tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post6702426493461031864..comments2024-03-26T10:03:51.827+13:00Comments on Karl du Fresne: Trust us - we play sportKarl du Fresnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-682141745159443652008-07-02T11:41:00.000+12:002008-07-02T11:41:00.000+12:00Karl, When I heard the results of this survey repo...Karl, When I heard the results of this survey reported during a Radio NZ news bulletin my initial reaction was that it was a pointless waste of time. I honestly don't think it's worth your, or our, attention. <BR/>I seem to recall that MediaWatch came to the same conclusion last Sunday.Carolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05142219927489818297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-72552739561562555822008-07-01T16:51:00.000+12:002008-07-01T16:51:00.000+12:00Karl, I'm not suggesting the Queen should act in s...Karl, I'm not suggesting the Queen should act in such a way that breaks 400 year old constitutional conventions; however, it is exactly because of those traditions I raise the question - it goes the question of why we have an absentee monarch as our head of state in the first place.<BR/><BR/>It's a nonsense to say we trust the Queen not to meddle in our politics or commit criminal acts. It's the same as saying we trust the Sultan of Brunei not to intervene in our politics - trust implies a relationship of reliance, something that does not exist outside of Bagehotite constitutional theory.<BR/><BR/>Legally the Queen cannot actually commit criminal acts and could never be tried for them - the Queen as Sovereign is above the law (hence the saying "the Queen can do no wrong").<BR/><BR/>The truth of the matter is that while being our head of State, New Zealanders have nothing to trust the Queen with. The Governor-General is our de facto head of State, they're the one who are trusted with ensuring the continuity of Government. The Queen has shown - by not intervening in a plethora of coups and constitutional crisis throughout the Commonwealth - to be unable to act when the going gets tough. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the Queen never represents New Zealand overseas. At the battle of Passchendaele commemorations, it was the Governor-General who represented New Zealand, not the Queen, who represented the UK. Instead we send our uber-diplomat, the Governor-General, to do that job.Lewis Holdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732618881212335191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-54168505593991645652008-06-30T09:09:00.000+12:002008-06-30T09:09:00.000+12:00In reply to Lewis: The Queen is New Zealand's head...In reply to Lewis: The Queen is New Zealand's head of state. Lewis, as a republican, doesn't think she should be, but unfortunately for him that's the reality - at least until such time as he can persuade New Zealanders to dump her, which at present they show no great inclination to do. <BR/>As long as she remains our head of state, New Zealanders trust her to behave with personal decorum and constitutional propriety. They expect her not to meddle in politics and not to bring dishonour on the Crown by, say, engaging in criminal or immoral acts or getting chummy with despots (beyond what is required of her by traditional diplomatic niceties, unpleasant as they may sometimes be - like hosting Robert Mugabe). <BR/>I don't think it's unrealistic to argue that if the Queen did any of the above things, it would have a destabilising effect on the whole constitutional/governmental structure that could reach as far as New Zealand. So yes, I think it is important that New Zealanders should feel they can trust her. Lewis shouldn't allow his republican sentiments to cloud the reality of our constitutional arrangements.Karl du Fresnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-87295069017098276462008-06-28T14:24:00.000+12:002008-06-28T14:24:00.000+12:00Trust a mechanic? Once a mechanic in Gore asked me...Trust a mechanic? Once a mechanic in Gore asked me if I had "bled the slave cylinder". <BR/><BR/>I suspect that his gory reference to what sounded to me like an oppressive medical ritual was just an excuse to charge me a lot more for repairs to my lemon.<BR/><BR/>But let's go further. Trust the WOF system?<BR/><BR/>There is no such thing in Australia and I suspect there are no more problems with unroadworthy cars in that enlightened country than in NZ with its WOF.Vaughanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13105760893956912855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-82399869935912742312008-06-28T11:46:00.000+12:002008-06-28T11:46:00.000+12:00"You have to get to the Queen, at No. 20, before y..."You have to get to the Queen, at No. 20, before you find anyone occupying a position in which public trust is a matter of the utmost importance."<BR/><BR/>Ummm... what do we have to trust the Queen with exactly? That she won't intervene in our affairs?Lewis Holdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732618881212335191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-4368855699411940692008-06-28T11:17:00.000+12:002008-06-28T11:17:00.000+12:00Thanks - that helps explain it. But as you say, it...Thanks - that helps explain it. But as you say, it makes the poll even more of a farce.Karl du Fresnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-61471485161681956722008-06-28T10:38:00.000+12:002008-06-28T10:38:00.000+12:00I forgot the link so you can read the fine print: ...I forgot the link so you can read the fine print: http://www.readersdigest.co.nz/content/2008-new-zealands-most-trusted-people-listhomepaddockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596903968235369282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-75274390361431527042008-06-28T10:37:00.000+12:002008-06-28T10:37:00.000+12:00If you read the fine print:those polled were asked...If you read the fine print:those polled were asked to rate 85 people on a scale of 1 -10 so they didn't choose the people they just ranked those already chosen. It's designed to get publicity for Readers Digest and not to be taken seriously, but if they are going to the trouble of doing it why not do it properly?homepaddockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596903968235369282noreply@blogger.com