We use the terms “de facto” and “de jure” from time to time to describe the Governor-General. What does that mean?
Burning down Māori houses for the Queen
Last night, TVNZ 1 aired a program called “That’s a bit racist” looking at race relations in New Zealand. The program made mention of a little-known incident before the Queen’s 1952 Royal tour: the burning down of houses at Ōkahu Bay in Auckland’s eastern suburbs. Auckland City Council described the village at Ōkahu Bay as:
“…a dreadful eyesore and potential disease centre.”
…and used that as a pretext to acquire the land and then forcibly evict its inhabitants. They then burned down all the houses and the Marae at Ōkahu Bay. Only the chapel and cemetery remained, and stand still to this day. The area was turned into a park, just in time for the Queen’s 1952-1953 Royal tour, which of course emphasised how great New Zealand’s race relations were.
I’m sure there’s many more examples of people being displaced and ignored during Royal tours. This one really struck a nerve though given the close proximity of Ōkahu Bay to Auckland City. It really emphasises the way the monarchy is used to paper over division and create a false sense of unification. The monarchy can’t unite us.
Matariki rising
De facto head of state: representing New Zealand to the world
Parliamentary appointment: Auditor-General, Governor-General?
The Queen, Tainui and the non-apology
The Queen has only ever signed one piece of New Zealand legislation, the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, the Deed of Settlement for which was signed on this day in 1995. The reasons behind the Queen signing the legislation, and not the apology or Deed of Settlement itself, underline the absurdity of the monarchy in New Zealand.