Talk:Independence of New Zealand

message: Removed republic section as does not fit with the rest of this article.  It is widely recognised that Commonwealth Realms are completely independent nations by definition.  Including a discussion of a republic is thus entirely unwarranted within this article.  It reads like an advertorial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.172.138 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no inconsistency. An element of the discussion of New Zealand's independence is becoming a republic. Irrespective of the legal independence of New Zealand as a Commonwealth realm the verifiable fact is that people such as Jim Bolger have used independence as an argument. --Lholden (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Inconsistency

message: "Bolger later argued that he did not believe the 'Queen of England' should be New Zealand's head of state."
New Zealand has never had the 'Queen of England' as our HoS, the last 'Queen of England' was Queen Anne in 1701, some 300 years ago. Brian | (Talk) 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that's the direct quote from Bolger however. However, the term "Queen of England" is used to describe Queen Victoria in the Treaty, which just goes to show how badly drafted the Treaty was... --Lholden 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolger 

message: According to some quick research, New Zealanders gained their own citizenship under The British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 from 1 January 1949. Prior to this Act (which came about as a result of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947) all New Zealanders were automatically British citizens. --Lholden 02:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be care full of the no Original Research rule Brian | (Talk) 02:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just quoted the effect of the Act, so it's not research. --Lholden 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was in the movie The World's Fastest Indian, so it must be true.--Mathew5000 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be right, the citizenship law was changed early in the 70s by the 3rd Labour govt. --Lholden 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand citizenship

message: "Supporters of a New Zealand republic have often argued that because the Act of Settlement 1701 (the Act governing the succession to the British throne) is a statute of the United Kingdom, and because the position of New Zealand's Head of state is thus reserved for a person from that country, New Zealand is not fully independent. In response, supporters of the monarchy argue that New Zealand could amend the Act of Settlement if it so desired, and is thus fully legally independent of Britain. Amending the Act would mean that the succession of the New Zealand monarchy would differ from that of other Commonwealth Realms however."
Something's contradictory in this statement.  If the Act of Settlement for New Zealand remains a statute of the United Kingdom then the monarchists are wrong that New Zealand can alter the act unilaterally.  If the Act of Settlement is an inherited part of the New Zealand constitution (as it is in Canada) then the republicans are wrong that the Act is a statute of the UK.  Which is correct? --gbambino 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a statute of the UK that is effective in New Zealand as received law. The NZ Parliament can amend it, but any such amendment would have effect only with respect to New Zealand. --Mathew5000 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gavin, if you read the wording of New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986, you'll see that it refers to the "English Act" (the Act of Settlement). Moreover, so does the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 (the New Zealand Act defining what Westminster statutes are effective in New Zealand). Unlike the Constitution Act (or first was an Act of Westminster) the Act of Settlement hasn't been patriated. --Lholden 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I see, thanks. It would seem that if NZ has the power to amend the Act, with the amendment being only effective in NZ, then the country is independent.  Willingly sharing the same head of state with another country does not automatically make either country subservient to the other. However, despite the fallacy of their argument, I suppose the opposite is a republican argument, and should be acknowledged as such. --gbambino 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't change my argument Brian - the point is, New Zealand's Head of state is so because our law states "whoever suceeds under the English Act of Settlement is Head of state in New Zealand". Noel Cox may very well be correct that changes to the succession might not be effective in New Zealand but - say for example Westminster changed the male primogenture rules but NZ didn't; we'd still have the same Head of state. --Lholden 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We might with Charles, but who knows down the track, if the UK changed the male primogenture rules, the UK would have one person, however the other 15 realms will share a different HoS. Brian | (Talk) 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that that is not likely; the alternative is to break the constitutional convention on the succession; which would of course ignite the republic debate. --Lholden 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act of Settlement 

message: Hae amended the bit about NZ forces in Middle East not under NZ control which is not true, see Ian McGibbon in Kia Kaha: New Zealand in the Second World War Hugo999 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II

message: Regarding the citation request for the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers following the death of King George VI in 1952, I won't be able to provide a citation. I read it years ago and I can't remember where. The then commonwealth prime ministers came from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Ceylon, and of course the UK. The Indian prime minister did not attend because India had recently become a republic. It was agreed that each dominion could have its own royal title for the new Queen Elizabeth, providing that the title adhered to a basic common format.
Australia and New Zealand did not favour the concept of divisibility of the crown until the Whitlam administration of the 1970's, and it was only in 1973 that Australia decided to exercise its rights, based on that 1952 decision, to officially style the Queen as 'Queen of Australia'. New Zealand followed suite the next year. But the principle of divisibility of the crown had already been established in 1952. If you do not believe this, then by all means revert. But the reversion will be inaccurate. David Tombe (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisibility of the Crown 

message: Re the paragraph “With Dominion status, New Zealand did not have any control over its foreign affairs or military; these issues remained the responsibility of Britain.” I think it should read “With Dominion status, New Zealand had limited control over its foreign affairs, which largely remained the responsibility of Britain.” Earlier governments were not interested in changing New Zealand’s foreign policy (though challenged parts of it, eg the low importance given by Britain to the Singapore Naval Base in the 1920s), but the First Labour Government challenged the policy of appeasement in the 1930s, particularly over Abyssinia. New Zealand had an Army in 1907, and an Air Force was established in the 1920s. The New Zealand Division of the RN did not become the RNZN until 1941, but this could be from both reluctance to pay for a navy, and realising that naval defence needed to be extended further than the waters around New Zealand, hence the interest in the Singapore Naval Base. Hugo999 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominion 

message: This is not a good example of the Sorites Paradox. And even if it was, this has no relevance or importance and should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.58.252 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of the Sorites Paradox? 

message: Article lacks all detail of Captain Cook claiming NZ for King William 111 on 15 Nov 1769 in Mercury Bay, NZ. At this time Maori lived in scattered isolated villages normally of hapu size but also lived for long periods of time in  small whanua groups.  Groups did band together for the purposes of war but they  retained their own immediate leaders. There is no evidence that Maori ever cooperated on a national level.Indeed the evidence is that hapu saw themselves as totally independent. A local chief had very limited powers apart from force of personality and the threat of violence. Without the general cooperation of the hapu members a chief could do little.
It should be noted that the Treaty of Waitangi legally came into force in NZ 6 days before it was first signed at Waitangi, when Hobson issued a printed proclamation. The same proclamation had already been passed in NSW by the governor. Only after this did he seek to meet with chiefs to seek their consent to the proclamation.
It should be noted that although a healthy number of chiefs signed the treaty-some 600 plus -it seems now the lack of  signatures from other chiefs(some significant figures) did not preclude legal sovereignty passing to Britain. A curious observation . Of the 600 plus "signatures" only 12% actually signed their own name-the vast majority of these few in a very shaky unconvincing hand. The rest put X. or a bit of their moko. This tells a story in itself about literacy and the ability of Maori to comprehend subtle difference in either written Maori or English. Its pretty obvious they relied almost totally on what was said rather than what was on the paper at Waitangi and afterwards. Maori remained an oral culture well after the treaty period.115.188.178.77 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking early detail and the situation of Maori

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Independence of New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513093139/http://www.researchnz.com/pdf/Media%20Releases/RNZ%20Media%20Release%20-%2022-08-08%20Kiwis%20divided%20over%20monarchy.pdf to http://www.researchnz.com/pdf/Media%20Releases/RNZ%20Media%20Release%20-%2022-08-08%20Kiwis%20divided%20over%20monarchy.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426092605/http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/VUWLRev/2003/34.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/VUWLRev/2003/34.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that Dominion of New Zealand should be merged to Independence of New Zealand's history section per WP:MERGEREASON since it talks about the same thing, it is short text that can easily be added, some subheadings have the same subject that overlaps each other, and needs context since the article does not talk about the country but rather how the country (or Royal subject) came to be. And also because the term dominion, rather than being dissolved with a legal parliamentary act, had fallen out of use rather than being dissolved. Adding to that Dominion of Canada redirects to the article Canada since again, the term became obsolete rather than dissolved. PyroFloe (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support --LJ Holden 02:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. When I saw this I instinctively supported due to the clear overlap, but after looking into it a bit more I think they should remain separate. The name Dominion of New Zealand by itself did not carry significant immediate weight, but the article topic fills coverage of a specific constitutional situation (similarly to French Fourth Republic) which existed between the symbolic distinction of self-governing colonies and the impactful passage of the Statute of Westminster. Thus it fits between Colony of New Zealand and the current state. The Dominion of New Zealand article has room to expand in ways that would not fit on the Independence of New Zealand page. For simple examples, see the third paragraph of the lead, which discusses demographics and foreign policy, two topics not covered in the body. Another obvious area for expansion would be more information on exactly what the constitutional situation was. Perhaps Independence of New Zealand could also be tweaked to treat different stages/indicators of independence as their own sections to make clear the distinct impact each had on independence, rather than bundling what is essentially the whole article topic under a History section. CMD (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this imply in the same way that the sections that don't fit should just be merged to History of New Zealand's Colonial section? The same way that Dominion of Canada RFC here was agreed upon to be redirected to Canada with some sections inserted to it's history article since the term became obsolete and was replaced by "Commonwealth". PyroFloe (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: History of New Zealand is already a long article, so there's no much space to merge what are very specific details into that. That Canada RfC is just an example of a bad proposal being soundly rejected, and Canada has a different history. Canada never adopted a term like Commonwealth, it simply slowly let its formal name slip out of use. It also adopted the Statue of Westminster in 1931, well before New Zealand. As I noted the Dominion name itself initially provided little legal impact, but it neatly coincides at its replacement with the New Zealand adoption of the Statute of Westminster, providing a useful article title for the particular historical constitutional period. CMD (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Per CMD, the history of New Zealand article is already long, and the Dominion status represents a specific period of New Zealand's constitutional history. Plenty of other states have separate articles for such periods, and I don't see why NZ should be different. Turnagra (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I concur with User:Chipmunkdavis and User:Turnagra. Moriori (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose. The Dominion of New Zealand article documents a distinct era of New Zealand history that is separate from the topic of independence. I also concur with CMD's comment. --Hazhk (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I strongly agree with Hazhk about the Dominion of New Zealand article documenting a distinct era of New Zealand's history. The pages should not be merged. --Zenphia (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Per the arguments above. --SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose per Hazhk.  Peter Ormond 💬 17:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal