It looks like an ill-considered break with tradition, but some rules around royalty have been changed

A lot of people won’t have noticed, but legislation modernising the rules applying to Royal succession to the throne came into force today in New Zealand and in the 16 Realms that share the Queen as Head of State.

Alf reminded Justice Minister Amy Adams about this earlier today. She duly put out a press statement to say the Royal Succession Act makes three specific changes to the Royal succession rules:

Little’s your man if you fancy further dividing the nation by giving Maori more law-making powers

He should seek guidance on constitutional matters from some of those books…

Something in the air at Waitangi has addled Andrew Little’s brain.

Or perhaps he has been infected with the cravenness bug that afflicts the Mayor of New Plymouth.

Whatever got the better of him, he has declared himself in favour of giving Maori greater self-governance, possibly including the ability to make some of their own laws.

Little declared his readiness to take this further step towards creating a Maori New Zealand and the other New Zealand  yesterday, apparently influenced by a Waitangi Tribunal finding last year that Northland Maori did not cede their sovereignty when signing the Treaty.

This posturing would have won him lots of brownie points among Maori elders at Waitangi.

They had criticised The Boss when he stated the obvious – obvious, at least, except to people without a normal cluster of brain cells or to some indigenous persons who lust for greater governing powers to show they are “special” in this country.

Go Gareth – there’s much to be said for letting all the people have their say on constitutional reform

Gareth Morgan can be a know-it-all pain in the arse.

But sometimes his willingness to stick his neck out and say what needs to be said is refreshing and to be applauded.

Perhaps these occasions most often arise when his opinions coincide with Alf’s on certain matters.

This is certainly the case today, when Morgan writes in the NZ Herald about constitutional issues raised by the two language versions of the Treaty of Waitangi, the aspirations of indigenous persons, and the role of the Waitangi Tribunal.

For example:

Want to see why Delahunty got a 2/10 mark from Trans Tasman? Just look at her Treaty thinking

And when we Pakeha become more politically enlightened, this treaty will entitle your people to a 50:50 share of all governance arrangements…

Alf hadn’t noticed a recent opinion piece by Gareth Morgan, the bloke with a dislike of moggies but – hurrah – a great urge to preserve our democracy.

Morgan was contributing to the debate over Maori representation on local councils.

More particularly, he was taking issue with New Plymouth’s (very temporary) Mayor, Andrew Judd, who had embroiled himself in a debate over whether his council should have a Maori ward and was calling for all councils to have Maori provide half of their councils.

Mayor Judd favours doing things by halves – and he wants all of NZ to accept his power-sharing model

And then I have this idea of putting all council seats aside for the tangata whenua…

About two months ago, the Mayor of New Plymouth was getting kudos from the Maori Party – and no doubt from lots of other Maori leaders – for acknowledging that our indigenous persons are special and should be given special treatment.

His council had just voted for a Maori ward by seven votes to six.

But he was getting plenty of stick, too, from folks who had the temerity to be miffed at the Mayor’s tinkering with their democratic structure (and doing it on the strength of a very close vote)..

One councillor – a true democrat – had the balls to oppose the move and resigned in protest.

The mayor, Andrew Judd, showed troubling signs of being confused about what he was up to.

Without a firm Treaty underpinning, does the colonising of NZ simply prove that might is right?

Dunno if Alf has got a proper grasp on it, but it looks like the Treaty of Waitangi is a bit of a crock.

One mob signed it on the strength of their understanding of what it says in plain English.

The other mob signed it on the strength of their understanding of what it says in Te Reo, their lingua franca.

Trouble is, the meaning of the English version and the meaning of the Te Reo version are different.

What sort of a basis is that for establishing a comfortable relationship between Maori and the Crown, let alone the underpinning of a written Constitution?

The significance of this difference has become awkwardly apparent since the Waitangi Tribunal produced its latest report on how the colonisers treated indigenous persons in the early days.

You shouldn’t be able to steal cake and eat it too – but maybe the Treaty says otherwise

“But you haven’t given enough weight to my Treaty rights?”

Someone by name of Narelle Henson can’t yet celebrate. Nor can Alf’s mates, who share her opposition to the notion that jailbirds should be able to vote in general elections.

Narelle Henson expressed her views in an article in the Waikato Times under the heading You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

She was unsympathetic with the case brought by Arthur Taylor, a bloke she reckoned had broken the law 150 times who was appealing to the law for the opportunity to choose the lawmakers.

Taylor and six other inmates hope to stop the general election, on the grounds the banning of their voting went against the Bill of Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Narelle thinks this is preposterous.

If Jamie thinks real hard, maybe he will see that our aristocracy differs from the French bunch

Marie Antoinette lost her head … maybe Jamie did too.

So what does a philosopher do?

Thinks about things, the way Alf understands the philosophy caper.

And having done a bit of thinking about things, your basic philosopher might venture to express his or her opinions – but second thoughts are recommended before you express them publicly in this country.

Some thoughts are best left unexpressed – such as thoughts about one law for all.

Or co-governance arrangements whereby only 50 per cent of representatives on a public body are publicly elected and the rest are appointed by iwi.

Advocating one electoral system for all, indeed, is politically hazardous.

Try discussing Maori seats for example, and see where that gets you.

In big shit with Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy, as it happens.

Can anyone recall this idea being considered here? It’s the idea of recall petitions to rid us of rogue MPs

The Poms can come up with good ideas now and again, despite their fondness for morris dancing and sports like soccer.

Or rather, they can revitalise old ideas that are well worth the revitalising.

But they are apt to seize on such an idea, then modify it so much that it becomes almost pointless and they might just as well stick with the status quo.

This seems to have happened in the case of UK Government plans to allow voters to sack their MPs.

The Daily Mail today reports on the Queen’s Speech which included a mention of a long-awaited bill to allow MPs to be ‘recalled’ by constituents.

It will give constituents the opportunity to sign a petition demanding a by-election:

* If an MP is jailed; or

* If the House of Commons ‘resolves that an MP should face a recall petition’.

The Thais give insights into co-governance systems and unelected leaders’ push for more power

Well, look you here.

The headline on a bit of something Alf was reading today says The biggest issue: politics are divided between a weak majority and powerful minority

The article (here) deals with shabby events in Thailand where an elected government has been thrown out by a military coup.

Alf is particularly interested in observing that Thailand’s system is described as quasi-democratic.

This is what comes of giving power and authority to appointed people who can’t be bothered standing for election.