Very interesting. As a New Zealander with an interest in this period in my country's history, I am familiar with the general details of these events (though I hadn't realised the political influence that Wakefield and his Company wielded) but it was fascinating to learn the constitutional factors underpinning the relationship between NSW and the new colony. Thanks for another informative video, Professor Twohey, and kudos as well for your good pronunciation of the Maori words :)
Thanks. I tried, but I'm not very good at the pronunciation. I used to get help from one of my New Zealand students when trying to pronounce some Maori case names in class.
As a New Zealander, the latter two-thirds of this was familiar to me. Thank you for filling in the gaps re the earlier bits such as why Busby was sent here, and the fact that the British Government weren't all that keen on dealing with the place for understandable reasons such as it's just too far away,. You have also answered a question I had yet to get round to looking up, which is why there was no kind of treaty used in any part of Australia when it was being acquired, whereas one does exist across the ditch with some unfortunate differences in the Maori and English versions as you mentioned. I'd like to think that those in power in the 1830s felt that a different and better approach was needed instead of arriving and taking over with no consultation.
I came upon Professor Twomey’s channel by chance when the King and Queen were in Australia. I am a retired English Circuit Judge. I have become a fan.There are many things I admire about her. She has the intellect and appearance which immediately demands respect. She’ll forgive me for saying this but she reminds of Princess Anne except of course her accent! Can I recommend another You Tube channel for those interested in the law. It is the Supreme Court of the UK. Here you will see the crème de la crème deliver summaries and reasons for their judgements in open court. Thank you Professor for your good work. A subject I would be interested in is Judicial Review in Australia.
Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoy the channel. Judicial review is a tricky subject, but I'll keep it in mind if an appropriate contemporary case arises.
Thank you again for an illuminating video. I was particularly interested to learn the historical points associated with Akaroa on the South Island, and the incidents preceding when the French settlers arrived there in 1840. Akaroa is one of the most stunningly beautiful parts of NZ, being on a peninsula created by an extinct volcano, the caldera of which is open to the sea at the south, and the French influence on the town seems palpable even though more than a century and a half had elapsed when I visited.
A similar situation occurred in the early 1900s when Britain was pressured into annexing Papua against it's will firstly by Qld and then the Australian govts over concerns that Germany might extend it's territory south. I am unaware of what economic interests Qld had there in the first place apart from it's "blackbirding" activities, whom they had to send home in order to join Australia.
Thank You, I've talked, with a good friend living in NZ about the Australian and New Zealand 'colonial' processes. I've suggested to my friend he watch your talk on You Tube.
If you check back on my videos, you will see one about when NZ was part of NSW and how it was separated. Re Federation - New Zealand was invited to participate in the Constitutional Conventions that led to federation. Sir George Grey, for example, attended the 1891 Constitutional Convention. He seemed to enjoy stirring the pot, and argued that the Governor-General should be elected. But New Zealand never seriously contemplated joining the Australian federation. While it was left open for it to do so, by naming 'New Zealand' in the definition of 'The States' in covering clause 6, it did not take up the opportunity. Some people incorrectly claim that covering clause 6 proclaims New Zealand to be a State of Australia. It does not. It defines 'The States' as meaning 'such of' [a list of colonies] 'as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth' and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States. But as New Zealand never became part of the Commonwealth, it is not an Australian State.
Sorry - just saw that this comment was actually on the video about NZ as part of Australia! (The comments all come up on one general list for me, so I thought it was on my latest video. My apologies.)
The French Bishop actually developed the Maori Language into a Written Language, using the Latin Alphabet; Pronunciation of Maori is strongly influenced by FRENCH vocalisation. Despite the British eventual control of NZ, the French Contribution was and is a most important contribution to the development of Maori Sovreignity.
The French Catholics were also the first settlers to take a sympathetic view towards the Maori people and representation, many of them learned to speak and later write in te reo Maori and engaged and integrated with Maori communities in early NZ history. Suzanne Aubert is a great example, and she might become New Zealand's only canonised saint soon. Without the French, te reo Maori may have gone the way of the many Australian Aboriginal languages that have faded into disuse or completely forgotten.
Thank you Anne an interesting presentation. I have 2 questions : 1. Why then is New Zealand included in Clause 6 (definitions) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK as a "State " of The Commonwealth of Australia, if as you say the separation was established via letters patent in 1840-1?, 2. If as you say early occupation in the land of Australia was not really formally able to claim sovereignty because of the lack of proper law then what effect did the Australian Courts Act 1828 have and why is it cited as law binding upon those in the administration of justice.
If a territory was annexed to an existing colony, like Australia, then the monarch of that colony was necessarily monarch in relation to any territory brought within it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Australia captured the German Pacific colonies in 1914 and made them its colonies after Versailles. Not being a British colony then would mean that a process or decision by Australia would have been needed to appoint the monarch wouldn’t it, or was it just automatic? I’m reminded that when PNG gained independence that the Queen concurred and in her announcement did so as the Queen of Australia, whereupon she then became the Queen of Papua New Guinea. Was it a default that all Australian territory after Federation included the Monarch, then where or how is this expressed, or is it assumed? Because Australia more than doubled in size after Federation due to expanding into Antarctica, some islands and the former German colonies and I’m curious about the law that determines the reign of the Monarch beyond the lands of Australia at federation. The Australian expansion into non-British territory I think is unique in the Commonwealth as other British colonies and dominions altered their areas by reduction, or combination as Canada and Newfoundland did, and I’m uncertain of the provision in our constitution to appoint the Monarch as Head of State to an expanded Australia, other than of course if its by default under the definition of the Commonwealth of Australia? Which means that wherever we go, the Monarch tags along for a free ride.
@@seanlander9321 PNG was complicated as although Papua was a colony, New Guinea was a League of Nations (then UN) trust territory. At the time of independence it was causing a deal of angst and fuelling a New Britain succession movement.
Fascinating history. I wonder how much this NSW/NZ relationship factored into later discussions around federation? I do think the discussion around cession from 11:20 onwards is a bit confused though: the point of the "bizarre" acknowledgement that Australian land was never ceded is really to question and deny the moral and ethical (more so than legal) legitimacy of sovereignty over Australian territory which is derived from conquest or settlement rather than cession, and to assert that cession would have been the only morally-legitimate way for the Crown to assume sovereignty over Australia, rather than to merely state that something which didn't happen didn't happen.
Thanks. I suppose I can't help thinking about these things as a lawyer - given they are legal concepts. In any case, there were also morally dubious aspects to cession too. But one cannot undo the past or pretend it never happened.
Very interesting. As a New Zealander with an interest in this period in my country's history, I am familiar with the general details of these events (though I hadn't realised the political influence that Wakefield and his Company wielded) but it was fascinating to learn the constitutional factors underpinning the relationship between NSW and the new colony. Thanks for another informative video, Professor Twohey, and kudos as well for your good pronunciation of the Maori words :)
Thanks. I tried, but I'm not very good at the pronunciation. I used to get help from one of my New Zealand students when trying to pronounce some Maori case names in class.
As a New Zealander, the latter two-thirds of this was familiar to me. Thank you for filling in the gaps re the earlier bits such as why Busby was sent here, and the fact that the British Government weren't all that keen on dealing with the place for understandable reasons such as it's just too far away,.
You have also answered a question I had yet to get round to looking up, which is why there was no kind of treaty used in any part of Australia when it was being acquired, whereas one does exist across the ditch with some unfortunate differences in the Maori and English versions as you mentioned. I'd like to think that those in power in the 1830s felt that a different and better approach was needed instead of arriving and taking over with no consultation.
I came upon Professor Twomey’s channel by chance when the King and Queen were in Australia. I am a retired English Circuit Judge. I have become a fan.There are many things I admire about her. She has the intellect and appearance which immediately demands respect.
She’ll forgive me for saying this but she reminds of Princess Anne except of course her accent!
Can I recommend another You Tube channel for those interested in the law. It is the Supreme Court of the UK. Here you will see the crème de la crème deliver summaries and reasons for their judgements in open court.
Thank you Professor for your good work. A subject I would be interested in is Judicial Review in Australia.
Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoy the channel. Judicial review is a tricky subject, but I'll keep it in mind if an appropriate contemporary case arises.
Thank you again for an illuminating video. I was particularly interested to learn the historical points associated with Akaroa on the South Island, and the incidents preceding when the French settlers arrived there in 1840. Akaroa is one of the most stunningly beautiful parts of NZ, being on a peninsula created by an extinct volcano, the caldera of which is open to the sea at the south, and the French influence on the town seems palpable even though more than a century and a half had elapsed when I visited.
I love these little clips.
Glad you enjoyed it.
You are such an engaging teacher!
A similar situation occurred in the early 1900s when Britain was pressured into annexing Papua against it's will firstly by Qld and then the Australian govts over concerns that Germany might extend it's territory south. I am unaware of what economic interests Qld had there in the first place apart from it's "blackbirding" activities, whom they had to send home in order to join Australia.
I found that very interesting !! So just sent it to a friend in New Zealand telling him , ' See , you really are an Australian ' 🤣
Great video
Thank You, I've talked, with a good friend living in NZ about the Australian and New Zealand 'colonial' processes. I've suggested to my friend he watch your talk on You Tube.
Thanks. Do spread the word.
Hi, So does this mean that sovereignty to the crown was actually established on the 15th of June 1839? By forcible acquisition?
I am interested in NZ and the Aust constitution. In one of the first paragraphs NZ is mentioned but WA is not.
If you check back on my videos, you will see one about when NZ was part of NSW and how it was separated.
Re Federation - New Zealand was invited to participate in the Constitutional Conventions that led to federation. Sir George Grey, for example, attended the 1891 Constitutional Convention. He seemed to enjoy stirring the pot, and argued that the Governor-General should be elected.
But New Zealand never seriously contemplated joining the Australian federation. While it was left open for it to do so, by naming 'New Zealand' in the definition of 'The States' in covering clause 6, it did not take up the opportunity.
Some people incorrectly claim that covering clause 6 proclaims New Zealand to be a State of Australia. It does not. It defines 'The States' as meaning 'such of' [a list of colonies] 'as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth' and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States. But as New Zealand never became part of the Commonwealth, it is not an Australian State.
Sorry - just saw that this comment was actually on the video about NZ as part of Australia! (The comments all come up on one general list for me, so I thought it was on my latest video. My apologies.)
The French Bishop actually developed the Maori Language into a Written Language, using the Latin Alphabet; Pronunciation of Maori is strongly influenced by FRENCH vocalisation.
Despite the British eventual control of NZ, the French Contribution was and is a most important contribution to the development of Maori Sovreignity.
Thanks. That's most interesting.
The French Catholics were also the first settlers to take a sympathetic view towards the Maori people and representation, many of them learned to speak and later write in te reo Maori and engaged and integrated with Maori communities in early NZ history. Suzanne Aubert is a great example, and she might become New Zealand's only canonised saint soon. Without the French, te reo Maori may have gone the way of the many Australian Aboriginal languages that have faded into disuse or completely forgotten.
Thank you Anne an interesting presentation. I have 2 questions : 1. Why then is New Zealand included in Clause 6 (definitions) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK as a "State " of The Commonwealth of Australia, if as you say the separation was established via letters patent in 1840-1?, 2. If as you say early occupation in the land of Australia was not really formally able to claim sovereignty because of the lack of proper law then what effect did the Australian Courts Act 1828 have and why is it cited as law binding upon those in the administration of justice.
I thought New Zealand had 3 islands, North island, South island and West island (guess were West island Is?)
Out of interest, what was the process to appoint the monarch to Australia’s Pacific colonies, or was it just somehow assumed?
If a territory was annexed to an existing colony, like Australia, then the monarch of that colony was necessarily monarch in relation to any territory brought within it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Australia captured the German Pacific colonies in 1914 and made them its colonies after Versailles. Not being a British colony then would mean that a process or decision by Australia would have been needed to appoint the monarch wouldn’t it, or was it just automatic? I’m reminded that when PNG gained independence that the Queen concurred and in her announcement did so as the Queen of Australia, whereupon she then became the Queen of Papua New Guinea. Was it a default that all Australian territory after Federation included the Monarch, then where or how is this expressed, or is it assumed? Because Australia more than doubled in size after Federation due to expanding into Antarctica, some islands and the former German colonies and I’m curious about the law that determines the reign of the Monarch beyond the lands of Australia at federation. The Australian expansion into non-British territory I think is unique in the Commonwealth as other British colonies and dominions altered their areas by reduction, or combination as Canada and Newfoundland did, and I’m uncertain of the provision in our constitution to appoint the Monarch as Head of State to an expanded Australia, other than of course if its by default under the definition of the Commonwealth of Australia? Which means that wherever we go, the Monarch tags along for a free ride.
@@seanlander9321 PNG was complicated as although Papua was a colony, New Guinea was a League of Nations (then UN) trust territory. At the time of independence it was causing a deal of angst and fuelling a New Britain succession movement.
Another great video thankyou. A bit of I don't want it but I don't want you to have it either ;)
Wow. Super interesting :)
Glad you think so!
Fascinating history. I wonder how much this NSW/NZ relationship factored into later discussions around federation?
I do think the discussion around cession from 11:20 onwards is a bit confused though: the point of the "bizarre" acknowledgement that Australian land was never ceded is really to question and deny the moral and ethical (more so than legal) legitimacy of sovereignty over Australian territory which is derived from conquest or settlement rather than cession, and to assert that cession would have been the only morally-legitimate way for the Crown to assume sovereignty over Australia, rather than to merely state that something which didn't happen didn't happen.
Thanks. I suppose I can't help thinking about these things as a lawyer - given they are legal concepts. In any case, there were also morally dubious aspects to cession too. But one cannot undo the past or pretend it never happened.