lots of them! as for which was first, I feel like the person most likely to have the answer to hand is the guy who gave evidence on the first day of the treaty principles submissions and who had all the historical documents
I don’t see anything in the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 itself? And I don’t think New Zealand is listed in the New Zealand Gazetter under delegated authority?
This bit never quite got implemented: Three Principal Islands of NEW ZEALAND hereafter or commonly Called – ‘THE NORTHERN ISLAND,’ ‘THE MIDDLE ISLAND,’ AND ‘STEWART’S ISLAND’ shall henceforth be designated and known respectively as ‘NEW ULSTER,’ ‘NEW MUNSTER’ AND ‘NEW LEINSTER,
In view of your argument that the Treaty is a sacred founding constitutional document, the contents of which cannot be amended by Parliament, is its use of New Zealand sufficient? (So Niu Tirini, I guess)
Sure, I acknowledge the terms used there in the preamble, although I’m not sure those terms are used in a constitutive sense and certainly not legislative?
Yes, foundational view of the Treaty surely excludes legislative content. Interesting to explore the issues that arise if we pick and choose the constitutive components.
Yeah. And, to clarify, my submission only went as saying “probably can’t” re Parliament’s legislative power to amend the Treaty, given ostensibly the Treaty principles Bill provided it wasn’t amended etc.
I recall, I think, QB and Mcleanput a lot of weight on this, especially because the proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand has never been revoked but fell into disuse etc.
Busby's original letters patent in 1832 from the governor of NSW?
"In 1832, with the agreement of the British government, New South Wales appointed James Busby as British Resident, a position equivalent to a consular officer."
It perhaps goes without saying that a country name is not prescribed in the Constitution Act 1986, where one might expect a country’s name to be constituted.
Of course, one angle might be that our country’s offical name is a feature of custom
and practice etc, not attributable to a singular statutory source.
I thought the Constitution Act 1852 was a contender, constituting a colony from the islands of New Zealand which it calls, briefly, the Colony of New Zealand
Hobson's Proclamation probably counts as legislative but seems to reciting common names, not setting a formal one
Comments
The colony would now include:
any territory which is or may be acquired in sovereignty by Her Majesty … within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean, commonly called New Zealand."
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/new-zealand-becomes-a-separate-colony
The Legislation Act 2019.
The New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/self-government-and-independence/page-6
https://teara.govt.nz/en/zoomify/32913/charter-of-1840
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/new-zealand-becomes-a-separate-colony
https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-GovCons-t1-body-d1-d1.html
"In 1832, with the agreement of the British government, New South Wales appointed James Busby as British Resident, a position equivalent to a consular officer."
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/maori-european-contact-pre-1840/captain-stewart-and-the-elizabeth
and practice etc, not attributable to a singular statutory source.
Hobson's Proclamation probably counts as legislative but seems to reciting common names, not setting a formal one