Herald praises Goff
September 10th, 2010 at 11:55 am by David FarrarThe Herald editorial:
Hats off to the Labour Party leader, Phil Goff. In suggesting that New Zealanders should start talking about our country becoming a republic, he has gone where influential sitting politicians have feared to tread.
Most, including the current Prime Minister, talk about the inevitability of a republic but are unwilling to do anything to create it.
Others, such as former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen, wait until they have retired from politics to voice similar sentiments. Such passivity has dampened the prospect of debate.
I agree. It has been frustrating that previous Leaders such as Helen Clark refused to openly engage on the merits of becoming a republic. Instead she did republicanism by stealth – changing individual aspects (such as the Privy Council) one by one, without actually engaging the public in a debate on republicanism.
I don’t want a republic by stealth. I want a republic that New Zealanders vote for, as a better way forward. For that debate to happen, senior political leaders like Phil Goff need to engage on the issue.
Yet this is an issue that, given the absence of stridency on both sides, will have to be galvanised by political leaders.
Mr Goff has acknowledged as much in stating emphatically that a republic would be the “making of New Zealand as a country”. If he has his way, that notion will have seeped into the national consciousness by the end of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign.
But we should not wait until then.
Matthew Hooton also writes in the NBR today on a republic:
One day, though, Queen Elizabeth II’s reign will come to an end, the Prince of Wales will immediately become King Charles III of New Zealand, and we’ll panic and rush reform and get it wrong.
(That’s if he calls himself “King Charles III”. Apparently he’s keen on being “King George VII”. Go figure.)
The Queen has carried out her duties with impeccable integrity, never once having been known to interfere in New Zealand’s affairs, even privately, and in effect making us a de facto republic throughout her reign.
In contrast, King Charles (or is it George?), is an eco-extremist, advocate for neo-Roman architecture and devotee of quack medicine and cannot be so relied upon to operate as a responsible constitutional monarch.
Plus he talks to plants.
Heh, Matthew does not hold back.
We’re in the bizarre situation where all important New Zealand leaders, once out of office, apparently become advocates for constitutional reform but no one dares put a hand up when they could actually do something as an incumbent.
Exactly. And Phil Goff has an opportunity to say that if he becomes PM, he will push for having a public debate and vote on constitutional reform.
Related posts:
- You don’t get a choice with monarchy
- Little calls for a republic
- Well said Phil
- Herald and ODT disagree on a Republic
September 10th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
The Irish Republic-owned NZ Herald chimes in for a Republic of NZ. Why is that no surprise?
Better hurry before the receivers sell the whole shebang to Australia.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Hmmm…..don’t know whether it is actually something that ought to be driven by politicians, I’d suggest the only proper approach is one by WE the people…
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Maybe Key isn’t “afraid” of republican talk, he just thinks its load of arse like the vast majority of kiwis and Aussies.
Way to thrash the dead horse though herald.
There’s no one DPF wot cosy up next to if they want to join his tiny club. Very wonery in the republican clubhouse isn’t it.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I’ve said this before, New Zealand needs to start thinking about becoming a republic because it’s only a matter of time before the issue moves on to the agenda in the UK.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Repetition doesn’t alter accuracy of a statment.
Or lack thereof.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
It’s only that Goff has found himself a little pet project that he thinks will bring him into the public eye, and he continues to prattle on about it. What a waste of time. Why not debate something that is really important to NZers? Like abortion, or the smacking law; but no, they don’t want to go there. He’s chosen something safe that he thinks makes him look good.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Charlie will be nearly 80 (as you have noted previously) when he gets the top job. He is unlikely to ever visit NZ again (can’t stand the haka) – he is currently irrelevant to NZ and this will always reain the case.
We should engage in the debate with Australia as well so we are both singing from the same song-book. I would not be surprised if Lizzy actually out lives her rather weird son.
No matter either way – but – who the hell wants to serve a 80 year apprenticeship for a job?
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“I’d suggest the only proper approach is one by WE the people…”
By the look of Goff’s and Labour’s chances it might be the ONLY approach that will get anywhere.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Quelle horreur?
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Phil the Fool is in opposition so he can say anything he thinks sounds good.He also knows he wont be in power next time round either.
I recall the validictory speeches of his many outgoing pseudo socialists ,including Herr Helen,slagging off our monarch in parliament(while Helen praised the local one!).
Tossers the lot of them.
Funny one of todays headlines from Aussie is their Laborites calling for respect for the the Westminster tradition!
Let’s not forget our roots and traditions.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I doubt the issue is of any interest to more than a couple of hundred people. Our unwritten constitution has the huge benefit of evolving and our parliamentary system with “sign here” royal sign off is far superior to the various presidential systems, I cant see much call regardless of who the monarch is to adopting French, American, Russian, South African type systems.
Vote:King Charles would never interfere so there is no inevitabilty at all to change, besides we might only get Charles for a decade before the very popular William takes over.
September 10th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
every time this topic comes up it gets shot down in a ball of flames, but certain msm just cant let it go, it’s like the Simpson kids harping on & on saying can we go dad can we go dad repeatedly until finally Homer gives in. Well it’s a long time done & we wont be changing it back once we do it.. I know lets have a referendum on it..
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Bill Bennett posted at 12.17:
Bill, we are a de facto republic now, the best kind. Low cost, a head of state as far away on Earth as it’s possible to get and with no power. This keeps local politicians’ faces off our coins and stamps, and stops them from a presidential troughing into taxpayer funds with limos, a new swathe of bureaucrats, and worst of all a new straitjacket of constitutional law. That law would see a new plague of lawyers and courts, of inherently leftist officials like Rosslyn Noonan and Joris de Bre.
NZ’s astronomical private debt and continuing inability to end an imbalance in its finances with the rest of the world, mean a far more important debate needs to be held.
This is whether NZ should become part of Australia. At the beginning of its nationhood in the 1840s it was part of New South Wales. Maybe we could become a state this time, or perhaps two states.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“… besides we might only get Charles for a decade before the very popular William takes over.”
Charles was probably popular too, half a century ago.
“I doubt the issue is of any interest to more than a couple of hundred people. “
So you should feel comfortable with a referendum then.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
The republic debate is a good one for politicians. They can take up column inches while Rome burns – our falling competitiveness, taxes, regulation, you name it. Becoming a republic will yield no tangible benefit for anyone. It’s a total waste of time and space. We should be focusing on the things that will make a difference to us. The 2025 Taskforce’s next report will be one to look out for, as will Key’s response. I suspect that the whole thing will be treated as ‘too hard’ and we will be back once again talking about becoming a republic!! Spare us and please govern the country instead.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
The current GG and the last few have been pretty irrelevant to most of New Zealanders
Can’t see the difference between a New Zealand Head of state and one from England
Both will be irrelevant
Chose a head of state by popular vote – hmmm could be trouble
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Jack5 sums it up pretty well. I fail to see the need for such a figurehead but if we must have one lets stick with the situation we now have.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Jack5 at 12.36, you have nailed it EXACTLY!
Nobody with more than half a brain would argue that the silly ‘Queen’ and/or her idiot family have any real power at all over NZ’s affairs. There’s no worry that big ears is going to come and turn us into a private organic farm, so why throw away all the advantages of a constitutional monarchy which is working well for us?
On the republican issue there is also the elephant in the room which nobody dares to talk about isn’t there? You know… the big awkward historical elephant in the grass skirt waving the taiaha… the ‘oppressed’ elephant who has been so cruelly disposessed of his rightful grazing lands for 150 years. Does anybody have any idea how THAT question will be addressed? Oh wait…. I know. We are already getting a taste of how that one will be addressed aren’t we? John Key and his racist mates are already working away diligently in the background in the hope that the big bad scary elephant won’t charge. Slim hope. That particular elephant will just charge anyway.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Plenty of people keep mentioning that elephant Dave, as an excuse not to sort out self-determination.
No one has given a good reason against having a decent debate and a referendum. What would be wrong with a five year plan? Investigate the options, determine what would need to be done, summarise, then have a vote in 2015. If no one is interested then it will go to sleep for another five or ten years.
If politicians baulk at the democratic process then have a petition.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Pete, I think that there is already a plan and it is being quietly formulated and enacted without the need for a messy referendum where ‘people’ might cause embarassment by voicing their views.
When it comes time to put the final touches to the plan, there sure won’t be any voting on it. We will wake up one day to find it declared that New Zealand no longer exists and that we are now living in a ‘common territorial and economic zone’ with a Great Council of Chiefs who will be guardians of the land as a sacred taonga and who will henceforth issue their edicts according to established historical protocols (or some such bullshit).
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
If you believe that Dave then all the more reason to bring everything out in the open, onto the table.
And if you are wrong we will still all be the better for it, no matter what the outcome.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Pete George……self determination doesn’t come into it, we already rule ourselves thro parliament.
Churchill in Book1 Ch1 The Gathering Storm.The Second World War.
“Wise policy would have crowned and fortified the Weimar Republic with a constitutional sovereign in the person of an infant grandson of the Kaiser,under a Council Of Regency.Instead a gaping void was opened in the national life of the German people. All the strong elements,military and feudal,which might have rallied to a constitutional monarchy,and for its sake respected and sustained the new democratic and Parliamentary processes,were for the time being unhinged…….Weimar….could not hold the loyalties or the imagination of the German people………..the void was open….and into that void there strode a maniac of ferocious genius…….Corporal Hitler.”
There is a case for stability and tradition.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
“There is a case for stability and tradition.”
I agree. There are also cases for alternatives. Shouldn’t it be up to the voters to decide which is the best case?
Why are you against a democrat review?
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
‘Herald praises Goff’
Of course they do. He is their preferred prime minister!
Wankers.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Petey the pointless question poser, exactly where did I say I was against a democratic review? (rhetorical,don’t answer)
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Pete, I don’t think that under this present government any democratic review (of virtually anything) is possible.
This government is one composed of spineless toadies who have proven time and time again that they despise the views of the people. This government is simply a facade. A front for a cabal beholden to a bunch of racists, extremists and separatists who are within spitting distance of attaining the price which they have worked to achieve for 30 years…. the total takeover of our country.
Forget any idea that ‘democratic review’, democracy, referenda or anything else has any place in this government’s agenda. The only agendas they recognise are working the international carbon credit scam and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people.
Democracy? Hahahaha….. I’m laughing so hard here that I think I’ll lose control of my asphagus and vomit.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
kowotow – fair enough, you didn’t. So you support a democratic review and referendum? Or neutral on it?
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Personally i would support a referendum on a republic if the people demanded it, i wouldn’t support a bunch of experts telling us it is a good time to do so.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Pete.I support the current arrangement ,a constitutional monarchy.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Actualy, DPF, I don’t really mind a republic by stealth – I’d rather have it than not have it. As others have noted, this issue is not important to most – so let’s just do it by stealth, that way the academics will have papers to write.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
That wasn’t the question kowtow. If enough people want a review and referendum do you support that?
Vote:It wouldn’t exclude a constitutional monarchy.
September 10th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Pete George (6,881) Says:
September 10th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
That wasn’t the question kowtow. If enough people want a review and referendum do you support that?
It wouldn’t exclude a constitutional monarchy.
**********************
Thats not the issue, imo, the issue is that we will not get a democratic review and referendum, what will happen is that sooner or later someone like Helen Clark will decide what we want, regardless of what anyone actually thinks, and just do it. There is ample precedent for this such as her abolition of the privy council and the then knighthoods scheme. If we are really well behaved we may be indulged with a series of fait accompli’s masquerading as options that we are asked to rubber stamp. Needless to say this will of course will be preceded by a massive barrage of well funded (by taxes no doubt)propaganda to ensure we vote the right way, after all our new hero’s of the republic want their shot at the top job after all that effort, you know.
Unlike DPF, I believe that on such issues of the constitution and the head of state it is entirely proper that politicians should keep their mouths shut and do absolutely nothing, that they say what they have is entirely too much. The rules, shape and nature of such important matters are the proper realm of the people, not the elected individuals who stand to benefit personally from it.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Jeez Pete you’re a pain.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Simple question kowtow, it’d only take a simple honest answer, which apparently is beyond you.
Stuart – yes, I agree that if it is to happen it needs to be driven by the people but it also needs input from politicians. They are as much a part of our country as we are, and they have experience in what works and what may not. And they control the easy resources to deal with it.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Yeah…………… Phil of it for president for life, fucking marvelous, just what we need another commie dictator.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Pete George (6,884) Says:
September 10th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Stuart – yes, I agree that if it is to happen it needs to be driven by the people but it also needs input from politicians. They are as much a part of our country as we are, and they have experience in what works and what may not. And they control the easy resources to deal with it.
************************************
Experience with what works? what, are you kidding? we have never ha a republic before in case you had not noticed, and these people have no qualifications, for the most part, for the job they do now, ffs! Look at Clarks first defence minister, a bloody primary teacher.
Vote:It does not need politicians to have anything to do with it, because they gain by it personally, that is to say they have a conflict of interest, that alone should rule them out.
September 10th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
@ Stuart Mackey 5:55 pm
That is an extremely erudite and succinctly written comment. Well said.
Vote:September 10th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
I’d like a new flag, and the only way we’ll get one is if we become a republic, and the only way we’ll become a republic is when the Queen dies and we’re brought face to face with another mad King George.
But I agree with freedom101 that creating a climate of prosperity is a higher priority.
Phil’s being smart in attaching himself to an issue that’s sure to grow in popularity. With luck this could get him in the papers.
Of course he’d look even smarter if he apologised for the wasted years of the Clark government and signalled a positive economic course that outflanks National on the right.
Fat chance.
Vote: