Experts debate New Zealand's future as possible republic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 тра 2023
- King Charles III's coronation has many wondering if its time to ask the "hard questions".
Subscribe to 1News: bit.ly/1NEWSSubscribe | Start your day the right way with a combination of news, sport and entertainment with the Breakfast team.
WATCH WEEKDAYS FROM 6AM ON TVNZ 1 OR CATCH UP ONDEMAND: www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/breakfast
FOLLOW BREAKFAST ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / breakfaston1
Instagram: / breakfaston1
Twitter: / breakfaston1
TikTok: / tvnzbreakfast
For the latest news from Aotearoa and overseas: 1News.co.nz
This is the official channel of TVNZ's 1News, where news and current affairs reports are uploaded from 1News, Seven Sharp, Breakfast, Q+A, Fair Go and Sunday.
Good explanation from Rawiri Waititi of how he sees Te Tiriti if we cut ties with the monarchy.
United Kingdom. Ditched n z and joined the e u
Nearly sent the country broke 🤷♂️
The Tiriti proposed mainly by the Crown is not binding on Maori. It allowed for Migrant Settlement. Te Mana Motuhake of Maori is already in law under the Confederation Of Tribes Act. Tino Rangatiratanga refers to the Collective & Undisputed Powers held by Whanau, Hapu & Iwi, which is Eternal.
I hope we become a republic in my life time.
WE WILL BE A KIWI REPUBLIC BY 2040. JUST BE PATIENT. THE PROCESS IS ALREADY STARTING NOW.
Typical tvnz "debate". 3 people on one side. One on the other. Eight minutes for their side, 2 minutes for the opposition.
NZ has such one sided media
I’m a monarchist for decades. However I have grown up.
So be it for New Zealand.
How would the President of New Zealand be selected or elected? I'm interested in this as a British.
@@swinger9374 Probably by a popular vote since it'll be a Semi-Presidential Republic
No one is debating this. Only the media is bringing up the question.
People have been debating this for decades mate.
Having an apolitical monarch who is the head of state removes any politics from the position. To have to elect a president is innately political. the present system works perfectly well, it ain't broke, don't fix it!
This TV debate is unbalanced, it should cover both sided of the debate,
Republic of Aotearoa
An interesting conversation. No now is not quite the time to go republic. There are a million things to hammer out first. One day it will happen no doubt and the subject was always going to be raised after a new monarch. It's important and necessary that Maori views and concerns are addressed but its a conversation that's also going to be had by every New Zealander. The DNA of your ancestors may be from Polynesia, Asia, Europe, South America etc but collectively we are all New Zealanders and everyone's voice is equally important. It will be something for all of us to decide when we are ready. This may be in 10 years or 100 but it will happen eventually. The gentleman in the cowboy hat is right to be concerned about one thing, once we go republic the Treaty of Waitangi is essentially null and void so like I said, there are a million things to hammer out first and extreme care is needed. In the stampede toward republic, if you are not careful you may find that Maori will be left without a leg to stand on. Things are fine right now so take your time with this. It will be a complex process. We are decades away form being truly ready for it.
Forcast for Williams Coronation
1. Australia will be a republic.
2. New Zealand will have had one referendum = no change. And will be on the cusp of a second referendum.
3. Canada will be on the cusp of their first referendum.
4. Scotland will be independent.
5. The Irish Republic will have reclaimed more of Northern Ireland.
6. Welsh identity less tied to the UK.
the divided kingdom
I remember this happening in the 80s and then it didn’t. All talk they’re too popular
Your fucking dreaming lmao
Australia will not be a republic no matter how much the chattering class prattle on about it. There is no interest in it, what swap old Chucky, who is a funny old cove but basically harmless, for a greasy ex politician. Like I said not going to happen, Albo thought he could slip the voice through using his tell them nothing technique, just ask the big question. It has flopped going nowhere but down. His plan was then to put a republic referendum, asking a generic should Australia replace the Monarchy ye or no, leave the details to us. Ha ha ha the man is a clown, he actually thought Aussies would vote yes and trust him and his fellow turds in politics to handle the finer details, well October 14 is going to kick that into long grass where it will stay for the next 50 years.
They said this was going to be the case for Charles's Coronation when the Queen eventually died, and the exact opposite is the case. Canada and Australia are further from being republics than they've ever been. Scottish independence movement is as dead as it's ever been.
We should seperate from the Monarchy that really does nothing for our country,not my King!
he's your king and that's facts
@@mrtree2465 No he's not & that's fact
Not my king either. I already got 1.
Kia Ora, respectfully the monarchy history is founded on murder deceit blood and lies. Sadly, the essence within the foundation is kino. New beginnings is needed. Te Tiriti was good enough for the then queen to establish a relationship with Tangata whenua in Aotearoa/NZ 1840. Allow Te Tiriti to continue with its original intention. The values and principle’s underpinning it’s focus will guide us accordingly.
Well said.
Honestly republics and partisan presidents, have a far worse record around the world than a distant highly experienced non partisan monarch who approves neutral governors.
If we started appointing or voting in presidents, it's going to get political, whether we like it or not. Nor will they have the experience or resource to draw on of the British monarchy.
If anything appoint a Mäori king as head of state, but don't expect them to be non partisan. Expect it to cost a lot more, expect them to have less experience and international connections. They will also need a large paid staff.
This is true, within their own countries. If the Monarch is overseeing a distant nation, what benefits does that hold for the colony though???
Local body elections in the governance of a people by a people will always be better advised and more well equipped to understand the needs of a people more than that of a Ruler who may step into your country once or twice a year.
Moreover, with BREXIT and the multiple Prime ministers like Boris Johnson or Liz Trust or Tony Blair lol A constitutional Monarchy is not faultless.
Even with King Edward the 3rd (The king who abdicated, King Charles Grand Uncle) was found out to be a Nazi Sympathizer!!
So probably not the best idea to try and judge one system of democracy over the other...they both have faults but at least, right here and now, Kiwis will be governed over by other kiwis when we become a Republic.
@@aoteataniwha6967 one of the main benefits is they are distant. This helps ensure they and their local representative are non partisan. Parties are careful to avoid any appointments that could be seen as controversial as the monarch could veto their choice. Equally legislation put before the GG is much less likely to be unsupported and controversial.
It's also a lot cheaper than maintaining and regularly replacing a full presidential advisory staff and residence as would be needed with a local partisan appointee.
A distant monarch with veto over a local appointee gives the best of both worlds.
Would you also bring back a cumbersome and expensive upperhouse we were well rid of?
@@OldOneTooth mate this is all just rubbish...
Buddy, we are doing it now as it is with our own electoral processes. We have our own established institutions/Parties with their own ways to raise money that has had no input from the U.K government EVER!!
You need to do more work on local body electorate because all the stuff you just mentioned, we already do with the exception of a President which for us right now is in the form of a Prime Minister.
The Speaker of the house as it stands is a representation of the Crown which would be transferred to an elected member of our own people, by the people and for the people of Aotearoa and not just a reminder of Imperial rule.
Just like others who have tried to make this argument that you are making right now, it almost sounds like you think New Zealand is incapable of making such decisions ourselves. That we are new to the prospect of governance...
If this is how you think of Kiwis, being incapable to run a country ourselves without outside interference, then it really paints a sad picture of you and how narrowminded your perspective is mate.
No, they don’t. The US has been far more successful for more than 100 years.
@@decrox13 they have a lot of people and resources but still fall short on many of the most important areas, including wealth equality, happiness, safety, education, human rights, crime, health care, maternal mortality and corruption. Because their system encourages big money partisan politics lacking the non partisan hos.
Bishop Pompallier, missionaries Williams,Hamlin,Selwyn and others. In the conversation none of these people are mentioned. They were key people in 1840s.We should not forget them. For e.g Hamlin and Williams helped settle differences between Maori in Panmure.
Who cares, it happened ok, forward movement! No point trying to move forwarrd if youre always looking backwards
@Logan If this is a way to go. We need to remove Maori seats and then put aside the treaty document as they are things from the past. Create a society based on equity. Once these forward-looking steps are in place, we can look for a new constitution head who has no power or authority.
God save the King! 180 years of peace, never change a winning formula. How stupidly embarassing, calling for a republic, when you are attending a coronation and congratulating the King on behalf of the NZ people. We also have a Maori King too, so there would be a huge move for that person to become our next king. Bloody stupid arguement
It makes no difference if New Zealand is a republic or not. Either way the WEF is still in control of New Zealand.
This government has nothing to do with te tiriti 1840 they are immigrants who repealed there constitution the 1852 NZ constitution Act
The aboriginal native tittle is coming thats who's in control
@@johntehiwi114 You think so :-) nah dude.
In my opinion, it makes a difference.
Turning away from The Crown is basically a rejection of the strongly British past from which this country was born and built. It is a rejection of Western values and ideals.
It now seems that this country stands for everything and everyone. It is culturally and racially segregated as more immigrants come in and replace the white Kiwis moving to Australia.
So a move to a republic would basically be the final nail in the coffin for the old way of life in NZ (along with the good and bad of Pakeha/Maori relations during that time).
So yes, to me it does make a difference. Rejection of The Crown symbolises the triumph of Globalism and woke ideology and the rise of a new, militant breed of Maori ethno-nationalism and European scorn.
Im from Aotearoa, not New Zealand, only foreigners call this place New Zealand lol. The indigenous don't.
New Zealand
@@yondo2467 that's why your a foreigner lol. Indigenous call it Aotearoa.
@@Chas-te7uz well I was born here and all the kiwis I know call this country New Zealand
@@yondo2467 don't matter if you're born here or not, your not from here. Pakeha have no culture or heritage here in Aotearoa lol. Pakeha ain't Polynesians, Pakeha ain't even from the pacific lol.
@@yondo2467 pretty much your an immigrant trying to dictate in someone else's country lol. Hahaha.
Get rid of WEF, Bank's and Murdoch media...
Best thing American ever did was getting rid of the british and the monarchy from American
say goodbye to free medical care.... as that money comes from the crown
lol that money comes from taxpayers lol whatever your smoking, you need to stop XD
It's a bit baffling how Charles 3 can be ordained both king of a country, which is a big temporal job in itself involving jewels, land, palaces etc and yet he is also given the title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of the England" ...a spiritual job that seems a bit incongruous with his own past life.
Surely titles to spiritual realms that have millions of adherents shouldn't just be passed down thru ruling families as an entitlement without any miracle or esoteric manifestation signaling holiness ?
For example in Tibetan religion the "genuine" Dalai Llama was chosen from an obscure place by some extraordinary holy event or miracle.
The role of the monarch has held almost no real power for a very long time. The role is mainly pastoral and therefore deliberately apolitical. It's anachronistic sure, but appears to kind of work.
just like DNA, the user who also responded to you. I think you need to do a bit of homework there buddy...
They are a constitutional monarchy which means the state owns and maintains all the properties including all the jewels etc.
They are used by the crown under the Terms of the Sovereign Grant established in 1760 which also includes the infamous salary for the royals.
As for the religious crap, being a non believer in fictional characters but understanding some people need to cling to such a thing to feel better about death. Queen Elizabeth the 1st is to thank for that.
The Queen, like the churches/religions are very good at manipulating any founding story for a savior and capitalizing on that belief to hold sway over a people...
Moral different between Religion and Monarchy...None...
Just like the flag referendum this debate is a waste of time. Becoming a republic would come at a significant financial cost, without any practical change. For the republicans and political ideologues who keep banging this drum, this is just a matter of optics. E te atua tohungia te Kīngi 👑🇳🇿.
We already govern ourselves with a party system, all we would need is our own Speaker of the house and more robust structure for a Higher Court which we already have as well.
Not sure what you are trying to say here, what money where??? We are an existing and effective political system as it is, its not like we are starting over.
We just gave $1million Dollars to the coronation of Charles, if you think we need more money, we could have started with that.
Not sure what your trying to say here when the system already exists.
@@aoteataniwha6967 I agree. We do govern ourselves. We do have an existing and effective political system. As I said, becoming a republic would come without any practical change. The cost of a complete government rebrand, as we remove all the existing references to monarchy in names, titles, insignia and uniforms wouldn't be worth it.
@@gooser2583 so taking what you just said and using it as a reference. Our head of state would be a kiwi, our current high court would be the high court and have no need for the High Court in the U.K. We would replace Titles with Kiwi Ones and not those of the U.K Government.
You literally just agreed with me.
We would be a country in and of ourselves with no need to oversight from the crown. We have the ability to create our own government structure which we already have, except the speaker of the house will be a representative of the ruling parties who hold parliament and the president will be the ruling candidate. Nothing major would change here with our current system because under our democracy we vote for these things in a way right now. The last thing to do would be to adjust the laws around our existing high court system.
You're making it sound like a hard slog but we already have 80% of the work done already...
We have everything we already need to break away from the crown and im confident that we will.
@@aoteataniwha6967 Bruh, don't you get it? I'm a monarchist. I don't think NZ should become a republic.
I do agree with you, insofar that our current government system is functionally independent reasonably effect. Nothing needs to change.
As I originally said: "For the republicans and political ideologues who keep banging this drum [of republicanism], this is just a matter of optics". Republicans want to abolish the monarchy, not for any practical benefit, but only as a matter of principle.
I don't think we should.
Im all for Republic and our own independence but One News could have had apposing sides in this conversation, not just 1. You cant have a conversation that shows that there is still a large enough backing to remain part of the commonwealth and not have those voices represented in some way. Thats showing bias One News...be better...
Free New Zealistan!!
We should have our own Monarchy. Lorde or Scribe or Peter Jackson should be the absolute monarch.
Its time for a new head of state.
Ich schau mir das an wegen meiner Zp, die ich Morgen schreibe, und ich merke grade, dass ich zu 100% 0 Punkte im listening bekommen werde.☠
Non political just beholden to the party
The crown, and old Charlie boy, are not the same thing, what we need is to declare our independence, have an actual constitution based on clearly defined principles and meanings whether they be treaty based or not, and not just a bunch of acts of parliament and other documents that pretends to be one that we currently have, being one of three countries around the world that doesn't have an entrenched constitution, and remove parliamentary supremacy, or parliamentary sovereignty as it is also known, so that those in office can be held accountable for their actions whilst they are still in office.
Non est arctius vinculum inter homines quam jusjurandum. There is no stronger bond among men than an oath. -Maxim of law.
Removing the monarch as the head of state, under which at the current time people who work in government, and their agencies make their oath to, including (without limitation) their heirs and successors, and not to the people from where they draw their power, will only serve to transfer that to parliament as its replacement, and not return sovereignty to where it belongs, with the people.
Old Lizzy was referred to in the Oaths and Declarations act as "Queen Elizabeth the second, Queen of New Zealand", not queen of the United Kingdom, with subjects in New Zealand.
Just my thoughts.
Kia Tau Te rangimarie.
Someone he chooses more like
But the aboriginal native tittle has not been exstinguised and you talk treaty centric
Down with the Monarchy!
A NZ republic doesn't make sense New Zealand is a country with historic ties and cultural ties to Britain and majority of the population can trace their heritage back to Britain this is also the same with Canada and Australia.
the system works don't fix it
NZ It’ll still have historical ties to Britain and can still trace Britains Heritage and Colonialism just won’t register as a Realm no longer
Question is Right now, You still wanna be acknowledged as a British European or a New Zealander
Time to sever from old constructs like the monarch
@@TheHlydenLord83 We will have historical ties to Britain for sure but what i was trying to say is that we are so cultural and historically linked with Britain and the monarchy i doesn't make sense to get rid of it Canada has had a monarch as far back as 1610 the monarch being James the 1st with Australia joining in 1798 with king George the 3rd has there monarch with New Zealand joining later in 1840 with Queen Victoria.
the point i am trying to make is the monarchy has been there through the highs and the lows of our countries and we still have strong links to monarchy and Britain and the system in place a insured stability for over 100 years now so why do we have to change it
@@mrtree2465 they dont represent nz
We are effectively only changing our head of state. We take care of ourselves as it is, but a New Zealander should represent our New Zealand values as a member of our Nation and not just one who sits above it. We already govern ourselves, we are self sufficient and a well rounded nation of individuals who are part of a larger whole.
What does a man in England who has lived a wealthy lifestyle have anything to do with the Dairy Farmers in Canterbury?? or the clean up efforts of the last big weather system that almost sunk Auckland hah. What would he know of the cost of living crisis up and down the country or the expansion of the Maori Language in Schools???
Exactly...nothing... New Zealand is and has been ready to govern itself for a long time now...
Benefits extra cost
Abolish the monarchy
Do you think British Easley give up on their land they fought for it and kill Moire and colonising New Zealand and then we want become republic is impossible
Maori self governace
Dam str8.
I’m over this radical left crap that breakfast puts out
Go back to where ever in Europe your from then.
Bruh tf I'm a leftie but heavily support thr crown and monarchy
I think that the idea of the left is always anti monarchy seems to be very entrench in more right or centre right media which isn't good us monarchists need to work together
No I suggest not being a republic country. I suggest stay enemy free. As why we need the Uk is help. I mean it was them that colonised this country and so they should be in charge. There will be no difference if this country is republican or not. So no I will disagree with Nz being a republican
Rawiri where are your manners when addressing a wahine, take off your hat how rude, Tinorangatiratanga for Māori and total autonomy, king can be head of state for his people and NZ government after all they are his subjects and owes really..we don't need head if state status just tinorangatiratanga governing without hesitation from the unlike
The choice is obvious. It's a relic of the past. I won't bend the knee lmao
just because its old doesn't mean it's bad constitutional monarchies where the first real democracies in the world
also very progressive countries like Denmark Sweden and Norway decided to keep their monarchy dispute people thinking that monarchies are more for more Conservative countries like the Thailand or Malaya
@@mrtree2465 depends on what form your democracy takes. Not all democracies are good either. Constitutional Ones hand over all the power but keep the figurehead. But Just like France, Germany, Russia, Italy etc many Monarchies through the years were pressed to change because of the uprisings of its peoples which ultimately saw the downfall of monarchy...or they relented and allowed the governance to pass from King/Queen to Lords and Parliaments. Effectively, you either give over the power or the people will take it from you...
Moreover, the costs for these monarchies are high VERY HIGH!!! Referendums are held almost ever couple years in the U.K to cut royal spending...
The cost of maintaining some of these properties is staggering!!!
@@mrtree2465 never thought i would hear a conservative argument under the banner of thinking its progressive. You are talking about these countries like those monarchs aren't already from there...
The monarchy is not from here mate...they sent their people to settle here...there is no palace in New Zealand for a New Zealand Monarchy, there is an English one who visits every few years when he needs to increase his public support...
Was a nice try though...
@@aoteataniwha6967 the monarchy bring in more for the UK than it takes out the bring in at least 1 billion pounds a year from tourism while they only spend around 100 million pounds per year for royal duties and helping their charities that doesn't seem like much does it
we need a commonwealth wide republican movement. I want to see Britain become a republic in my lifetime too
No we will stay with the monarchy we are not a republic just because her majesty has passed on a child's is taking the mental both him and his wife we will stay with the United Kingdom Maori will still keep the Treaty
Forget the republic, the monarchy is here to stay 🇬🇧🇳🇿
Not for very long.
@@Chas-te7uz a lot of people here support the crown, only a tiny little micro amount of people want the republic
love our monarchy It's a great system we have here
@@yondo2467 nah not really, most people who do, are pakeha. So it doesn't really count.
@@Chas-te7uz so your saying pakeha don't count as people ????
I'm a Maori. No Republic. Leave it alone
i agree the argument that the government is in charge of upholding the treaty waitangi is wrong in the treaty it say it is between the crown and moari no mention of the new Zealand government anywhere
@@mrtree2465 i agree with you 💯% get rid of the crown, no more treaty.
@@woodywoody6868 what no i am saying the government will not have the obligation to up hold the treaty if the crown is gone which is bad
@@mrtree2465 The government is not upholding the treaty now so what difference will it make? They just lie and say they are ,knowing people will just accept the lie.
@@woodywoody6868 it's not about the treaty, our forefathers fought WW2 under that flag, all I'm saying is just leave it be
Charles amd his family are totally irrelevant to NZ.
The treaty is the founding document of NZ, and it is between Maori and the crown. From a Maori perspect8ve the whole ownership of land amd resources and creation of laws by government is described as "the crown". It is a bigger thing than individual political governments. It will take some work to maintain the balance. But it will be qorth it because the monarchy is built on blood and i think we can let it go now. And just deal with the blood that has been spilt here to build Aotearoa NZ
Why the fuck would we want a republic. Long live the king
Which king?
@@Chas-te7uz king Charles the third.
@@bobsemple07 nah, I got my own king, he actually lives here you know...
@@Chas-te7uz whether you like it or not. He is your king he is the king. He is literally the head of state of new Zealand
@@bobsemple07 why, because you said so lol. He's your white king, not mine, my king is Maori lol. Don't try and push your white ways on to us you foreigner.
True world king of all bloodlines so hows the trick,or,treat💃🧛🦹