respect, Geoff, your position conflates ceremonial status with actual constitutional authority.
The King is "the" Sovereign which is a ceremonial office. In a constitutional monarchy like New Zealand, sovereignty is not wielded personally by the monarch. It's exercised by the Crown-in-Parliament, which consists of the House of Representatives, the Governor-General, and the Monarch, all functioning according to the rules of responsible government. Which is to say with Parliament in control.
The moment you claim Charles “holds sovereign authority,” even if he doesn’t exercise it, you're drifting into fantasy. He doesn’t. He can’t. Not without triggering a constitutional crisis and being removed.
The reserve powers of the Sovereign are real and undeniable. The fantasy is in your extraordinary denial that they exist at all.
You go on to say that Charles can't exercise those (supposedly non-existent) powers "without triggering a constitutional crisis and being removed". That is, without provoking a revolution.
That may be true. But who would stage a revolution against the monarch? The military who swear "I ... solemnly promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to our Sovereign Lord the King, His heirs and successors, and that ... I will loyally observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His heirs and successors, and of the officers set over me, until I shall be lawfully discharged. So help me God"?
Parliamentarians who swear "I ... swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."?
Are you saying that these people would violate a solemn oath taken in the presence of God?
If so, why would we trust them to rule over us now or at any future time?
As far as tangata motu are concerned, the political system you seek to impose over us is ungodly and dangerous, and no amount of obfuscation along the lines of "the Sovereign is not sovereign" can change that.
a further comment - you seem (listening to n2N rn)...to be saying Parliament must rule utself, and the House must rule itself. Which is it? Presumably Parliament is sovereign, rather than the House of Representives.
Following on from my previous comment....it is hard to imagine the House being characterised by rational deliberation rather than government dominance in the near future....but Parliament acting qua Parliament can and should be better.
Rethinking this after reading some of David Runciman's The Handover this morning (on group minds vs groupthink, discursive dilemma etc)...and thinking about why Chris Hipkins' speech about the 21 day sanction was persuasive....
If Parliament's sovereignty is to deserve legitimacy, it needs to have a mind of its own independent of what the government of the day wants, and that's why it's a problem that the privileges committee decision seemed too much like a government majority decision. Hipkins raising the expectation of rationality, that rationale be provided for the specific sanction, is entirely appropriate. Self-rule, autonomy, requires rationality.
The lesson of 1642 is not that parliament has supreme authority. Neither is it that the King himself is sovereign. The real lesson of 1642 is that sovereignty can and will be contested.
Various forces are constantly vying for supreme power and at certain times and in certain situations these struggles come to a head.
Liam takes a stand for the sovereignty of parliament, and it might seem that I am countering that by advocating for the sovereignty of the monarch. However that is not the case. I am merely trying to point out that within the system as it exists the competition for power between the institutions that comprise representatives elected by popular suffrage and the institutions which represent the continuity of the state (the King along with the military, judiciary and security services) is always present and that if it should ever resume an acute form, the permanent elements of the state will almost certainly prevail over its democratic components.
There are two reasons why. The first is that the monarch has control of the armed forces, police and security services. The second is that the sovereignty of the monarch is evident in law. It follows that the judiciary, appointed by the monarch, will uphold the sovereignty of the monarch as a matter of clear principle. Parliament, confronted by the combination of force, lawful right and tradition will be disposed to surrender.
A recent case in point is the first Fiji coup of 1987 in which "a section of ten masked, armed soldiers entered the Fijian House of Representatives and subdued the national legislature.... Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka .. ordered the members of parliament to leave the building. They did so without resisting". Subsequently Queen Elizabeth's representative, the Governor-General Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, "dissolved Parliament and granted amnesty to Rabuka, while promoting him to the position of commander of the Royal Fiji Military Forces".
As was the case in Fiji, the parliament and people of New Zealand would have no legal way to resist a coup carried out with the blessing or tacit acquiescence of the British monarch.
Such a coup could and probably would take place if members with nationalist sympathies were to gain a majority in the New Zealand House of Representatives. There are measures in place to prevent such a situation ever arising (such as the requirement that all elected representatives must pledge allegiance to the British monarch) but if it was to happen there can be no doubt that the colonialists would use force against us. By canvassing the prospect of imprisonment for a mere handful of current elected members of the House who are deemed to be nationalist sympathizers and who had engaged in purely symbolic gestures of defiance, the colonialists have revealed a clear willingness to maintain their regime by force.
Liam might argue that there was no serious thought of imprisoning Te Pati Maori members, but those of us who have been inside the regime's prisons as political prisoners have a better understanding of just how far it will go in the effort to maintain its power over the people of Aotearoa. Colonialism has resorted to force countless times in the past, and it will not hesitate to do the same in future.
Let us now widen the argument over sovereignty. The question of sovereignty is not just concerned with potential conflicts between the New Zealand parliament and the British monarch. We have a different concept of sovereignty. To us authority is not something imposed on us from above or by outside forces. It is a relationship marked by mutuality and mana. I accept authority as an act of free and revocable choice. In the first instance I accept the authority of Ihoa o nga mano which has existed not just from 1840 but from the beginning of time and not just over the islands of Aotearoa but over all the inhabited earth. I am free to renounce my submission even though I know in my heart that I never shall. Then I accept the temporal authority of Te Whakaminenga, even in the loose form in which it exists to the present day. Finally, I accept the authority of the Marae Committee. None of these allegiances are forced. I choose them, and they bring me great blessings. They are subsumed in the word "rangatiratanga" which one day will be recognized as the birthright of all the people of Aotearoa.