FULL
Article
A Peoples
Referendum
TO
Choose a new Constitution
The New Zealand Parliament is Constitutionally Unlawful
This can only be resolved by a Peoples Referendum
Investigative Journalist Ian Wishart explains:
“Constitutionally, New Zealand was clearly once a lawful British colony – a far-flung suburb of London governed ultimately by Westminster, acting via a colonial government.
If you can imagine a picture of a tall tree, with the main trunk representing Great Britain, you’ll follow what I am saying here. One of the major branches of this tree represents the New Zealand colonial government, elected by the Queen’s subjects in New Zealand, but ultimately getting its constitutional support and authority from the main trunk: Great Britain.
Ok, so what happens when New Zealand declares itself independent from Britain? In legal terms, the colonial politicians sitting on New Zealand’s tree branch begin sawing the branch off that they are perched on. At the moment they finally cut the ties to Britain, the branch drops to the ground, unsupported. This is because, in constitutional law, the branch (New Zealand) is no longer connected to the tree (Britain).
But here’s where the problem arises. The New Zealand colonial government did not originally gain its absolute authority to rule from New Zealand voters, but from an Act of the British Parliament. It was the British Parliament that created a subordinate parliament for New Zealand. New Zealand voters could choose which politicians sat in it, but they could not choose to make a change in the parliamentary system itself.
So, when the NZ politicians sawed off the tree branch they were sitting on by declaring independence in 1986, they lost their right to govern that very day. In legal terms, the colonial government that finally severed ties with England had no legal powers to continue governing without an immediate fresh election, not just to let voters choose between one party and the other but, more substantially, to get voters to ratify the new constitutional position.
In New Zealand, this was not done at the time of independence from Britain, and has not been done since. Instead, the administration in power the day before independence was the same administration the day after, as if they had miraculously remained sitting in thin air, next to the tree trunk, whilst the branch supporting them crashed to the ground.
If the tree doesn’t do it for you, try an electrical analogy. The New Zealand Government is
a giant light bulb whose wires track back to a power supply in England. When the plug is pulled (independence) the lights go out for the Government. To plug the lights back in, the New Zealand Government and political system has to find another power source for its authority to govern – the people.
Of course, like much of Investigate magazine’s work as a journalistic canary down the political mineshaft, many of our colleagues in the mainstream media simply looked blankly at us when we broke this constitutional crisis story in February 2000, only three months into Helen Clark’s reign. The media simply didn’t, or couldn’t, understand the significance of the story.
Internationally, it was different. WorldNetDaily – one of the top-ranked news sites in the world – gave it a front page lead on its website, causing a massive traffic spike on the Investigate site. The reason they paid attention was because the same Mickey Mouse constitutional process had been used for Australia and Canada – none of the big-3 former British colonies arguably had a valid government.”
Why is the New Zealand Parliament Constitutionally Unlawful?
Declaration/Concealment of Independence
Parliamentary Website (see below in the references for the direct link, or click on the image to go to the NZ Parliament site's page):
NB: First bullet point above: “the key dates in New Zealand’s path to Independence”
NB: Last bullet Point above: “revoked all residual United Kingdom legislative power” is irrefutably a declaration of Independence!
In Absolute Power – The Helen Clark Years (Page 313), Ian Wishart makes this reference to the parliamentary website:
“As you can see from the bullet points above, none of this happened in a vacuum. It happened incrementally, each a small step that did not alarm you and I. Had the NZ Government tried to do all of it at once, the public would have recognised it as the declaration of independence it clearly was, with all of the legal implications.”
So why did the Lange Government conceal New Zealand’s declaration of Independence?
Ian Wishart was inside Parliament at the time and gives this account:
“Fast-forward to one night in 1986.
The radically reformative Labour Government of Lange, Palmer, Moore and Douglas (I was Mike Moore’s press secretary at the time) hatched a plan so cunning you could, in the words of Edmund Blackadder, stick a tail on it and call it a weasel.
The plan was simple: declare legal independence from Great Britain, and turn the New Zealand parliament into the Crown itself by seizing all the power and authority from Westminster and enthroning a “Queen of New Zealand.
They did this through the Constitution Act of 1986 and the Imperial Laws Application Act of 1988.
There was only one problem with this cunning plan: it was, and remains to this day, technically illegal and unconstitutional.
Here’s why…
When countries declare independence, there must be an absolute break in the constitutional authority. New Zealand MPs on the day before the Constitution Act was passed were still a branch of the London tree. Yet the day after they declared independence and cut their branch loose from the UK trunk, the New Zealand Parliament branch was miraculously still suspended in mid-air – but on whose authority did those MPs now govern?
In Ireland in the 1930s, the Dáil (parliament) declared independence from England, but it had to be ratified by a public vote. In this manner, the Irish parliament swiftly found fresh constitutional authority for its existence and powers from the Irish people. It’s a legal process known as ‘autocthony’, which loosely translates to finding a new constitutional source of power once you unplug yourself from the original power source.
This never happened in New Zealand in 1986. The local New Zealand media did not understand the implications of the Constitution Act, and the Lange government never told them.
In early 2001, Investigate published its final major story on New Zealand’s constitutional crisis, because we’d reached the limits of trying to get a sensible response out of the government:
Unlike other news media, which have reported frequently on the willingness of the Prime Minister to be interviewed at literally a moment’s notice, Investigate was asked to submit all questions in writing to the PM’s Chief Press Secretary, Mike Munro. The magazine refused to do so, but did provide the generalised questions listed above [the same arguments you’ve just read] in a fax to another of the Prime Minister’s media advisors, David Lewis, who also asked for printouts of all the articles that “Investigate has published on the issue. Two days after receiving athat information, Lewis advised that “the Prime Minister will not be making any comment on New Zealand’s constitutional position, so there will not be an interview.
If the Government has evidence that it is constitutionally lawful, it apparently is not able to share that evidence with the public.
The Prime Minister and Attorney-General did not opt to clarify the country’s constitutional problem. If Investigate’s research had been demonstrably wrong, don’t you think they would have done so? The evasiveness did not sit well with former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves either, who after reviewing the points made by the magazine, said it was time for the Government to come clean.
Former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves says it’s time for the Government to come clean on New Zealand’s constitutional position, following a refusal by the Prime Minister to deny that her Government may be illegal. The question of whether New Zealand has an unconstitutional Government, unable to enforce laws or collect taxes, has taken an intriguing new turn with the Prime Minister’s reluctance to clarify the issue, and it is a debate that is giving the former Governor-General cause for concern.
If you were labouring under any false illusions that New Zealand’s constitutional crisis was an Investigate “beat-up” (as the Prime Minister was fond of calling our stories in the hope of throwing the public off the scent), the testimony from leading constitutional experts on both sides of the Tasman has put paid to any doubts.”
NB :The Emphasis is my own
See references. below
The Emperor has No Clothes
On the passing of the Constitution Act 1986, NZ gained Independence from the Crown and UK Parliament, the Colonial Parliament/ Westminster Parliamentary System was permanently dissolved, the NZ Politicians lost their power to govern and Sovereignty returned to the people.
Further, as part of the Lange Government’s plan, it had to appear as though nothing had changed*, hence the need to conceal the declaration of Independence from the public.
*Yes, on 31 December 1986 we had a Head of State, an Attorney General, and a Governor General; however, the following day we didn’t. Why, because they were Crown appointments and we were no longer a Crown dependency; any and all forms of associations with the “Crown” had been severed.
Implications:
As long as Parliament is Constitutionally Unlawful
-
The Government cannot legally collect/spend taxes, borrow money or enter in any international agreements,
nor can it grant an emergency authorisation
-
The Legislature cannot pass nor enforce legislation(i.e. Gene Technology Bill)
-
The Judiciary cannot make any legal rulings
In short, Parliament does not have jurisdiction; only the people do
NB: If the Mainstream Media is silent this time, we will know definitively where their loyalty lies.
This Constitutional Issue has to be resolved immediately!
Proposed Referendum-
Direct Democracy
This is a Pivotal moment for every Generation
A Vote that will redefine the path of our Nation
Referendum
-
Should New Zealand be divided into Self-Administering Boroughs?
-
Is a 51%* plus vote in favour acceptable for adoption?
*We can go well beyond this simply by sharing widely.
See image below:: 51% (3,591,562x 51%=1,831,696)
The Key Features of Direct Democracy
Local Autonomy and Decision-Making (via referenda)
- Boroughs could create laws and policies suited to their unique requirements
- The ability to respond more quickly to regional issues without waiting for national approval.
Better Representation
- Closer to the People: Local leaders are often more familiar with the needs and concerns of their communities.
-
Democratic Participation: Residents may feel more empowered and involved when decisions are made closer to home.
Economic Flexibility
- Customised Economic Strategies: Boroughs could promote industries and economic policies best suited to their resources and workforce.
-
Budget Control: Independent budgeting allows better allocation of funds according to local priorities.
Administrative Efficiency
- Streamlining: Decentralised systems can reduce bureaucracy and administrative bottlenecks.
-
Local Accountability: It is easier to monitor accountability at a local level than at a national one.
True Reflection of the People's Will
- Policies and laws directly reflect the preferences of the majority, rather than being filtered through elected representatives.
Transparency and Accountability
- With citizens involved in decisions, there is more openness and less room for political corruption or backroom deals.
Reduces the Power of Special Interests
- Decisions are made by the people, not lobbyists or political elites, reducing undue influence.
Educated Citizenry
- People become more informed about relevant issues because they are actively involved in voting and debates.
Faster Response to Public Opinion
-
Policy changes can happen more quickly when there's a clear public demand, without waiting for legislative processes.
Encourages Civic Responsibility
Citizens feel more connected to their communities and more responsible for the outcomes of their decisions.
If you are currently enrolled on either the General or Maori Electoral Rolls, please vote via the link below:
References
-
Absolute Power, The Helen Clark Years; Ian Wishart
-
https://ianwishart.com/2023/10/a-very-kiwi-coup-extended-analysis/
-
https://elections.nz/stats-and-research/enrolment-statistics/enrolment-by-general-electorate/
