Herald and ODT disagree on a Republic
I prefer the Herald’s take:
Peter Dunne’s renewed call for New Zealand to have a referendum on becoming a republic was accompanied by a canny observation. “I am tired of politicians who say it is probably inevitable we will become a republic at some stage but who are unwilling to do anything to bring it about – that is extremely weak,” said the United Future leader.
No names were mentioned but Helen Clark is an obvious candidate for Mr Dunne’s list of loafers. So is Kevin Rudd, who has scotched the enthusiasm for an Australian republic voiced at his own Government’s 2020 summit.
So, too, is John Key. Both Prime Ministers have suggested that cutting free the monarchy is not a priority, given the many serious issues facing their countries. More likely, they see no political gain in committing to a process that would deliver this outcome.
Clark and Key are both republicans with a small r. They think it is inevitable and we should end up there, but will do nothing to bring it about. This is very frustrating for those of us who would like to see change earlier.
Any decision will be a matter for the public to vote on, but we deserve a debate and then a decision.
An increasing disconnection during her reign has added to the inherent oddness of this country’s head of state residing on the other side of the globe. New Zealanders have become blas’e about visits by members of the royal family. Buckingham Palace revealed a similar trait with its tardiness in acknowledging the passing of Sir Edmund Hillary.
The misstep was compounded in public perception when no member of the royal family attended the funeral of Sir Edmund, this country’s most eminent citizen and a man whose conquest of Everest provided a triumphant note to the Queen’s own coronation.
If a republic is, indeed, inevitable, why wait until the end of the Queen’s reign? Delay in the implementation of any good idea serves no good purpose. In the case of a republic, it only postpones the benefits implicit in the pursuit of a singular, unambiguous identity.
I’m pragmatic. I’d happily become a republic on 1 January 2010 which we could do by making the GG the Head of State and have him or her appointed by a super-majority (say 75%) of Parliament. But if one can onyl get majority support by having the move to a republic occur on the death of QEII, then I’m willing to wait.
The ODT disagrees:
Calls for New Zealand to become a republic sound again as the noise of the bugles of Anzac commemorations drift into the distance.
The timing is somewhat coincidental. It is also the time of the Queen’s actual birthday, which is why this debate often flares up at this time of year.
Mr Key, like other observers, has noted the inexorable trend towards severing New Zealand’s last ties with Britain and its monarch but does not see any need for change any time soon.
This is the sensible, pragmatic approach, recognising that our current constitutional arrangements work well.
If the system is not broken then it is hazardous to try to “fix” it.
Although New Zealand’s titular head lives in a land far off geographically and increasingly distant in other ways – and hereditary rule is an anachronism – what is wrong with that when such arrangements can and do work?
There is an opportunity cost.
New Zealand’s healthy democracy is built on the Westminster system and its “unwritten constitution”, and constitutional monarchy has adapted to and survived the rigours of time.
We saw with the Electoral Finance Act that a healthy democracy doesn’t trump a parliamentary majority that will pass the Electoral Finance Act, retrospectively amend the Electoral Act and strike out valid lawsuits.
The current constutional arrangements give the PM immense power. The PM can get the GG sacked at whim. The PM effectively unilaterally appoints the GG. Having the effective Head of State appointed by a 75% majority of Parliament would reduce the power of the PM, and that is a good thing.
For a start, the process towards a written constitution, a prerequisite for a republic, is daunting.
Would New Zealand return to an upper and lower house? Would the president be elected at large or appointed? How would the Treaty of Waitangi fit?
Would referendums be required on the place of the treaty which, after all, was between the Crown in Britain and Maori chiefs and, like all treaties, was to solve specific problems in a specific time?
Mostly red herrings. I actually would like to see NZ have a written constution that would make it harder for MPs to take away my freedom of speech. But the move to a republic could be done by a few extra clauses added to the Constitution Act 1986.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:52 am
A lot of words, but what exactly are the benefits of change? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Becoming a republic doesn’t stop the government trampling over freedom of speech. Isn’t the Congo a republic? There are dozens of countries which are republics where citizens live in both poverty and fear.
We should put our energies into public policies to increase our economic performance. See the OECD recent report.
Dunne is an absolute classic – run red herrings all over the place while ignoring the elephant in the room.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:15 am
One of the judgments many of our politicians have made is that they don’t want to be the prime minister who holds a referendum on a republic only to lose. You burn a lot of political capital doing that, and achieve less than nothing – you set the republican movement back. That is what happened in the past in Australia. Calling a referendum on a republic without a vision of what our republic should look like would be just asking for trouble.
If have a few thoughts on it:
1. I’d prefer that, if we are going to do it, that we do it well ahead of QE’s passing. I think it will be very hard to do it at a time of change.
2. We need to work out what role we want our head of state to have before we do this. If they will have no powers, and be pretty much like the GG today, then I’m OK with appointment by parliament.
3. If they will have proper powers – perhaps acting as part of, or entirely as, a check and balance on the parliament (perhaps acting as part of an upper house, or as a one-person upper house), then I want to be able to vote for them.
4. If we’re moving to new arrangements, it is timely to think of a constitution. I realise we don’t have to have one, but it is probably a good way to deal with concerns around the Treaty. And, as you’ve noted before, we need one. The problem is that this is no longer a time when a handful of people can sit around and write on, then have everyone say “that looks like a good idea, let’s have it.” So the American model won’t work. We’ll end up with something stupid and politically correct, like the European one, and in some ways I’d rather not have one than have a stupid one.
Sure, these aren’t insurmountable problems, but someone would need to invest political capital. I don’t think that John Key is that much of a risk taker – at least not in his first term.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:01 am
I, for one, would hate to see us lose our connection with our queen.
There is no benefits to New Zealand in becoming a republic. Most people who are in favour of becoming one, seem to think it’s a right of nationhood passage. To them I say “sod off – you’re suffering from colonial cringe. Be proud of being a New Zealander and be proud of our british heritage too. There’s nothing to be ashamed of”.
The queen and her representitive can dismiss parliment, and refuse to sign into law legislation. We should be making the GG more independant and brave enough to not sign bad law such as the EFA.
anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:05 am
—you’re suffering from colonial cringe
Yes, and quite rightly too.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Sometimes i think ‘Republicans’ (those wanting a republic) are slow learners.
And the big lesson for them would be Australia.
There are two sides to the debate- those who want it and those who dont.
Now those who dont will ALL vote no (for whatever reason)
But among the group who want a republic there are several groups. There are those who want an openly elected president (or maybe we could do an asian approach and have a King or Queen! – changed every 4 years or so), there are those who want the parliament to select him or her, there are those who want the parliament to select a group of candidates who are then chosen by public vote, and there are other options with followers.
Now as we saw in Australia, the “yes” group will only vote for their favourite option – so as a general rule while as little as about 40% of the population think its a silly idea to change, then it will never be successful.
Keep in mind that there are other factors. Things like the influence of President Bush (who will vote Yes with him around as an example of wht we will get. Yes I know its a different system, but thats not how much of the population would see it. And the ‘No’ camp would certainly ask the question at the time). Other factors are things like the Politician factor – as we saw in Ausy, the population do not trust the politicians to be involved in the selection. In fact just the asking of the question by a politician is enough to make many Suspicious (an this applies to Dunnes current comments) .
For the question to be even remotely likely to pass there will need to be a rare combinaton.:
1. A public figure who will stand – someone like a Hillary or a Blake – someone who obviously has some brains, is personable (and has got to where they are because they have been successful in leading people)
2. A prime minister who is respected and has the political courage to take the risk.
3. A parliament that will stay out of the process.
Now – the possibility of these 3 coming together all at once is almost so small as to be incalculable. The last prime minister who may have been able to do it was probably Marshall – but who would have been around to take the job if voted. I dont think Key will be able to do it (unless he still has the public image that he has now in his second term – then its on – but he will need an acceptable person to stand – and who will that be?
So I conclude that Dunne is actually a closet royalist – his current outburst is nothing more than an attempt to bury the issue for another 5 or 10 years. Because nothing will happen, and as a result any raising of the issue in the next decade will bring the response “Well it was raised in 2009 and there was no public interest”
April 30th, 2009 at 8:17 am
OTOH, a lot of Americans I’ve encountered over the years are slightly envious of an arrangement where the head-of-state lives 20,000km away, and basically leaves us alone.
And constitutional monarchies have been by and large, pretty stable countries.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:21 am
It’s not obviously broken. New Zealand has bigger problems to fix, like paying our way in the world.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:21 am
wot- republic? – and remove any chance of a royal commission
(who may recommend a super country)
April 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am
If we did have a vote or referendum on becoming a republic what percentage would be required to change?, 50%, 75%…..?
And what about the issue of cultural heritage?, most Kiwi’s would never dream of telling Maori that their heritage is not important or that by referendum we will do away with their heritage so what the fuck gives those who want a republic the right to take away mine?
April 30th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Barry, please clarify … in what way is Australia (not a republic, and in pretty much the same situation as we are) a”big lesson” in this context?
April 30th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Got nothing particularly in favour of the monarchy but when you look at the rogues gallery of lefties, loonies, professional moaners and PC nutters that are against it, I feel I ought to be for it. Call it the “Minto test”.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
The Herald should just shut up and be thanking their lucky stars we don’t become a Republic like the old days as they would be hanging from the end of a hemp rope by now.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
No, DPF. Far too complex for a bunch of yes or no answers. What would people be voting on? Would they be voting on whether to ditch the monarch, or voting on the written constitution, or the powers of the president, or the method of appointing/electing the president, any veto that might be introduced, or power to refer things to a referendum etc. etc.
Surely you agree it would be much better to have a couple of rounds of consultation, and then just leave the matter up the the government and Parliament of the day?
April 30th, 2009 at 9:14 am
‘Have been’? Or ‘are’?
There’s a couple of hundred years of history that would disagree with that suggestion.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Rather than upset the royal gala apple cart too much I will say that this country badly needs a written constitution.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I propose a modern republic, with the automatic right of ascension to the Presidential Position given to the most political daughter of a former
Governor General.
She alone should determine the process of succession, and would have TOTAL power of veto over everything that Parliament tries to legislate.
It will work a treat.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:36 am
BHarmer – you ask:
Barry, please clarify … in what way is Australia (not a republic, and in pretty much the same situation as we are) a”big lesson” in this context?
Beacuse Ausy had a vote or referendum on becoming a republic some years ago (1999 ) and it got defeated because the options mostly had parliament involved in the selection. Whatever the real reason for its defeat, the fact is that despite all the optomism beforehand, the idea got the big boot.
I cant see another Ausy prime minister wanting to raise the subjetc again in any great hurry.
This was the model Ausy used (NO – the politicians were not going to let someone elsecontrol the country !!!)
1. Australians will be able to nominate candidates for President;
2. A committee will refine the people’s nominations to a short list which will go to the Prime Minister; and,
3. The Prime Minister will consult with the Leader of the Opposition and the other parties on the most worthy candidate.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I , like many others above, generally approve of the Westminster parliamentary system that we have and have no problems with the Queen as head of state. I think we have inherited a wonderfully stable system that has given us stability and order over the last 150 years or so of New Zealand’s history.
It’s not broke — let’s not fix it.
Also, and like one or two that have already commented, I am worried about the kind of PC system that would inevitably be thrust upon us by the Liberals and radicals that currently are in charge of our country. Who would want a president chosen by Helen Clark for example? To change the system would raise the possibility of the hard left capturing the levers of power even longer than they have done in this country.
I am very wary about the idea of a Constitution as well. It all sounds good — but again does it pass the Helen Clark test? Would you want Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer and the other usual left-wing suspects writing a constitution for New Zealand for the next hundred years?
Even in the United States the left-wing Supreme Court has redefined the Constitution and found rights in there that I am sure the founders would not have remotely considered. The right to abortion, the right to homosexual marriage are but two examples. Whether you agree with their positions or not on those issues, most fair-minded commentators would say they have overreached and overturned the will of the legislators in Congress and the Senate, particularly on the issue of abortion. Given enough time and enough left-wing judges one could imagine they could find the right for Pres Obama to be in power for perpetuity.
However our system in New Zealand works reasonably well. Let’s be positively Conservative and celebrate the excellent Parliamentary system that has been handed down to us.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Have a look at this:
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2009/04/gumping-of-new-zealand.html#comment-form
Mr Trotter is giving a strong indication of what a “progressive lefty” thinks.
I suspect that he would much rather that most of the great unwashed actually shouldnt have the right to vote. He thinks they – well theres no other words for it – are jusy a bit too stupid to understand the details.
Just imagine what this guy would come up with as a ‘President’ – maybe Keith Locke !!
April 30th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I would suggest that New Zealand should stay part of the constitutional monarchy at least until the treaty claims are sorted out. The Treaty, view at as you like, was between the crown and the local tribes so should be sorted out between the crown and the local tribes, before the crown buggers off.
Aside from that, the current arrangement works pretty well. One of the main arguments for a republic is a written constitution – so write a constitution for the status quo and let the public vote against it. The republic issue is quite separate to the constitution issue.
Also, when are we going to get our referendum on MMP?
April 30th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Of course in time we will became a Republic.. but resent history has proved we are not yet big enough or politically mature enough to be a stand alone Republic.. Like Maori are not yet ready to have their Moari seats removed from parliament. But the time will come when both will need to happen. That time will be when we are mature and ready to decide to have a new flag. There is still some water to go under the bridge between the races before we all stand under one flag as a Republic united as one as ( KIWI’S ). I have always thought we had our own monarchy in the Moari King. In the future we could have both our own president and monarchy. Like I said.. we have a way to go yet before we become a Republic. It would be great though if we could step up to the plate before Australia.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:25 am
There’s this:
“Mr Key, like other observers, has noted the inexorable trend towards severing New Zealand’s last ties with Britain and its monarch but does not see any need for change any time soon. ”
and there’s the ‘return of the Titular Honours’ thing. They just don’t seem to mesh AT ALL.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Sticking to the post-war period, the number of constitutional monarchies include Malaysia, Japan, Australia, NZ, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands (and from 1974) Spain. I am excluding more of the absolutist monarchical states. Neither do I pretend that the list is exhaustive.
Republics include France, Italy, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and large swathes of Latin America- some of which have had several constitutions.
Constitutional monarchies have had the advantages of a Head-of-State without a political agenda of his or her own, monarchs haven’t been in the habit of stuffing Supreme Courts with their own political appointees etc. And many conventions have evolved precisely to constrain the powers of the monarch.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:03 am
If you want a referendum David get the signitures on a petition.
The fact that you and the other rebublicans keep trying to by pass this foolproof method simply demonstrates that you do not have anything like the numbers needed to even have a debate about.
So don’t waste our money (you may have noticed there is bugger all of it left) on a referendum that is 100% sure to fail.
Hint, if your national AGM is held in a phonebox you don’t have the nations backing.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am
This sits squarely in my don’t-give-a-fuck tray, I just hope no taxpayer money goes into the question.
What I would support whole heartedly is devolution and the creation of the South Island as a stand alone republic.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
It seems to me that New Zealand is already a republic in all but name (as DPF points out). Becoming one in name would largely be a symbolic gesture, and need not have any great constitutional implications.
But there’s the rub. As so many have posted “If it ‘aint broke, don’t fix it”. The danger of a move to become a republic is that it would be a trojan horse for a whole lot of other changes that really would make a difference, maybe a bad one.
An excellent case in point is illustrated by the Australian experience. The republic campaign was derailed by a demand to have an elected head of state. Now THAT really would be a profound change – with far greater practical implications than merely adopting the term “republic”. I also think it would be a VERY bad idea: a) if you have an election, then instead of respected, neutral people as G-G (which we have usually had) we would get politicians. b) you open up a huge can of worms though the inevitability of clashes between the head of state and head of Govt. Constitutional crisis anyone?
Though I am sympathetic to NZ becoming a republic on symbolic grounds, I am therefore very wary of how it might end up in practice.
I have a similar concern with the idea of a written constitution. I am doubtful of the gains it would produce (no legal ingenuity can ever completely stop politicians doing bad things) and terrified that we would end up with something disastrous. Adopting a bad constitution is about the most damaging thing we could do to ourselves (there are plenty of examples of nations which have dropped themselves into decades of shit in this way).
Do we truly believe that the wise would be able to control the shape of a written constitution? The danger of it being hijacked by (fill in loonies of your choice) is too great.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
s. russell wrote at 12.30: “…It seems to me that New Zealand is already a republic in all but name (as DPF points out). “”
Dead right.
So stay with what we’ve got. Our present system is cheap (Britain pays for the castles and footguards), and causes no interference with our politically elected representatives. A republic means another layer of hacks financed by taxpayers and more bureaucracy in Wellington. Think of the presidents we would get — the likes of Bolger, Clark, Cullen .. it makes you want to throw up.
How would the Treaty of Waitangi, the various iwi, and the Maori “kingship” fit in with a republic? Wait for the Treaty claims to be settled first? That will be in about 150 years.
The proportion of constitutional monarchies that are well run (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain etc) is high.
We look to be a new category — a pseudo constitutional monarchy with a borrowed shadow monarch, and it works.
Above all, if the lefty NZ Herald wants a transparent republic such a change has to be suspect. It is usually wrong.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“It seems to me that New Zealand is already a republic in all but name (as DPF points out). “
True except for the minor point of completely wrong. We’re a consitutional monarchy, the HOS is HMTQ who has little more than the power to say no.
A republic has a HOS who has direct command of the military and a lot of power with it. Something like oh say… Fiji.
I’ll take a pass.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I agree with Murray’s view that if more than 10% of the population care, and if a small number of people care enough to do a bit of work, there is no barrier to them writing a proposal, writing a question, and forcing a referendum on their proposal for a republic. And if 10% of NZ sign on to their proposal, then we have a referendum. And if you can’t get that far, it probably means there isn’t yet a consensus on what sort of system we might want.
I’m not quite in the category of “it ain’t broke” because I think that it is working acceptably today, but getting more broken over time. Frog in the pot of gradually warming water sort of thing. I don’t want to have to rush to a decision when we all decide that King Charles isn’t really what we want.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Well, if folk are so minded, they might consider getting involved (he says as the memberships officer of the Republican Movement….):
http://www.republic.org.nz/join
April 30th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Sorry Dean, nah.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Ooo wait, join a rebublican movement or rectal cancer… tell me about the rectal cancer again.