The Republic Debate
Mike Moore writes in the Herald today on why NZ should become a republic, and the wider issue of having a constitution. He refers to the recent changes to the electoral laws, without bipartisan support, as an example of the status quo which he labels:
The present direction is visionless, dangerously ad hoc, short-term, and confusing. Democracy is about who runs the country. A constitution is about the limits of Government.
Constitutional change ought not to be rushed or hurried, and should only be entered into after deliberate, detailed and sober consideration, consultation and reflection.
Constitutional changes, which would inevitably include a move to a republic, would set some limits on Parliament and Government. I am all in favour of that. Under the status quo the PM effectively appoints the Head of State (GG) unilaterally, and can sack the Head of State whenever they feel like it.
Moore concludes by saying:
New Zealand’s system is not in a desperate state of disrepute or disrepair – it’s not broken. But it could be further damaged by incremental changes.
This will be very difficult to navigate and avoid capture by entrenched interests. But we can, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “still appeal to the better angels of our nature”.
Alas, without a formal process, we risk becoming a “banana republic” – without the bananas.
Now John Armstrong says Moore has chosen the wrong time, being election year, for such a debate:
If Mike Moore wants a debate on the wisdom of New Zealand becoming a republic or having a written constitution, he has chosen about the worst possible time to try to ignite one.
While the former Labour leader may cite the ad hoc introduction of new election finance rules as reason enough for a wide-ranging constitutional debate, there will be a distinct lack of enthusiasm on the part of most politicians to trample in what amounts to a political “no-go” area in election year.
However the NZ Herald editorial is more supportive:
Ten years ago, there appeared no particular yearning for change. Jim Bolger, the only politician of significance to have spoken in favour of a republic, probably did the cause no good by trying to force his own personal preferences on a country that showed little inclination to believe its time had come. It remains to be seen if Mr Moore’s concern, and warning of the danger of further seemingly modest incremental change, resonate sufficiently to encourage a change of heart.
Until now, New Zealanders have been content to allow matters to evolve in a manner far more natural than one embracing constitutional conventions and the like. If Mr Moore’s initiative gains traction, it will suggest an interest in more vision-based politics. It will also confirm that people sense, currently, the bigger picture is being overlooked. Either way, Mr Moore should be commended for raising this issue, especially in an election year. He is also right to note the importance of a planned approach. The process is, as he says, almost as important as the result.
The process is incredibly important. Nothing would be worse than people feeling they are cut of the debate, and that the “elite” are dictating as to what should happen.
The dangers of parliamentary supremacy are not insignificant. The power of constitutional conventions have been shown to be near meaningless to a Government bent on “utu”. Muldoon in 1984 first showed us how fragile they were. It was only the honour of people like Jim McLay which stopped that from becoming a crisis. And we won’t always be so lucky.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
No to a republic and I suspect if a referendum was held this would be the majority view. After the escapades of the past nine years do the citizens really want a Clark type President who can change the rules even more than they have done to benefit themselves.
I suspect that most citizens dont have a detailed understanding of the difference between a constitutional monarchy and a republic and their preception of the current position is different to the reality.
There would need to be a unbiased education programme to start with and I dont see that happening with the Socialist s.Hell even writing this I would probably be liable for 10 years inside under any laws they would pass.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
DPF. While i don’t have a particular preference either one way or the other on this issue, i would tend to agree with John Armstrong is correct in that an election year is the right time to debate this issue.
I do agree that the issue should be debated and probably a referendem held. If polititions of all persuasions are frightened to speak out for a Republic, then i’m not sure they should be representing us at all.
In the end with this issue, the public should decide.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
One could either bar any current or former MP from becoming President, if you don’t want a Clark type President, or you could require a 75% majority in Parliament to elect the President, which would ensure it is not a partisan figure, but someone widely acceptable.
Te current Head of State is so weak, with almost no powers, that the PM is almost already a President.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The real question is, what sort of powers would the head of state have? Would they be an executive President like the USA’s, a ceremonial President like Germany’s, or somewhere in between, like Poland or France’s?
January 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I’d put reasonable odds on the current state of political opinion leading to a constitution I’d reckon inferior to the status quo. How many feel-good positive rights would get entrenched?
It’s probably a better time than most: to the extent that these things are influenced by transient trends in public opinion, one might wish to do it when folks have had a guts-full of a nanny government. I’d still put good odds on the whole thing turning out to be cause for regret though.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Is it broke?
It ain’t?
Well, then…
January 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
No to both ideas I’m afraid. We have a very stable democracy based on institutions inherited from Great Britain that have served us well. We do not have to concern ourselves about whether there will be an election this year or whether one group will try and take over by force of arms. Long years of precedent and stable rule have given us a very stable parliamentary system.
We would do well not to unduly tinker with it. I can just imagine the type of abomination of a constitution we would receive from the hands of Helen Clark and company. It would be profoundly secular and left wing — full of the latest faddish notions of “rights” for all those oppressed minority groups etc etc.
Our current system may have its faults — but at least at some level there is the notion of a power higher than the state, institutions that transcend our latest fads and reverence for the past while providing stable ground for the future.
I believe we should retain the monarchy and be very sceptical about politicians and ex-politicians who want to introduce to New Zealand a constitution.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Look at all the old commonwealth countries that have moved away from the Westminster system, Pakistan, Fiji, Kenya, South Africa, Burma, Ceylon and Nigeria.
How many of them have a stable government? They all have Presidents and constitutions, but it hasn’t done them much good.
The current system is fine, sure there have been some bad decisions made by the government, but they can always be dealt with by the democratic parliamentary system come next election. If the previous examples of ex-westminster countries they have a coup instead.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
OK, so we might not want get rid of Queenie as the HOS and declare the Republic of Clarkistan, although I suspect her indoors would think that the ultimate – Prez for life.
Like daedalus_x asks pro Prez, I think we should ask what powers should be given to the current mob? IMHO, certainly not powers in the style of the self serving EFA. Or pandering to a minority who were colonised 150 years ago and never saw it coming. MMP is not a sustainable long term way to run any business, especially NZ Inc.
Other ideas?
January 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
We need a head of state that can sack the Prime Minister, not the other way around. We need provision for impeachment of MP’s of failing to carry out their oath of office. This might protect us from these power crazy socialist misfits with a leader who has no respect for justice or law.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
It would be great to have a constitutional convention, but it isn’t going to happen just because Mike Moore wants it. Either of them.
I don’t think any party has the guts required to embrace the idea.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I think Moore is spot on in some respects.
His point about the distinction between constitution and democracy is valid and misunderstood. We can have both. We currently have a constitution, albeit a loose one. It can be strengthened in a couple of ways: I am in favour of entrenching rights, the ones that currently exist in the NZBORA & I am also in favour of adding the Treaty of W to it in a better way than it is now. There is no need to add, as one writer said, some ‘faddish’ rights that protect minorities as the current rights in the NZBORA are sufficient for everyone but just aren’t enforceable when pinch comes to crunch.
They need to be enforceable, viz a viz the government, so that state power does not grow. And we only need to look at the Electoral Finance Act shambles and the related parliamentary appropriation bills to see how it has!
January 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
KevoOB. You have a current Head of State who could sack the PM.
Was done in Australia and caused major constanation.
get over yourself about the rest of your bitching it’s not going to happen, probably still wouldn’t happen even if we where a Republic.
So stop bitching and wait till the next election and you might get your wish.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Right on KevOB The tails being wagging the dog for too bloody long now We need to put these pollie arseholes in their place .They are our servants and we are their masters and its time they woke up to that.
God can you just imagine them if we had a republic Sickening to even think about it.
Oh and by the way Just as the Maori have a perfect right to have their ancestory and heritage recognised so bloody well do I.
And my heritage and ancestory traces back to 13th century England.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
As PM of NZ alludes to, the biggest problem facing NZ is MMP. It’s entrenched a class of lickspittle MPs who not only do nothing positive (at great expense to the taxpayer) but are available as compliant “yes” votes to anything their leader demands since their sinecures are entirely dependent upon the leader’s whim and not the voters’ choice.
Overlaying a republic over top of a dysfunctional system will, at best, impose a layer of government which might be able to put a brake on the worst excesses of government.
More effective – and more urgent – is to revisit the question of which system which will prevent those excesses occurring to begin with.
I’m disappointed Mike Moore has opted to raise the issue of a republic at a time when the population is waking up to just how much unfettered power a government has in NZ. It risks deflecting attention from the urgent need for electoral and Parliamentary reform, which are necessary precursors to (or at very last components of) the development of a republic, if that’s what the majority want.
Though I’m with gd – I don’t think there’s enough depth of understanding, and far too great a distrust of anything political, for a republic to meet with widespread approval.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“More effective – and more urgent – is to revisit the question of which system which will prevent those excesses occurring to begin with.
It risks deflecting attention from the urgent need for electoral and Parliamentary reform, which are necessary precursors to (or at very last components of) the development of a republic, if that’s what the majority want.”
Rex – totally concur. That is much needed also. It can happen at the same time.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
No bloody republic and no bloody President, I agree with those who say that it it aint broke so why do we need to fix it.
The other issue is to do with our Heritage, my ancestry is British and I will resist any attempt to distance myself from my ancestors….. or does that not matter for us honkeys?
January 15th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Ben Wilson: Who says it has to be a political party that establishes a Constitutional Convention? That’s like asking a bunch of prison inmates to organise a conference on tougher sentencing.
Citizens could hold the Convention. The options that arose from the Convention could be put to a referendum (via electronic means, and thus at minimal cost).
The existing parties could then be challenged to take up the results. If none did (and I’m pretty sure none would, if the people truly expressed their wish through the foregoing process) then it’d be time to form a party committed to implement the referendum.
That’s the rough basis of an idea… I’m sure it can be improved upon by others.
But the point is, we can’t rely on anyone in Parliament – or trying to get into Parliament via the old parties – to do this. The only way it’ll happen is if we take matters into our own hands and do it ourselves.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
As PM of NZ alludes to, the biggest problem facing NZ is MMP. It’s entrenched a class of lickspittle MPs who not only do nothing positive (at great expense to the taxpayer) but are available as compliant “yes” votes to anything their leader demands since their sinecures are entirely dependent upon the leader’s whim and not the voters’ choice.
Thank Christ that half of the list MPs – that is the National and ACT ones – don’t fit into this category. Although that is only because of their personal integrity.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I thought the right was favour of having little obstacle to major reform. The misnomer “Campaign for Better Government” group opposed MMP partially because it felt that quote “necessary reforms to the economic sphere would unable to be continued in a more fractious parliamentary environment”.
The move to MMP has promoted greater long-term certainty in the political and economic environments for businesses and investors, and while it is often argued as moot, an re-established Upper House (more akin to the Australian Senate) elected under a separate system or time-frame could in fact enhance this stability.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
DPF: “Constitutional changes, which would inevitably include a move to a republic…”
Nothing inevitable about it, luckily.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“The present direction is visionless, dangerously ad hoc, short-term, and confusing. Democracy is about who runs the country. A constitution is about the limits of Government.”
Have to agree with these comments from Moore. This country does not know what it wants and is being polarised by current leaders with barrows to push.
If we are to become a republic the Replublic of Australasia could get traction?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Policy Parrot Says:
It sure has.
We can be certain that the craven and ambitious list MPs in every party will do exactly as they’re told in order to maintain their list ranking.
We can be certain that this, coupled with the coalition agreements with both National and Labour rushed to form at any price yet which are against the spirit and intent of the electoral reform process which brought us MMP, means the ruling party can still force through any measure it likes, no matter how unpopular or contentious it is.
And we can be certain that, unless there is external pressure for change, there won’t be any.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Of course the best idea of all would to become a state of Australia.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Just do what the Czech Republic and some other newly-free nations have done: start with the U.S. Constitution and conduct debates on what to alter.
Don’t let Helen Clark or Margaret Wilson and their cronies draw one up.
I’d trust Mike Moore to be on the “Constitution drawing” team as the Labour Representative. It would be good to get Richard Prebble in there too.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Policy Parrot- an upper house would be a bad idea. The last upper house we had was gotten rid of by a Labour govt. In fact the Upper house dissolved itself. It had become a dumping ground for elderly party hacks drawing a salary and expense accounts from the taxpayer while actually doing nothing very much.
You also stated MMP “… has promoted greater long-term certainty in the political and economic environments for businesses and investors..”
Really? I would say it has crippled most govts and lead to increased instability, party hopping and hocking off policies and cabinet positions in backroom deals beyond the public view. But when was it ever not thus I suppose?
We do NEED a constitution of some sort protecting private property rights and free speech. Actions of this currnet govt over the last 8 years show that.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“I’d trust Mike Moore to be on the “Constitution drawing” team as the Labour Representative.”
Hahaha… (comedy dose of the day)
January 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Our constitutional relationship with Britain is so benign and so lacking any sort of controversy it hardly matters. That is why people here don’t care much whether the British monarchy is our head of state or not. Unless there is any practical or constitutional problem I would rather leave it as it is. I am rather proud to have Britain in my background considering what Britain has given to the world such as democracy and law.
It seems the holiday season with it’s lack of news is a good time to raise the issue again.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Can you just imagine what the political party that gave us the EFA would serve up as Constitution.
Article 1. The Labour Party of New Zealand is the only legally constituted party of Government.
Article 2. The leader of the Labour Party will be the President of whatever name he or she decides to call the country.
Article 3. The President and the Ruling Council will be the only authority entitled to set or amended any laws and shall do so from time to time as they decide.
Article 4. Any citizen who shows dissent to any of these Articles will be shot along woth their families and anyone associated with them.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Richard Hurst
So a Labour party got rid of them then took their place…. OK we have a pseudo upper house, we need a real govt.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“The argument that other republics “Look at all the old commonwealth countries that have moved away from the Westminster system, Pakistan, Fiji, Kenya, South Africa, Burma, Ceylon and Nigeria.
How many of them have a stable government? They all have Presidents and constitutions, but it hasn’t done them much good.”
This is a common argument, but it seems unlikely for these factors to be correlated. Rather it seems that instability in these countries would occur in spite of their status as a result of other underlying problems in them. New Zealand, despite the paranoia of some overly partisan posters, remains a stable first world democracy. Becoming a republic, barring an exceptionally unlikely (given it would need to be popularly elected) enormous degree of power bestowed upon the Presidency, this is unlikely to change.
Nonetheless as a republic would not result in any significant change, it is unlikely to gain support among a majority of the public because with only minor improvements the status quo will typically be preferable. Upon the Queen’s death I believe republicanism will be easier to sell, given that a number of softer monarchists are that way as a result of affinity to the respected long reigning monarch we currently have.
Finally, it is likely that so long as a New Zealand Republic did not have any early mishaps, support for reverting back to the monarchy would drop to near zero levels within a few years (“independence movements” such as becoming a Republic are much more common than the other way around). Whereas for as long as New Zealand remains a constitutional monarchy, there is likely to be significant support for a Republic.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“The last upper house we had was gotten rid of by a Labour govt….”
BZZTT!
Wrong. The first National govt dissolved it in the early 1950s. Set up a Royal Commission to recommend a replacement and the commission came back and recommended another upper house – from memory an elected senate.
PM Sid Holland was asked what he would do with the Royal Commission’s recommendations and he said he was going to take them to his holiday bach and hang them on a hook in the outhouse…
January 15th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Sid Holland was evidently a visionary, because nowadays our government dont even get to the Royal Commission stage.
Royal Commissions are still a good idea.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Dang, I could have sworn it was Labour, but yeah your right it was Sid and co at the end of 1950. I’ll fire my fact checker,….oh wait that’s me.
The Upper Houses( Legislative Council) main function was to scrutinize and amend bills which had been passed by the House of Representatives. It couldn’t initiate its own bills and couldn’t amend anything to do with finance and expenditure. Roughly the basic UK model in other words.
The main problems with the former house Legislative Council were
1. That membership of the Legislative Council was by appointment rather than election.
2. Its members were first appointed for life which meant a new govt faced a hostile upper house stacked with anti-govt members. This was changed to 7 year membership in 1891, but still left this problem.
3. The Legislative Council was generally less representative of the New Zealand public than was the House of Representatives. Women were barred from membership of the house until 1941, although its always had Maori representation since 1872, by convention.
4. In its final years the Council rarely bothered to criticize bills sent to it by the House and as I said was full of elderly old knee knockers and many people barely knew it still existed. Hardly anyone turned up to watch itself vote itself out of existence.
Jim Boldger in 1990 threw round the idea of creating an elected Senate as an alternative to electoral reform but it went no where.
NZ really doesn’t need a new elected or appointed costly upper house which would simply repeat the party politics battles in the House of Representatives. The larger size of parliament, MMP, NZ’s small size, unitary as opposed to Federal system and select committee system all mean we don’t need an upper house…but this isn’t enough considering Labours actions like attempted forced public access and the EFA so we do need some protection via a constitution. Cheaper than an Upper house too.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
MPs don’t serve at the whim of their party leaders. They serve at the whim of the voters – so long as the voters keep voting for them then they will continue to have seats to dole out to their MPs, and therefore continue to have power.
I don’t think we can blame our electoral system for the fact that a large number of our fellow citizens elect parties like NZF to parliament. Those fellow citizens seem to actually agree what Winston has to offer – no idea why, but hard to deny their democratic right to be heard.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Rex
I give up. Who?
Letting Mike Moore try to make the news is another reason to stop reading the Herald. But I did like the irony of Moore saying “The present direction is visionless, dangerously ad hoc, short-term, and confusing.”. Reminds me of when he was PM. If only he’d had all his brilliant ideas then, maybe he could have done something about them, instead of rolling the guy who actually gave us a Bill of Rights, just to get ‘Former PM of NZ’ onto his CV.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Excellent: I see a new duplicate comment detection feature. I like that.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
A written constitution would also be transferring power from Parliament to the courts – not something I see politicians keen on doing. There was a convention back in 2000, but nothing substantial came of it.
If the republican movement was confident it could get public support for a change to a republic, where is the Citizen’s Initiated Referendum? Republicanism is a significant minority in NZ, but still a minority.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
A president is just so much more govenment. Why can’t we just get rid of the queen and not replace her? It would be a good start but that’s the problem with you serfs, you can’t bear the thought of not being ruled by someone.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; the only proper form of government is an absolute monarchy- with me as king.
If I cannot get that, then I’d want a constitution limiting the power of government [however it is composed], rather than a series of ad hoc conventions.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
what mike moore says/thinks..?
about anything..?
(yawn..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Oh – will they never give up and realise what a really good system that we have now.
Maybe we a written constitution, but …..
We have growing violence in society, the world is starting to boil, and they want a bloody republic – as though that will solve anything.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
You would have thought the Republican Party could have managed a press release on this.
http://republicans.org.nz/2008/01/
January 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
NZ needs re-branding. I mean, what are we? A tiny island country populated by immigrants.
What relevance does the Queen have? Little.
What relevance does our flag have? Little.
What relevance does our system of government have? Little.
81% voter turnout last time. Thats almost 2 people out of every 10 that didn’t vote.
And even worse, thats 8 out of 10 people that did vote!!!
Obviously we need a big change.
REVOLUTION 08!
Screw getting a new government, lets make a new country!
January 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Isn’t a Royal Commission on republicanism an oxymoron?
[DPF: Heh heh]
January 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am
We do currently have a system that should work. The problem is that it isn’t used properly.
The Governor General is supposed to be the Queen’s representative, and no legislation can be passed without their consent (on behalf of the Queen). In theory, this means that if the Queen disagrees with any legislation (I bet she would have had some issue with the EFA, assuming it had actually been put in front of her), she can refuse to allow the GG to sign it, or say it will not be signed until there is a public referendum supporting it.
The problem is not that we have the Queen as our head of state, I am sure she would be a perfectly good one, IF she was ever actually consulted.
The problem is that we have a GG who is appointed by the government and is a puppet who signs any bit of paper put in front of them without actually asking for the Queen’s opinion.
With our current system, the GG is the Queen’s representative. Therefore, in theory, they cannot sign anything the Queen disagrees with. Maybe we should stop arguing about who to have as head of state, and actually petition the Queen about dodgy legislation? She can then instruct the GG not to pass it.
I personally haven’t written to the Queen on the EFA or anything else. I doubt anyone has. We probably should use the current system we have to the maximum length we can, before arguing that we need a new system. Maybe if we actually talked to the current head of state the current system would work?
If petitioning the Queen fails, and only then, we could be justified in seeking a new system.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Look….protect my and your rights via a constitution and who gives a fuck about the rest?
Geez are you people so dim you need this spelling out for you….
?