Ian Wishart's Investigate Magazine carries a letter from one Mr Matt Showering, who previously wrote in the last edition of Monarchy New Zealand. Mr Showering takes Mr Wishart to task over the analysis of New Zealand's constitution in Wishart's book, Absolute Power. In short, Wishart argues New Zealand's government has been illegal since 1 January 1987 (the date the Constitution Act 1986 came into force) because it repealed the 1852 Constitution Act, which was a Imperial enactment.
Mr Showering's rejoinder, arguing that the government is not illegal, shows a firm grasp of the constitutional reality from a historical perspective - that New Zealand's Crown today is the child of the British Crown, by way of the Statute of Westminster 1931. However, Showering - an avid monarchist - is unable to answer Wishart's main thrust, that the legitimacy of the government should not come the Crown, because the Crown has failed to protect New Zealanders. In essence, the argument that the Governor-General should keep the government in check.
Wishart makes this argument because his book is a litany of examples where he thinks the Governor-General has failed to do so. Showering's response is that this is simply because of "public apathy". Apathy to what? There was plenty of protests against the Electoral Finance Act, one example which Mr Wishart cites as an abuse of power. Mr Showering's response is inadequate, so is his defence of the monarchy. His final assertion, that removing the Crown will require that New Zealand creates a written constitution, is a nonsense. A written constitution is not legally required - the State of Israel, also a parliamentary republic, does not have one - the implication is that this would be a bad thing.
Further, Mr Showering argues that:
"...a ceremonial president lacks the historical grounding of a monarch and, whether elected by the people or by the government, cannot serve the people in a non-partisan fashion as a monarch"
Unfortunately, the precedent from parliamentary republics shows that the above is simply not true. A historical grounding was not required when the President of Iceland sent a controversial media law Bill to referendum, nor was it required when the President of India sent a civil liberties eroding bill to the Indian Supreme Court, or when the President of Ireland sent a Bill on abortion to the Irish Supreme Court... the list goes on. As for the "non-partisan" claim, the simple fact is that "non-partisan" really means non-interventionist, and non-interventionist means constitutionally useless.
It's time for a letter to the editor of Investigate I think.
Shades of the various Texans who try to avoid to evade income tax on the grounds that Texas isn't legally part of the USA.
I think it's a bit of a mistake to try and engage with mad people, as Wishart (and the Texan separatists) are.
The real timeline is that after the Treaty, the UK government ruled NZ as a colony. They then progessively ceded sovereignty to the locally elected NZ parliament/government, starting with initial devolution in 1852 and ending with the Statute of Westminster. Apart from advice that was no doubt tendered to various, British Monarchs had no control over this process.
"I think it's a bit of a mistake to try and engage with mad people, as Wishart (and the Texan separatists) are."
I didn't spend anytime in my response on the claims of illegality - I just went after the assertions against republicanism.