{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang5129\deflangfe5129{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f58\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f59\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f61\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f62\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f63\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f64\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f65\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f66\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe5129\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp5129 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid595168\rsid606785\rsid880142\rsid1007185\rsid1906414\rsid3484087
\rsid3551636\rsid6186825\rsid6507568\rsid9070032\rsid9267640\rsid9708111\rsid9852490\rsid9970627\rsid9983400\rsid10240440\rsid12677475\rsid13260349\rsid13664108\rsid14172629\rsid15152353\rsid15481309\rsid15888998\rsid16338040}
{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.4219;}{\info{\author Emalus Campus}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2002\mo6\dy24\hr14\min55}{\revtim\yr2003\mo10\dy27\hr10\min33}{\version18}{\edmins90}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2762}{\nofchars15747}{\*\company USP}
{\nofcharsws18473}{\vern16469}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot9708111 \fet0\sectd \linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}
{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain 
\qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 \fs20\lang1033\langfe5129\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp5129 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 [1985] LRC (Const) 1149
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 IN THE COURT OF }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9070032 APPEAL OF }{
\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 COOK ISLANDS
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid606785 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 HENRY
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid606785 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid13664108 v}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid606785 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 ATTORNEY-GENERAL}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9070032 Court of Appeal:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Richardson, Coates and Dillon, JJ.
\par 11th, 12th March and 19th April, 1983 (Rarotonga)
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15152353 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 (1) Constitutional law}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid6186825  - }
{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Legislation amending the Constitution inaccurately identifying the source of the Constitution}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid6186825  - }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Validity of the Constitut}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9070032 ional Amendment (No. 9) Act 1980-81.}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid606785 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid606785 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15152353 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 (2) Constitutional law}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid6186825  - }
{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Entrenched provisions}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid6186825  - }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Constitut}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9070032 ional Amendment (No. 9) Act 1980-}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 81 changing the title of the Chief Minister of the Cook Islands from Premier to Prime Minister}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid6186825  - }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 No requirement}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 of compliance with the special procedure established for a change in the entrenched provisions of the Constitution.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 In 1964 the government of New 
Zealand exercising its sovereign power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Cook Islands enacted the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964: the Act provided (}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid9070032 
inter alia}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 )
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid14172629 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 "4. The Constitution set out in the Schedule to this Act shall b
e the Constitution of the Cook Islands, and shall be the supreme law of the Cook Islands}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15152353 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid14172629 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 5. Nothing in this A}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9070032 
ct or in the Constitution shall}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands, those responsi}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9070032 bilities to be discharged after c}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 onsultation by the Prime Minister of New Zealand with the Premier of the Cook Islands."
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 By virtue of Article 41 of the Constitution the passage of a law inconsistent with or amending the Constitution required (}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid9070032 inter alia}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 ) two special affirmative votes of not less than two}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825  - }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 thirds of the total membership of the Legislative Assembly: in additi
on, any law amending or modifying sections 2 to 6 of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 had also to be submitted to a poll of electors in the Cook Islands and be supported by not less than two}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825  - }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 thirds of the votes cast.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
In 1965, before the commencement of the 1964 Act, the New Zealand Parliament enacted the Cook Islands Constitution Amendment Act, which made a small number of changes to the Constitution as set out previously in the first schedule to the 1964 Act: the Con
stitution, thus amended, was set out in the second schedule to the 1965 Act.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Prior to 1980 the Legislative Assembly of the Cook Islands had passed eight pieces of legislation amending the Constitution, all of which had referred to the Constitution as set o
ut in the second schedule to the 1965 Act. However, the Constitution Amendment (No. 9) Act 1980}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825  - }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
81 mistakenly identified the Constitution as set out in the second schedule of the 1964 Act.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 The plaintiff, a member of the Legislative Assembly, commenced p
roceedings by way of an originating application, alleging that in view of the fundamental importance of the Constitution as the supreme law of the Cook Islands it was necessary for any amending legislation to refer to and identify a permitted source of th
at Constitution free from any error, uncertainty or ambiguity: thus}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
the failure to identify correctly the source of the Constitution rendered the amending legislation invalid.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Further, the Constitution Amendment (No. 9) Act 1980}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1906414 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
81 purported to substitute 
the words "Prime Minister" for all previous references to the office of "Premier" (sections 2(6), 3 and 18(2) of the amending legislation). It was the plaintiff's contention that the change in the title of the chief minister of the Cook Islands amounted t
o
 an amendment of constitutionally entrenched provisions: for although the responsibilities of the chief minister had in no way been altered that change of nomenclature would require the reference to the Premier in section 5 of the Cook Islands Constitutio
n Act 1964 (}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1906414 supra}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
) to be read as the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands; the special procedure laid down in the Constitution (Article 41) had not been followed, thus it was submitted that the amendment was unconstitutional and void.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 The proceedings were or
iginally commenced in the High Court of the Cook Islands, however, because of the absence from the Cook Islands of the Judges of the High Court, the plaintiff applied to have the proceedings transferred to New Zealand. That application was refused by the 
C
hief Justice, who was at the time in Fiji, on account of the public interest in having constitutional matters heard in the Cook Islands. Subsequently, but before any determination by the High Court, the case was removed into the Court of Appeal of the Coo
k Islands pursuant to section 53 of the Judicature Amendment }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 Act 1980}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1906414 -}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 81.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid9267640 HELD}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 : Application dismissed.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9267640 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
(1) The manifest intention of the legislature when enacting the Constitution Amendment (No. 9) Act 1980}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
81 was to amend the one and only Constitution of the Cook Islands: section }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 1 of that Act has sufficiently }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
identified, although not with complete accuracy, the source of the Constitution, leaving no doubt as to the subject}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
matter and application of the amending legislation. (See p.xxx }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1906414 post}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 )
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15152353 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9267640 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 (2) A mere c
hange of nomenclature cannot, by itself, be considered as falling within the ambit of Article 41. A change in a purely descriptive title arising from a valid exercise of the power to amend the Constitution takes effect without compliance with the procedur
al requirements of Article 41}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1906414  which}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  would be necessary had a substantive alteration to the Constitution been made. (See p.1153 }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1906414 post}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 )
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid15481309 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid15481309 Cases referred to in judgment:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid15481309 Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  [1980] AC 319, [1979] 2 WLR 889, [1979]}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 3 All ER 21
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid15481309 Pillai v Mudanayake}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  [1953] AC 514, [1955]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15152353  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 2 All ER 833
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid15481309 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid15481309 Legislation referred to in judgment:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Constitution of the Cook Islands, Articles 2, 41(2)
\par Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 (New Zealand), sections 1(1), 2}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 6, 2nd Schedule
\par Cook Islands Constitution Amendment Act 1965 (New Zealand}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 ), sections 1, 2, 18(2), 1}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 st and 2nd Schedule
\par Constitution Amendment }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15152353 (No. 11) Act 1982, section 2(1)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15888998 
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid15888998 Application
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 The plaintiff commenced proceedings by way of an originating application under the D
eclaratory Judgments Act 1908, a New Zealand statute extended to the Cook Islands by the New Zealand Laws Act 1979, seeking a ruling as to the validity of the Constitution Amendment (No. 9) Act 1980}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 -}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 81. Those proceedings were removed into the Court of Appeal of the Cook Islands pursuant to section 53 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1980}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 81.
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid10240440 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid10240440 G. P. Barton }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1906414 for}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  the plaintiff.
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid10240440 V. A. K. T. Ingram, A.}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825\charrsid10240440 -}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1906414 G., M. C. Michell, S.-G}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid10240440 ., P. B. Temm, Q. C., }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1906414 and }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid10240440 A. Manarangi}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  for the defendant.
\par 
\par 19th April, 1983}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15152353\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 In the course of delivering the j}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15152353 udgment of the Court of Appeal,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10240440 
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid10240440 DILLON, J.,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  said:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10240440\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Section 2(1) of the 1964 Act defined "The Constitution" to mean "the Constitution of the Cook Islands, as set ou}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15152353 
t in the Schedule to this Act."}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid10240440 
\par 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 The following year, and before the commencement of the 1964 Act, the New Zealand Parliament enacted the Cook Islands Constitution Amendment Act 1965. Section 1 provid}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 ed for the Amendment Act to be}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  read together with and deemed part of the 1964 Act. Section 2(1) made a small number 
of limited changes to the Constitution as set out in the Schedule to the 1964 Act. These amendments were contained in a First Schedule. Section 2(3) went on to provide:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9983400 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400\charrsid6186825 "The Constitution of the Cook Islands (as so amended) is set out in the Second Schedule to this Act."

\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9983400 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400\charrsid6186825 The first eight amendments to the Constitution had referred to t
he Constitution as described in the 1965 Amendment Act. When the Legislative Assembly enacted the No. 9 Amendment a different formula was employed. Section 1(1) of the No. 9 Amendment reads:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9983400 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400\charrsid6186825 "This Act ... shall be read together with and deemed part of the
 Constitution of the Cook Islands as set out in the Second Schedule to the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 of the Parliament of New Zealand, as amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution)."}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15152353 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 To the extent that it speaks of a "Second"}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 
 Schedule to the 1964 Act that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
 description does not match precisely the definition of the Constitution in section 1(1) of the 1964 Act. It was the 1965 Amendment which set out the Constitution in a Second Schedule 
to the 1965 Act. Clearly the description of the Constitution in section 1(1) of the No. 9 Amendment does not correspond precisely with the definition in the 1964 Act. Nor does it refer in specific terms to the Constitution as being }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 set out in the second schedule}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
 to the 1965 Act. That misdescription was obviously brought to the attention of the Legislature for in section 2(1) of the Constitution Amendment (No. 11) Act 1982, assented to on 24th August 1982, it was provided:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9983400 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400\charrsid6186825 "Section 1(1) of the Constitution Amendment (No. 9) Act 1980}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400 -}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400\charrsid6186825 
81 is hereby amended as from its commencement by omitting the words 'Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964', and substituting the words 'Cook Islands Constitution Amendment Act 1965'."
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9983400 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9983400\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Against that legislative background Dr. Barton
 for the plaintiff submitted that the No. 9 Amendment had failed to identify a permitted source of the text of the Constitution. It had failed to hit the mark and was wholly ineffective. He accepted that with the omission of "second" the reference to the 
1964 Act would have been perfectly accurate and that a}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
reference to the second schedule of the Constitution Amendment Act 1965 would have been a proper alternative. His argument was that in view of the fundamental importance of the Constitution as the supre
me law of the Cook Islands it was of paramount importance that any reference to it in subsequent legislation should be completely free from error, uncertainty and ambiguity.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 While a reference to an enactment may con}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490 tain an error, nevertheless at}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  the same 
time when considered fairly it may be free from uncertainty and ambiguity. In such a case the error does not in itself render the enactment totally ineffective. To hold otherwise would frustrate the clear intention of the legislature to amend an instrumen
t
 which it had identified sufficiently (although not entirely accurately) as to leave no doubt as to the subject matter of the legislation. In this case the reference is to the Constitution of the Cook Islands. There is no room for uncertainty or ambiguity
.
 In that regard there are three considerations that are of particular importance. The first is that the Cook Islands has only one constitution. The text of the Constitution as set out in the schedule to the 1964 Act is necessarily identical with the text 
of the Constitution as set out in the second schedule}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 to the 1965 Amendment Act. And those two}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490  Acts are required to be read }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
together (section 1 of the 1965 Act). The second is that the No. 9 Amendment is described in the long title as "an Act to amend the Constitution". As evident from the short title it was the ninth amendment}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
to the Constitution. The third is that any analysis of the provisions of the No. 9 Amendment with its constant references to particular provisions of the Constitution demonstrates that the No. 9 Amendment w}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490 as truly}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
 directed to the constitutional instrument set out in the schedule to the 1964 Act and in the second schedule to the 1965 Act. There can be no doubt as}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid15152353  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 to the intention of the Legislature to amend the Constitution of the Cook
 Islands and, notwithstanding the trifling error in the reference in section 1(1) to the source of the text of the Constitution, no one reading the No. 9 Amendment could be in any doubt as to the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490 
subject matter and application}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  of that legislation.
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1007185 DILLON, J.,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  later stated:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
The argument for the plaintiff on this branch of the case is that in order to be valid the change of title from Premier to Prime Minister in the various provisions of the Constitution itself shou}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490 
ld have been accompanied by an}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  amendment 
of section 5 of the 1964 Act which uses the term "Premier of the Cook Islands"; and that that cannot be regarded as achieved by necessary implication because the special procedure provided in Article 41(2) for amending the entrenched provisions of the 196
4 Act was not followed in this case.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Dr. Barton submitted that the chang}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490 e in title of the head of the }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Government of the Cook Islands from Premier to Prime Minister was intended to reflect the attainment of a new stage in the evolution of the Cook Islands t
owards complete autonomy. However, the change was not accompanied by any change in the powers or responsibilities attaching to the office. The Chief Minister who was previously designated as Premier simply became the Prime Minister. The respective roles a
nd powers of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825  - }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 the three branches of }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 government under the Constitution}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825  - }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
were not affected in any way by the change. And the respective roles and powers of the Government of New Zealand as the former colonial power with the continuing responsibilities}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
referred to in section 5 of the 1964 Act on the one hand and the Cook Islands Government on the other remain unaffected by the change in title. This was all freely accepted by the plaintiff.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490 
 It was common ground too that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  the Legislature was empowered to change the Constitution in that way.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Dr. Barton's argument was that, given all that, the change of title in the Constitution itself n
ecessarily required the reference to Premier in section 5 to be read thereafter as Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and that, in his submission, involved amending that entrenched provision. He did not contend, and we think rightly so, that it was intend
e
d by the conjunction of Prime Minister of New Zealand and Premier of the Cook Islands in section 5 to create a fundamental inequality between the two heads of government which could only be redressed by the invocation in the Cook Islands of the special ma
c
hinery of Article 41(2). There can be no doubt that the two heads of government consult as equals and in that regard no other implication should be drawn from the different titles attaching to the chief ministers of the two countries when the Constitution
 came into force in 1965. His submission was simply that any change in title in the Constitution involved a like change in section 5.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Mr. Temm, who argued this bran}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 ch of the case for the Attorney}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6186825 
-}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 General, freely acknowledged the importance of nomenclature 
and titles in affecting the image of an office and the holder of the office in the eyes of the public both within and outside the country. But, he submitted, to have regard to the change in title in the Constitution when reading section 5 was not the kind
 of substantive alteration to section 5 that could fairly be regarded as an amendment, modification or extension of that section within the meaning of those words in Article 41(2).
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 For the reasons we can give quite shortl}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490 y we are unable to accept the }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 plain
tiff's argument on this issue. It is convenient to consider the underlying question in several steps. The first concerns the power under the Constitution to designate a different title for the post. As to that, there can be no doubt that the Cook Islands 
had the power to change the title of the head of its government from Premier to Prime Minister; and to do so without any reference to New Zealand. It was for the Cook Islands}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9852490  and the }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Cook Islands alone to assess the symbolic significance of the title and to make that decision.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
The second step concerns the interpretation of Article 41(2). Its machinery is called into operation only where, adopting the generous interpretation of the Constitution counselled by Lord Wilberforce in }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid9852490 Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  [1980}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid595168 ]}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  AC 319 it can fairly be said that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
what is involved is truly an amendment modification or extension of section 5. In the ordinary course a change of nomenclature alone cannot, we think, be characterised in that way so as to come within the amendm
ent prescription in Article 41(2). To do so would require too legalistic and mechanical an approach to its construction. If the strictly literal approach contended for in this case were taken to its inevitable conclusion it would require a constitutional 
amendment to be passed on the succession of a male Head of State under Article 2 (also entrenched) and under section 5}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 in both of which the specific reference is to Her Majesty the Queen in right a of New Zealand. That could never have been intended. If then a change in}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
a purely descriptive title used in a particular provision arises from a valid exercise of constitutional power in the enactment of a constitutional amendment, the need when reading the particular provision to make that adjustment happens auto
matically and does not require compliance with the procedural }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 requirements of Article 41(2).}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 That is sufficient to dispose of the matter. However, we reach the same conclusion on question 3 if we take a third step and consider quite separately the impact 
of the change in title on section 5 itself. Section 18(2) of the No. 9 Amendment provides:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid595168 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
"Every reference to the Premier of the Cook Islands in any other law in force at the commencement of this Act in any instrument or document of any kind whatsoever i
n force at the commencement of this Act shall, after the commencement of this Act, be read as a reference to the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands."
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15152353 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6186825 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
In so doing it states the obvious. However, the question at this point is whether that process of reference does}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid595168  change section 5. Clearly the}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  substance of the section remains unchanged. The responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand
 for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands are exactly the same after as before the No. 9 Amendment. The process of consultation remains. All that is affected is the label attaching to the Head of Government of the Cook Islands. The terms P
remier and Prime Minister are }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid595168 in common use and on any fair }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
reading they are synonymous for the purposes of section 5. To put it in terms of the language used in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1007185 Pillai v Mudanayake,}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  [1955] AC 514 the pith and substance of section 5, the true character of that provision, is not affected by the change in nomenclature.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 For the reasons given each of the questions is answered in the affirmative. In the result we are not called }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid595168 
on to express any views on two}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825  questions which were canvassed in argument: the consti
tutional significance of the expression "Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand" in relation to the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands u}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid595168 nder section 5 of the 1964 Act; }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 and the severability of invalid provisions in}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825  a}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 
 constitution. As agreed by counsel costs are reserved.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Solic}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid6507568\charrsid6186825 itors for the Plaintiff:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1007185  }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1007185 Short & Tylor (Rarotonga)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1007185 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid6186825 Solicitors for the Defendant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid1007185 : }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe5129\langnp2057\insrsid9970627\charrsid1007185 Crown Law Office (Rarotonga)

\par }}