Thank you for publishing my letter (Legal fraternity challenged, Tuesday, 17June).

As that letter was written prior to Minister Elikana’s Matariki FM second interview last Friday, it could not acknowledge that he did indeed venture a little into the core question whether the JCD (2001 Joint Centenary Declaration)was a nullity.

The Minister accepted that the Chief Justice’s judgment in the Friends of Fiji case raised a valid question of invalidity but opined that it could be corrected by amending the Immigration legislation.

Insofar as the Cook Islands’ activities on the world stage were concerned, he said they had the full support of the NZ Government.

He acknowledged that the Cook Islands had no means of defending itself in the event of such a danger arising and would naturally be looking to its NZ partner and not to China for its defence.

He correctly called what I had written just my opinion whereas the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration was product of some highly qualified and well-regarded NZ lawyers, the implication being obvious. How could John Scott challenge such recognised expertise?

None of all he spoke of, however, alters my opinion.

Section 5 of the Constitution Act 1964 (External Affairs and Defence) and Article 2 of the Constitution itself (Head of State) are entrenched (protected) provisions. That means they cannot be repealed, modified, amended, extended nor any provision made inconsistent with them unless first supported in Parliament by a two-thirds majority and submitted to a poll of all voters and receiving two-thirds support there as well. In other words, a referendum.

None of that has happened Mr Editor, and nothing the Minister has said comes close to suggesting there has been any compliance so you will understand why this issue needs more commentary and public engagement.

The very fact of entrenchment is to bring home to Government the realisation there are certain provisions of the Constitution which are not theirs to play with. They are our self-governing status; External Affairs and Defence; British Nationality and NZ citizenship; The Head of State. 

Any reinterpretation of the wording and/or meaning of these, or their administration, needs to be judged against Article 41 of the Constitution which sets the boundaries and limitations on the political adventurism we have seen in recent times.

A High Court application and relevant declaration, or such other appropriate action, is, therefore, what the situation now requires.

John M Scott.