Nothing, but it does create a bad precedent and contributes to constitutional instability. Would you really want to go down in history for doing that? Bear in mind that the Queen and Governor General currently have this power right now – why doesn’t Matepare do it tomorrow? The Irish, Indian, German and Israeli Presidents all have this power – why is it almost never exercised? Because Presidents are generally no less scrupulous than Kings or Queens in the exercise of this power.

Besides which, even if it was used, one of two things happen: Either the government is re-elected, which makes the Head of State look like a dick, or the government loses (as happened in Australia in 1975) and the Head of State is vindicated. Either way, no real harm is done.

What’s that? we need a Moari King? get real. Charlie would be great for NZ, we could give him a gardening show on TV1 so he earns his keep. Holidays he can go to the Coromandle.

Oh when you need to travel overseas Charlie, just use mums Visa card

Just look at the list of the New Zealand born in the office of Governor General.

Instead of the government recommending a Governor General to the Crown – automatic acceptance. It would instead go to parliament as representative of New Zealanders sovereignty.

My preference is for government to offer a nomination for parliament to accept (75% would ensure this is non partisan as at present). If more than one nomination is made, and more than one is acceptable to parliament – then the public get to determine their preference from these non partisan candidates (we could exclude former MP’s and party members from this office).

That’s a straw man (or woman in this case). As I said, either you have a Head of State who is a mere constitutional safeguard, in which case President Clark would have no power of veto, or you have an Executive Head of State who is completely separate from the legislature, in which case they will be democratically elected, not appointed, so they would have a mandate to back up their veto.

In the former case, the only thing the President could do would be to dissolve parliament, and this comes with the risk of making the President’s position untenable if the same party gets a fresh mandate for their policies.

And for those of you who think that a super majority in Parliament would save us from having ex politicians installed as our President then I suggest you think again. Deals will be done, arms will be twisted and like it or not we will have a political appointment each and every time.

The Windsor’s might not be ideal but they are part of our Heritage and they are far better than anything we could create ourselves.

“….I’d have to say that the Charter has served Canada well…..What the hell, as long as it includes robust human rights and civil liberties protections….’

Your fucken kidding right?

Go read up on what Mark Steyn says about the Canadian Charter of Rights -.

“…..“Rights” are not those things granted by the sovereign and enumerated in statute, but the precise opposite: They’re restraints upon the sovereign. They’re not about what the state allows you to do, but about what the state is not allowed to do to you….”

The NZ Police will become facist pigs under a Charter. They can’t not be.

…Fact: New Zealand was an independent republic prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi ie The Declaration of Independence 1835.

Pre-colonial NZ was not a state or a nation. It was a primitive land of indigenous tribes and wild foreign whalers,sealers, and traders, plus a few zealous missionaries. The land wasn’t recognised internationally as a nation.

The 1835 declaration was organised by Busby of Britain and was not signed by all the tribes of NZ. Notably, the declaration called upon King William IV of Britain to become the tribes’ ‘parent’ and ‘Protector’.

What sort of a republic was that?

Interestingly, the declaration talks of Nu Tirene, not Aotearoa.

Charles would be glad if New Zealand became a republic only because he or his children would never have to visit the god awful country again, ever.

There’s that rare instance in parliamentary democracies where politicians get too big for their boots, and you need a backup to make sure they do the right thing instead of, say, making themselves President for Life and dropping dissidents out of Hercules aircraft.

But what if we had, say Helen Clark, for president. Then the National Party stated that they were going to only give beneficiaries money though a benefit card. So Helen Clark, as unelected head of state, thinks “what a horrible and unjust thing for the country” and steps in with her presidential power to stop it.

There’s always going to be someone on top. And why should we trust them any more than the PM? (The monarchy is in a better situation, because they are heads of multiple countries, and they can’t act in one country without causing ire of the others.)

I trust our citizens to react more to a “President for Life” military state more than some useless head of state. If it came to that the head of state would be killed, or would do nothing. Even with the royalty, if something like that happened, I can imagine a sternly worded speech being the only intervention. At least fireman have engines and hoses.

It’s almost inconceivable that an NZ Governor General would try to block an elected government. Our governors-general don’t have the practical power or the mana. No-one would take any notice.

Our present de facto republic is ideal: light government, cheap, and the vast majority of the costs of the ceremonial side borne by the British state and crown.

As for Chris Laidlaw: I would gladly fight for any faction if leftist Laidlaw was on the other side. As for his recollection of an allegedly pinot noir-fuelled conversation of 15 years ago – did Laidlaw take notes or is this hearsay based just on alcohol-numbed memories? Was the pinot noir even from Canterbury? From Central Otago surely? Can Laidlaw remember the conversation so clearly but not the wine source?

Indeed. Also he was asked how he would react if the question were put to him, not what his preference would be.

How would anyone expect him to respond otherwise? Presumably, Laidlaw was looking for “I’d send in the troops to stop you; bomb you heathens into submission” as the only response that would do anything other than affirm HRH’s agreement with Laidlaw’s preference for a republic.