Kiwiblog

The New Zealand Republic Handbook is being launched at Parliament tonight.

The Handbook is a guide to creating a New Zealand republic and covers the issues of New Zealand becoming a republic plus the arguments for and against republicanism in New Zealand.

The launch is in the Grand Hall at Parliament. Drinks and nibbles start at 5.30 pm and speechs are from 6 pm to 6.30 pm. Speakers are Hon Peter Dunne from United Future, Phil Twyford from Labour, Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta and Green MP Keith Locke plus Republican Movement Chair Lewis Holden. And so long as my dentist appointment at 10 am today doesn’t end up involving anaesthetics, I am the MC for the function.

MPs, parliamentary staff and press gallery are all welcome to attend. Around 30 MPs, from pretty much every party, have already RSVP’d but there is no need to do so if you work in Parliament. If you do not work at Parliament and would like to attend e-mail events@republic.org.nz so your name can be given to security.

After that Parliament should be debating the 1st reading of the VSM Bill which will restore to tertiary students the right to decide if they want to join a student association or not. Not that many laws result in more freedom, not less, so worth supporting.

And later that evening, we have Backbenches at the Backbencher, with live filming from 9.10 pm. MPs are:

• John Boscawen, ACT
• Keith Locke, Greens
• Damien O’Connor, Labour
• Pesata Sam Lotu-Iiga

Topics include how to spell Wanganui and what should be on Letterman’s Top Ten for John Key.

I suggested a few days ago that any Nats at the party conference who are Republicans grab lunch with Lewis Holden (Republican Movement Chair) and myself to chat about getting an informal group going within National.

I’ve just realised I won’t be at lunch, as I’ll be helping with the vote counting program for the board elections. So don’t look for me, look for Lewis.

Lewis is the one on the right!

Alternatively just do what a dozen or so have already done and e-mail me to be added to a list of interested people within National.

The Republican Movement has members from pretty much every political party – from ACT to the Greens. Some of those supporters have set up an informal network within their respective parties to discuss republican and associated constitutional issues.

I’d be keen to get such an informal group going within National. I’m on the Executive of the Republican Movement, and the Chair, Lewis Holden, is also a Nat.

If you are going to be at the annual conference this weekend, and think that in the future New Zealand should move from the status quo to having a New Zealander as Head of State, make yourself known to Lewis or myself. I suggest we try and grab a bite together at Saturday lunchtime? Delegates, observers and MPs all welcome.

If you won’t be at conference but would like to be added to some sort of mailing list for “National Republicans” then drop me an e-mail.

I find the issue fascinating, because it is not just about do we want Prince Charles to be King of New Zealand one day. It is about would you appoint or elect a Head of State. What powers, if any, do they have. Do you also move to a written constitution? Do you entrench the Bill of Rights and allow laws to be judically reviewed against them? What limits should there be, if any, on parliamentary supremacy. Do we want to continue with the Pr

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.

The HoS reports:

Top constitutional lawyer Alison Quentin-Baxter and Dundee University law professor Janet McLean will spend three years examining strengths, uncertainties and inadequacies in the country’s constitutional arrangements that will be published as a book.

The Cabinet Office is recruiting a legal researcher who will be based in the office and have access to its files.

This is an excellent thing to do. Events of recent years such as the shattering of the bipartisan convention to major changes to the Electoral Act have shown how uncertain our unwritten constitutional conventions are.

Even minor conventions such as Cabinet collective responsibility have been watered down that they no longer really exist. In fact some say they never did – it was always just a pragmatic practice, not a convention – so where is the line?

For me the most outraegous behaviour, in constitutional terms, was when a narrow majority in Parliament retrospectively amended the Electoral Act to keep Harry Duynhoven in Parliament despite the fact he was no longer eligible to remain an MP, and should have had to contest a by-election to be re-elected. When MPs can amend the Electoral Act by narrow majority to stop an election, we don’t have a lot of protection – just the Governor-General and they can be effectively sacked by the Prime Minister at whim.

Hence one reason I support having a Head of State who can not be sacked by the PM at whim, and a written constitution.

The research was hailed as “very positive” by former Governor-General Dame Cath Tizard, who for six years was the Queen’s representative in New Zealand.

The project would help New Zealand avoid getting into a muddle in the future, she said.

“My instincts are towards becoming a republic but I would want to ensure the change went smoothly. The Australians just barged into it and stuffed the whole thing up. Nobody had thought through the consequences.”

The research is not linked to NZ becoming a republic, but I agree it will be very useful to have had it done so that any future change can be well informed.

Yesterday, Prime Minister John Key emphasised that the book was an independent project. “I’ve made it clear that I think New Zealand will eventually become a republic but I have no plans to push that forward and it won’t happen on my watch.”

I think the logical time to have a vote on change is when the Queen dies. Hopefully that is many years off.

Quentin-Baxter said the book would spell out the constitutional law and conventions regarding the power and influence of the Queen and her New Zealand representative, the governor-general. The authors would note any areas of confusion or controversy, but would not propose law changes.

One “shadowy” area, for example, was what power the governor-general has in forming a government if an MMP election produces a stalemate. …

The book would be neutral on the question of whether New Zealand becomes a republic, she said.

However, if New Zealanders voted in a referendum to have their own president to succeed the Queen, it would be an “indispensable guide” in working out where changes to our constitutional arrangements were needed.

Yep it sounds very useful. Not useful in the sense of something you can eat or drive, but useful for policy wonks!

The Herald profiles the new Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson:

“I’ve always thought it was a really interesting job. As I’ve got involved in law more and more, you see that the poor old Attorney-General is the most-sued person in the realm and you see the sort of responsibilities he or she has.

“It’s an ancient office and it has huge responsibilities. I regard it as, frankly, the highlight of my career to get the job.”

Chris will be a very popular choice within the legal fraternity. He is or was a member of the High Court’s Rules Committee and has appeared before the Privy Council close to a dozen times.

An advocate for constitutional convention, Mr Finlayson says he has a “pragmatic rather than an emotional view” on republicanism. His own view is that “the time will come” for New Zealand, especially given Australia’s move in that direction under the Rudd Government.

“I’m very loyal to the current monarch but I’d be in the camp that says on the demise of the Queen there will be a number of countries in the Commonwealth that will be reviewing their constitutional arrangements and that’s probably a good thing. If so, it won’t be an anti-British thing. It’s just New Zealand’s evolution as a country.”

Sounds sensible.

Mr Finlayson is also likely to be involved in any review of electoral finance laws after his party repeals the Electoral Finance Act, although the exact plans are “something the Cabinet will have to look at”.

“What I really disliked about that act was this notion of third parties, that the public and representatives of the public were some kind of interlopers into the political game which was really for the politicians.

“I found that profoundly offensive. We are the servants. It’s the public’s electoral system.”

Absolutely. Labour and its allies tried to hijack it for their own gain.

It was also “atrociously drafted”. For the law reform fanatic who has worked for 30 years to become the Attorney-General, that is perhaps its worst sin of all.

Is there a word beyond atricious?

The Herald reports how much Prince Charles dislikes touring New Zealand:

The Prince wrote to friends at the time that if “one more New Zealand child asks me what it’s like to be a prince, I shall go demented”, the Guardian newspaper reported yesterday.

Charles will become King of New Zealand when the Queen dies. As readers will know, I prefer Republic with a written constitution.

There’s still one month left to vote for your preferred President, in the fictional President of NZ Election.

Over 1,300 people voted in the initial ballot for the yet to be created position of President of New Zealand. The ten candidates have been reduced to five. Those who dropped out were:

1. Sir Douglas Graham
2. Sir Robert Jones
3. Sir Kenneth Keith
4. Don McKinnon
5. Vincent O’Sullivan

The five remaining candidates are:

1. Professor James Belich
2. Jim Bolger
3. Dr Claudia Orange
4. Dame Kiri Te Kanawa
5. Sir Wilson Whineray.

Both lists are in alphabetical order.

Voting has now opened for the final ballot to select a President from the five remaining candidates.

You can vote online here. It is a ranked preferential ballot, so rank your top choice “1″ and your bottom choice “5″. Voting closes on Friday 31 October 2008 so we will get to find out who our fictional President is a week or more before we find out who his or her Prime Minister will be

Voting is now open in the first round of elections for New Zealand’s next head of State, organised by the Republican Movement who would like such an election to be for real.

The candidates are here.

You can vote in round one here by ranking the candidates from 1 to 10. The top five candidates will go through to a second round of voting. This round closes at 12 pm on Monday 15 September 2008.

The Republican Movement has announced the top ten nominees for the position of President of New Zealand. A mock election will be run online later this year. The nominees are:

• James Belich
• Jim Bolger
• Sir Douglas Graham
• Sir Robert Jones
• Sir Kenneth Keith
• Don McKinnon
• Claudia Orange
• Vincent O’Sullivan
• Dame Kiri Te Kanawa
• Sir Wilson Whineray

The first round of voting will see five candidates eliminated. Then there will be a series of further votes until there is a winner.

I’m not sure who my preference would be at this stage. Possibly Dame Kiri as she would be wonderfully politically incorrect at times!

One day New Zealand will be able to choose a New Zealander as Head of State. We’re not quite there yet, but to get people thinking about it, the Repubican Movement has opened nominations for New Zealand’s 1st President.

Just go on through and nominate the New Zealand you would most like as our first NZ Head of State.

The top five nominees will then be announced, and a series of votes held to select a winner.