15.11.19

NZ 1986 Constitution Act – A Sham or Legit?

On 13th June 2017, Investigate Magazine published an article by Ian Wishart, NZ’s dirtiest political secret: the bloodless coup of 1986 in which he asserts the following; June 2017: Seventeen years ago a little-known conference of constitutional experts revealed New Zealand’s dirtiest political secret: that in 1986 the NZ Parliament seized control of the country in a bloodless coup, declaring themselves sovereign above  the people  in a technical but highly significant move.  Nearly two decades later, the position has never been rectified…[1] Whilst it may appear somewhat alarming he goes on to state that the Parliament of NZ by introducing the 1986 Constitution Act removed all recourse the New Zealanders had to apply directly to the Monarch about abuses of parliamentary power because the Parliament of NZ had effectively made itself supreme ruler crowning themselves absolute Monarch, “with unlimited and unchallengeable powers to regulate the lives of the voters.  Do ordinary New Zealanders now have to swear fealty to Parliament?  If you examine the 1986 Constitution Act the answer appears to be yes, and Parliament still has powers to imprison any New Zealander for ‘contempt of Parliament’.[2] Therefore if we take this supposition to its conclusion then Parliament is answerable to none but itself, and its oaths of allegiance to HM the Queen are nothing but a sham, a lie.

I am not a constitutional expert or lawyer, so I cannot comment upon the legalities of the above argument, however if it is in anyway correct, it does create a significant problem for democracy within New Zealand, and does explain how Parliament and governments have been able to adopt policies that have been seen as harmful to New Zealand. My interest is in mainly within the defence and security realm and as a former serviceman it does create a conundrum because our oath of service and loyalty is to HM the Queen, her heirs and successors, not the Parliament of New Zealand.

Assuming that Wishart is correct in his supposition then, what if anything can be done about this? I presume that it would take an Act of Parliament to change or repeal the 1986 Constitution Act. However I cannot see a New Zealand Parliament willingly restraining itself, especially the two current major political parties, National and Labour, considering that they are the authors of the original Act. It would take a mass public uproar, unprecedented in New Zealand’s history, from all sections of society to force those two parties to change the Act for the better. The 1981 Springbok Rugby tour of New Zealand caused significant civil strife within New Zealand, but that would be something like Tana Umanga’s handbagging[3] of Chris Masoe in comparison to the uproar that would be required to force the major political parties to act, and I don’t think that Kiwis would get worked up enough to undertake something like that, unless Parliament was to go down a sinister draconian path. Unfortunately if Wishart is correct, there is really nothing to stop a future Parliament heading down that path if it so desires.  

So where does that leave us? In a situation that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't? Possibly. Not being, as I said, an expert in constitutional law, I cannot confirm or repute Wishart’s argument. On the face of it he does have a valid point and I believe that we would be foolish to ignore it. However on a scale of probabilities that he is correct I cannot give it a value. My countenance would be to undertake a watching brief, prepare for the worse, and hope for the best, like any good commander would. I would also make it known to the pollies that we are watching them and their every move, and that we still have the ballot boxes. The thought of losing votes is their weakness and biggest fear. If they are thrown out of Parliament then they have to work in the real world. 


References

Booker, J. (2006, July 7). All Black drama of handbags at dawn. New Zealand Herald , 6.03pm(Online). Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Herald. Retrieved November 15, 2019, from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10384002

Wishart, I. (2017). NZ’s dirtiest political secret: the bloodless coup of 1986. Investigate Magazine . Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved October 05, 2019, from https://investigatemagazine.co.nz/20804/nzs-dirtiest-political-secret-the-bloodless-coup-of-1986/


[1] (Wishart, 2017).
[2] Ibid.
[3] (Booker, 2006)


NZ 1986 Constitution Act – A Sham or Legit?

On 13 th June 2017, Investigate Magazine published an article by Ian Wishart, NZ’s dirtiest political secret: the bloodless coup of 1986 i...