Are you confusing popularity in women’s magazines with political popularity? In recent polling, the Herald found only one in three NZers wanted Charles as our next Head of State. http://www.republic.org.nz/media/herald-poll-shows-new-zealanders-want-choose-next-head-state

What immigrants to NZ think very much about our absentee Head of State? I doubt they think very much. Would any of them come hear because of that weird political structure? Id be astounded if so.

Cheers,
Mike

Tricky issues like what to do about the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi could be dealt with by simply having the new system assume full responsibility for them.

Which would be unjust, since a new system would not have been responsible for them. Also, your changes would not remove the influence of the (ex) head of state over the body politic because of the oath of office of individual members of parliament.

From the Republican Movement’s Policy Statement:

Our Head of State has the same functions and powers (exercisable in accordance with current constitutional conventions) as the Sovereign and Governor-General have presently

Those “powers” are based on the Anglican articles of religion (Article XXXVII), they are not lawful powers derived from the consent of the governed. While the state does grant religious liberty to its citizens, this liberty does not extend to those who have sworn an oath to the head of state because of the religious nature of an oath.

Briefly, our suggested process involves two referenda of the public and a Constitutional Commission to generate the details. You can have a read here: http://www.republic.org.nz/policy

From my perspective, I fear our process is a risky one. Unlike Nikki, I do think a republic inevitable. Sooner or later, I think we’ll have to cross this bridge. The Movement’s policy is currently our best attempt at minimising the associated risks. There but for the grace of God go we.

Cheers,
Mike

I strongly disagree with the idea that New Zealand is exercising choice in retaining the Queen as our Head of State. In fact, I’d go as far as to call this a preposterous notion.New Zealanders have never been offered a serious choice (i.e. in a referendum) about whether we wish to retain her.

See my reply to Ugly Truth above. A referendum would naturally follow if a momentum gathered. There is no such momentum, hence no referendum.

As for your comment that it isn’t inevitable we become a republic, are you really suggesting that NZ would do without its own Head of State even as the number of citizens with any attachment to Britain dwindles to nothing?

I don’t know the answer to that but it is an interesting question. Is the attachment one stemming from heritage or a less tangible affiliation? Has the inevitability that you talk about been reversed because the younger generation of royals are popular and our youth admire them? What do immigrants who are not from Commonwealth countries think? Do they find it weird, or are our traditional ties to Britain part of what attracted them here in the first place?

Assuming for argument’s sake that general dissatisfaction did exist, what would be involved in changing things?

The nuts and bolts of changing things: s.2 of the Constitution 1986 states that the Sovereign is our Head of State, so that provision would need to be amended or repealed, along with a number of related Imperial Acts. As far as I know none of this legislation is entrenched, so it would take a simple Parliamentary majority to change them.

Practically though, I would expect such a significant constitutional change to follow a referendum (although we didn’t have one before abolishing the Privy Council). Tricky issues like what to do about the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi could be dealt with by simply having the new system assume full responsibility for them.

How would these changes be put in motion? General dissatisfaction creates its own momentum. Natural-born politicians instinctively pick up on the vibe and step up to champion the cause. The flow of the tide then carries the changes through.

Hence my point that there there must be general satisfaction with the status quo, otherwise we would have changed already.

I care more about the practical stuff than the formalities. As far as I can see there are three practical consequences of an elected head of state instead of the current system.

1. We would have to pay for the elections.
2. A politically partisan HOS could be a problem if there is an election with an unclear outcome, which is quite likely under MMP.
3. Politicians could not resist the chance to use the switch to a republic as an opportunity to slip in other changes, beyond simply replacing the queen and GG with an elected equivalent.

1. Not if elections were funded by licencing.
2. The HOS could function in a judicial role rather than in a political role.
3. What if the politicians had no control over the judiciary? Surely that would be less dangerous than the current system in which the judiciary is directed by the body politic?

I strongly disagree with the idea that New Zealand is exercising choice in retaining the Queen as our Head of State.  In fact, I’d go as far as to call this a preposterous notion.  New Zealanders have never been offered a serious choice (i.e. in a referendum) about whether we wish to retain her.  That republicanism would probably have been defeated if we had is beside the point.  The point is, New Zealanders have never been offered the choice!

I fear you are mis-interpreting my words about the passing of the Queen.  I didn’t say nothing would change before that happened.  I said it was a “game-changer” in order to question your assertion that Royal weddings and babies would trump republican sentiments “every time”.  Even if the Queen stays with us for decades yet, it’s easy to envisage republican sentiment rising because countries like Jamaica become republics.

As for your comment that it isn’t inevitable we become a republic, are you really suggesting that NZ would do without its own Head of State even as the number of citizens with any attachment to Britain dwindles to nothing?

Cheers,

Mike

Is there really any pressing need for a change?

Need is driven by threat. Any discussion of threats leads to conspiracy theory, a term which is used by some people to indicate that the subject matter is now taboo. The fact that this subject is generally off-limits within the main stream media suggest that a real threat does exist.

the most compelling reason they can come up with is something about us ‘being able to feel better about ourselves as a country!”

Another reason is that when the head of state lives and works within the same environment as the people of the country, their interests are more likely to be aligned that when the head of state lives abroad.

I think the better way of puting it is, when we mature as a country, then the change will occur.

That requires we work further through the Treaty issue and then move on so we feel more united. It also requires that we feel more secure about our nation’s place in the world – that requires a more stable and promising geo-political situation.

When we feel better about going it alone we will.

I agree about the GG’s place now, the Crown is just a means of association with other English settler colonies – a way to be part of a group in the world we feel comfortable with.

The relevance of that declines with each passing generation – as we change demographically and the world becomes more inter-connected.

There are many commentators who ask why we have a head of state who lives on the other side of the world, but I’d ask why not, when the most compelling reason they can come up with is something about us ‘being able to feel better about ourselves as a country!” Are we really that insecure?

Our Governor General is, for all intents and purposes, our Head of State. He or she is one of us, who serves both our country and our monarch in equal measure. And it works. It really works! Can anyone really tell me of a system that is better?

I’m reminded of the the words of Petronious Arbeter, Emperor Nero’s Satirist, who died in AD66

“I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising. And a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.”

it wouldn’t take much effort to change things if there were general dissatisfaction

Assuming for argument’s sake that general dissatisfaction did exist, what would be involved in changing things?

As far as I know, I have English, Irish, Danish and Spanish heritage. But the ties are tenuous only as all but one of my four grandparents were born here and the fourth emigrated from England when she was three. However like many Kiwis, the Queen has always been the monarch during my lifetime and there is some comfort in the tradition and continuity that comes with that.

I was interested that even a staunch republican like yourself acknowledges that nothing is likely to change while the current Queen reigns (unless an Australian move to republicanism also sparked some momentum here – it didn’t in the 1990s). It will be a fascinating period when the Queen does finally pass (which could still be some years away if she has her mother’s longevity). Will we accept a King Charles, who could be close to 80 by then, or take the opportunity to change? There are so many variables, that I’m not as convinced as you are that we will inevitably cut our ties with Britain, although I do accept that there is a good probability.

There needs to be a compelling reason

The connection between the house of Windsor and the mass murder of children in the name of religious education isn’t a compelling reason?

Doing way with it means a directly elected PM/President who is a politician.

That’s assuming that a republic is the only alternative. A country could be administered apolitically by regional and national judicial groups, with political interest groups responsible for their own supply issues. The judicial model has some historical precedent in English common law (i.e. the hundred).

Doing way with it means a directly elected PM/President who is a politician.

Nigel – I think you could be right, we pretty much operate like that in practice now anyway, with a bit of royal fluff as an overhead.

And after all he tours the country like someone acting as ceremonial head of state now.

Instead, we should just have bills become laws as soon as parliament passes them, the prime minister give out honours, the chief justice do the government formation and deformation stuff, and put the GG’s old house on trademe.

Actually we can probably do all of that without becoming a republic.

I’m enjoying our mature discussion. However, I’m still having real trouble understanding why you favour the monarchy? Are you of British heritage and believe NZ would somehow be less if starts reducing its ties with the motherland?

This thread has gone a little cold overnight. I’ll try to look back later in the day to see whether you’ve posted, anything. I remain interested in your answers.

Cheers,
Mike

Then let those that would promote change get the necessary signatures for a CIR

That would not be an effective remedy. Citizenship implies the existence of authority vested in the state, so it would simply be a request when it should be a demand. The main problem in this process is that corporate media has no interest in eliminating the basis of its own existence, which is what dissolution of the state implies. The alternative media is slowly picking up the story of the Canadian residential schools, but there is a long way to go before the public are sufficiently aware of the nature and scale of the problem before an informed consensus can be reached.

Our monarch is a resident of the UK and a citizen of the EU. What makes you think that she isn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the European courts? I work for an Australian company, but I live in Wellington. If a NZ court tells me to do or not do something, then I can’t ignore them on the basis that I’m at work at the time.

I think the mistake you’re making is assuming that because the Queen is monarch of the UK and NZ and has a special place in our constitutional arrangements, then that overrides the European law that governs her place of residence. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that is true.