Friday, March 04, 2005



The republic debate

Like The Holden Republic, I watched the One News special on whether Prince Charles should become king of New Zealand last night. Like their other similar specials, it was more a quick overview of the issue than a detailed exploration, and there was very little in the way of actual debate. Instead, they flipped rapidly from talking head to talking head, each of whom said their own little spiel, without much reference to what others had said.

The point was made that we are essentially a de facto republic already, and that the sheer distance and disinterest of the monarch left us free to run our own lives. Much was made of the threat of the monarch's extensive powers (such as the power to dismiss Parliament or appoint judges) being vested in an elected president who as a political actor would be tempted to use them for political advantage - but no-one raised the obvious question in response: why have a president at all? People's thinking about a republic seems confined to the version where we simply replace the monarch and Governor-General with an elected president, but that's not the only way to do it. An alternative is the Swedish model, where the reserve powers are vested in the Speaker and their deputies, who are elected by a supermajority of Parliament. The Speaker is already required to be seen to be politically neutral by constitutional convention, and the supermajority requirement would strengthen this. It would also fit well with the consensual approach to politics encouraged by MMP, and would help shift things further in that direction.

(I should also point out that the problem of a rogue head of state is not simply a product of elections; it happened in Australia in 1975, when their Governor-General effectively colluded with the opposition to dismiss the Whitlam government. Stephen Franks got this arse-backwards, characterising it as a "rogue government" rather than a rogue Governor-General; I can only conclude that in his view, any left-wing government is by definition "rogue" and has no right to hold office...)

As usual, the biggest argument for retaining the monarchy was "if it ain't broke, din't fix it". Against this is the fact that "she's still there", by which I mean that the mere presence of the Queen (or the monarch in general) is a problem - not because it breaks the system, but because it is increasingly seen as simply incompatible with fundamental parts of the modern western worldview. To modern minds - those who have dragged themselves out of the eighteenth century - political authority flows from below; both legitimacy and even ultimately power is derived from the broad consent of the governed. Monarchy, with its top-down view of political authority, stands in direct contradiction to this. It also stands in direct contradiction to the meritocratic ideal that position and status must be earned rather than simply inherited. And while the Windsors have shown a laudable devotion to nobelesse oblige, it's not really the same thing...

But the most interesting point that came up was the generational difference in perceptions of nationhood. Monarchists tend to be older and greyer, dating from the era when we saw ourselves as a part of the British Empire, and the UK as "home". These views are generally not shared by the young, who are thoroughly indigenised and whose views of nationhood are rooted more in the anti-nuclear struggle and the Treaty than any sense of "Britishness". The current struggle over a republic is therefore part of the same process of generational change that is driving debates over the Treaty - and in the long-run, time is not on the monarchists' side.

16 comments:

yeah!
And like one of my colleagues at work pointed out ... they're far away and they don't cost us anything ......

Posted by Omykiss : 3/04/2005 11:27:00 AM

As I might have pointed out elsewhere, modern UK monarchs are disinclined to intervene in politics - this is mainly dur to a concern for the preservation of the monarchy as an institution.

Governors General do not have this restraint - hence Kerr in Australia. And there is nothing to stop the Prime Minister appointing themselves G-G - they probably wouldn't be able to make themself President.

Posted by Rich : 3/04/2005 11:53:00 AM

Omykiss: nothing to lose except our self-respect. Monarchy is simply incompatible with our modern dignity as citizens; we rule ourselves, we are not ruled.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/04/2005 12:20:00 PM

There is also a problem with becoming a republic in respect to Maori. The treaty partners are Maori and the Crown. The Government acts on behalf of the Crown, for apologies and settlements. What to do with the treaty in the case of a shift to a republic, its a whole new can 'o' worms that we should not open yet!

Posted by Anonymous : 3/04/2005 01:28:00 PM

Anon: I don't really see that as a problem - the republic will simply inherit the Crown's obligations under the Treaty, just as Edward VII inherited them from Victoria.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/04/2005 03:07:00 PM

Idiot,

Sorry but I feel no "lack of dignity". Maybe I should check the pockets of my other pants.

Basically my position is that what makes a democracy work well is not the official written rules (the USSR and Nazi Germany both had freedom of speech in their constitutions) but the liberal traditions that are embodied in the political organs. If the organ is functioning well, and healthy, then I strongly recommend against a transplant: even if the mechanically created replacement is said to be "better" than the organically grown one in some vague "but-what-if" ways.

Icehawk

Posted by Anonymous : 3/04/2005 04:59:00 PM

Icehawk: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" But my point was that the mere presence of a monarch in our constitutional apparatus is seen by some as a sign of brokenness - not because it really causes the system to fail (it doesn't; our democracy generally functions pretty well), but for essentially ideological reasons. And if we're considering constitutional change to fix parts of our system that are broken (such as the lack of restraint on Parliament), then the monarchy may very well be taken out with the other trash. And I don't really expect that to significantly damage our underlying democratic culture in any way whatsoever.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/04/2005 06:54:00 PM

I never passed a vote for the speaker of the house .. and I dont care. I also did not pass a vote for the chairman of NZpost and I also dont care - both of these and a hundred other positions dwarf the monarchy in terms of importance. it would be ridiculous to vote for a monarch that has zero power - a total waste of paper.

Fortunatly the british give us one and pay for it themselves - i really dont see why we should be getting upset about it. Unless you can demonsrate with economics that it is indeed costing us money.

If you want to have seperation of powers why not have a three part system a parliment a president and a queen. massive waste of money if you ask me but I guess we can do whatever we want. We could chuck in a maori queen also. Having the queen doesnt exclude the possibility of anything so it has basically zero cost all it does is annoy some republicans which is probably a profitable industry in itself.

> characterising it as a "rogue government"

as I understand it the government was messed up it was a good thing that there was a g-g to take care of it. Any rational presidential figure would have done so so the issue hardly belongs in a republicanism debate. besides hte power to disolve parliment is hardly fundimental.

> I can only conclude that in his view, any left-wing government is by definition "rogue" and has no right to hold office...

I didnt see what he said but your conclusion seems irrational.

Posted by Genius : 3/04/2005 11:18:00 PM

Genius - your presumption rests on the idea that the type of republic the New Zealand will choose is a directly elected President. If we choose to have a parliamentary / electoral college elected President, then you won't have to worry about wasting paper. Such a system works well in Germany, Austria and Israel.

Or, as NRT all ready stated, we don't even need to have a Head of State if we don't want to.

Your assertion that the Monarch has no power is false. The Monarch has immense powers, but they have, by convention and political expedience, been atrophied by Parliament. The ability to refuse assent to bills of Parliament has not, for example, been exercised since 1707. This means that every argument that the Queen is the protector of democracy is false - we, the electors, are the protectors of democracy, the monarch has never raised a finger to avert constitutional meltdowns in Commonwealth Realms, (remember Grenada 1983? Fiji 1987? Australia 1975? New Zealand 1984?) because to do so puts the monarchy at risk (as was proven by the second coup in Fiji).

As for your argument regarding costs, the Monarchy actually has a large number of hidden costs. Take, for example, the need to re-print money (luckily, only $20 notes these days) and re-mint $2B of coins when the monarch changes. Now I know we don't do that all at once, but nevertheless coins that are other wise still of use are taken out of circulation simply to change the Monarch imprinted into them. The last time this happened, in 1952, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of coinage had to be re-minted.

We still also have to pay for our de-facto Head of State, the Governor-General. The exact cost of this office isn't very clear because it is a part of the Prime Minister's Department, something that would change when we become a republic (and an example of the need to limit the powers of the Executive, and why our system 'is broke'). The best estimate the Republican Movement has is that the office costs something like $10m, which is actually comparable to most other non-executive Presidents (the President of the Republic of Ireland costs some 7m Euros).

I say, let's get value for money and make the G-G a real Head of State, not just a de-facto one. The affects of this are more than symbolic: Whenever New Zealand is represented in Trade Fairs we'll have a real Head of State, not just one working for the UK only. That is surely a much better use of taxpayers money than a constitutionally useless, symbolically irrelevant Monarchy.

Posted by Lewis Holden : 3/05/2005 11:53:00 AM

Genius: if you cast a party vote last election, then you voted - albeit indirectly - for the Speaker of the House. As we saw this week, they are elected from and by Parliament, who are in turn elected by us.

As for the Kerr - Whitlam crisis in Australia, the Holden Republic has an overview here. The government was indeed approaching crisis, but had not yet reached the stage where fresh elections needed to be called. Kerr's dismissal of the government seems to have been an act of pure political partisanship, not the actions of someone "above politics".

Your contention that the power to dissolve Parliament and call new elections is "hardly fundimental" is simply laughable. In the Australian case, it meant a change of government and a consequent change of policy. That's fairly significant, wouldn't you say?

In New Zealand, the power to call elections is frequently abused by incumbent governments timing them for political advantage (Muldoon and Clark are two recent offenders). It has never to my knowledge been abused by a Governor-General seeking to usurp the will of the people, but the potential is there.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/05/2005 04:59:00 PM

> If we choose to have a parliamentary / electoral college elected President, then you won't have to worry about wasting paper.

We dont need a president at all. If we have an executive its good to have a free one.

> Your assertion that the Monarch has no power is false.

you only have power if you are able to use it. a power that you cant (or jsut wont ever) use is not a power. Besides it is irrelevant to us if it is never used anyway.

> the Queen is the protector of democracy is false

damned if you do damned if you dont if our the monarch eh?

> Take, for example, the need to re-print money

A) changes less often than the president does
B) take her of the 20 dollar if you wnat that has little to do with being the monarch.

> We still also have to pay for our de-facto Head of State, the Governor-General.

again not really nessercary give the GG a pay cut if you want pay him minimum wage - whatever.

> I say, let's get value for money and make the G-G a real Head of State, not just a de-facto one.

huh? I fail to see the added value you would get - it just makes all the problems you hate much worse.

> if you cast a party vote last election, then you voted - albeit indirectly - for the Speaker of the House.

rather like saying that I didnt vote for the communist party therefore I indirectly voted for the queen.

> Parliament and call new elections is "hardly fundimental" is simply laughable. In the Australian case, it meant a change of government and a consequent change of policy. That's fairly significant, wouldn't you say?

You misunderstood - It is not fundimental to the role as monarch. take it away from the monarch if you want.

You seem to be saying somthing equyivilent to
"I dont like that presidents choosing judges so the us should give up on democracy"
why not just change the thing you have a problem with?

Posted by Genius : 3/05/2005 07:24:00 PM

We dont need a president at all. If we have an executive its good to have a free one.Genius, you missed the point - the Monarch isn't free. We have to pay for their representative (The Governor-General) and a host of other things. A non-executive President would probably be no more expensive than the Governor-General, or we could move to abolish having the Head of State outright – the Swedish model. We would save money by doing this.

you only have power if you are able to use it. a power that you cant (or jsut wont ever) use is not a power. Besides it is irrelevant to us if it is never used anyway.I never said that the Monarch isn’t able to exercise their powers. In any case, even if the Monarch won’t use their powers, as has been the case in most examples of constitutional failures within the Commonwealth over the twentieth century, their representatives (Governors-General) will. And who appoints the Governor-General…

damned if you do damned if you dont if our the monarch eh?Yes, exactly. Hence the Monarchy is constitutionally useless. I, for one, would much rather have a non-partisan Head of State actually able to deal with constitutional crises than a ‘free’ Head of State who would rather protect their own status as ‘Sovereign’ than intervene.

A) changes less often than the president does
B) take her of the 20 dollar if you wnat that has little to do with being the monarch.
Have you ever seen the currency from a republic (such as the United States) Genius? The design changes much less than under a monarchy. Second, if you start removing the symbols of monarchy, Monarchists start to get hot under the collar and crying fowl – aka ‘Republicanism by Stealth’. There are plenty of deserving New Zealanders that would be better placed on our currency than a monarch that has become ever more irrelevant over the last fifty years.

again not really nessercary give the GG a pay cut if you want pay him minimum wage - whatever.Thank you for your implied agreement that the executive you previously stated as being ‘free’ is in fact not. Of course, you could have argued that the G-G should be abolished, but then you would have left the Monarch wide open to real scrutiny. Giving the G-G a pay cut still won’t make them free, in any case, the G-Gs wage makes up very little of their expenses.

huh? I fail to see the added value you would get - it just makes all the problems you hate much worse.I fail to see how a non-executive President would make the problems of Monarchy worse. The de-facto Head of State, the Governor-General, would no longer be a political appointee of the Prime Minister; the President may very well become a counterweight to the excesses of the executive (take you pick on what excesses – there are plenty of examples from both left and right wing governments), whilst retaining the few advantages of having a non-partisan, non-executive Head of State. On the other hand, you could (once again) abolish the Head of State outright and devolve their powers to the speaker.

The added value, I would have thought, was self-evident from the symbolic arguments for a republic: any New Zealander being able to attain the ‘top job’, the grounding of the view that power flows from the governed not the governors, and emphasising that New Zealand is a sovereign, independent nation. On the practical side, you get a Head of State that actually represents New Zealand, (in the symbolic sense also – i.e. a person who attained their job by merit, not birth) and stands for values much more in tune with New Zealand.

rather like saying that I didnt vote for the communist party therefore I indirectly voted for the queen.Well yes, assuming the Communist Party has the policy of abolishing the Monarchy and you vote on that issue. Of course, General Elections are really blunt instruments when it comes to issues. However, your vote for a party that doesn’t advocate abolishing the monarchy is an implied vote for the Monarchy. Here’s how it works: Your elected representatives, voted for by yourself and your fellow electors, took a vote as to who the Speaker is to be. The consequence of that vote reflected the political allegiances and viewpoints of the participating representatives; those political allegiances were a result of the elections you voted in.

You misunderstood - It is not fundimental to the role as monarch. take it away from the monarch if you want.So, if the exercise of the Monarch’s constitutional powers is not fundamental to the role of the Monarch, may I ask what is?

You seem to be saying somthing equyivilent to
"I dont like that presidents choosing judges so the us should give up on democracy"
why not just change the thing you have a problem with?
If you were to argue that the President of the US shouldn’t have the ability to choose Judges because you see it as undemocratic, then it makes no sense to argue the way around this problem is to ‘give up’ democracy. On the other hand, if you were to remove all of the constitutional powers of the Monarch and devolved them to, say, the Speaker of the House, then you will still have a Monarchy that is fundamentally symbolically against our belief in appointment by merit. That is a values judgement, not simply a practical consideration. It is a values judgement that New Zealanders are increasingly seeing as an important symbolic obstruction.

Posted by Lewis Holden : 3/06/2005 10:58:00 PM

> Genius, you missed the point - the Monarch isn't free. We have to pay for their representative (The Governor-General) and a host of other things.

Dont pay for them then. The salary and benefits that you give to the G-G are presumably a mixture of tradition and some sort of salaries decision made by the parliment. If not then they should be.

> A non-executive President would probably be no more expensive than the Governor-General

I think he would - he would be more high profile.

> And who appoints the Governor-General…

the primeminister is it not - making him or her an indirectly elected official.

> I, for one, would much rather have a non-partisan Head of State actually able to deal with constitutional crises.

Ok at least you are taking a position as opposed to attacking it from both directions.

> Have you ever seen the currency from a republic (such as the United States) Genius? The design changes much less than under a monarchy.

there are two parts to this 1st is the choice of head of state the second is some law or convention that talks about wether you change pictures on your coins and notes. adopt the US system of having old monarchs if you want I dont suppose anyone would put up a fight if it saves money.

> There are plenty of deserving New Zealanders that would be better placed on our currency than a monarch .

Its pretty hard to say who is deserving - we would proably end up putting a sportsman or somthing on there.

> Thank you for your implied agreement that the executive you previously stated as being ‘free’ is in fact not.

You are not making any sense. the monarch is free the atachments may or may not be but they are all optional. If you have a good argument agaisnt one of them then you might be able to win a debate to remove it.

> Of course, you could have argued that the G-G should be abolished, but then you would have left the Monarch wide open to real scrutiny.

Im not arguing for any of these solutions I am just saying that since monarchy doesnt require us to have red coats running around it also doesnt require us to do anything else specific although many of us may want those things anyway.

> The de-facto Head of State, the Governor-General, would no longer be a political appointee of the Prime Minister

How the G-G is apointed is also somthing that could be changed if you are that worried about seperation of powers. If you are going to inceace his powers you will probably increace his cost so arguments like "he costs money" are nonsense if your solution is "have a more expensive president".

> any New Zealander being able to attain the ‘top job’

Any NZder can become the G-G just like any NZder can become the chairman of telecom. The G-g has basically no power so your power argumnt is irelevant. If you give him more power his job could be more like the hiring of an executive to a state owned company.

> On the practical side, you get a Head of State that actually represents New Zealand.

what exactly are you trying to achieve with your head of state? I'm sure we can find a much better way to do it than your solution.

> those political allegiances were a result of the elections you voted in.

so if you vote for a party you vote for a primeminister and thus a G-G.

>So, if the exercise of the Monarch’s constitutional powers is not fundamental to the role of the Monarch, may I ask what is?

Being recognised as the country's monarch, obviously.

> then you will still have a Monarchy that is fundamentally symbolically against our belief in appointment by merit.

You dont want a merit system you wnat an elected system. merit is how a head of a company is chosen (hopefully) elections are based on a variety of other issues.

Posted by Genius : 3/07/2005 10:31:00 AM

Dont pay for them then. The salary and benefits that you give to the G-G are presumably a mixture of tradition and some sort of salaries decision made by the parliment. If not then they should be.

Genius, you will still have to pay for the upkeep of the Governor-General’s residence, their staff, security, etc. Simply not paying the G-G isn’t going to make the office free. The only way to do that would be to scrap the Office of G-G altogether. Anyway, who is going to want to be the G-G if there is no compensation for time spent doing the job?

A non-executive President would probably be no more expensive than the Governor-GeneralI think he would - he would be more high profile.Well, if the President was a non-executive one, (and hence preformed the same constitutional functions as the G-G), and was therefore made to live with the G-Gs budget (which would most certainly still be set by Parliament) then the President would be no more expensive than the Governor-General. You are clearly assuming that the President would have wider constitutional powers than the G-G does; I would say the vast majority of republicans (but not all) are in favour of a President with similar, if not more restrained, powers to the Governor-General.

And who appoints the Governor-General…the primeminister is it not - making him or her an indirectly elected official.Exactly – the Governor-General is hence the de-facto Head of State.

Its pretty hard to say who is deserving - we would proably end up putting a sportsman or somthing on there. Oh dear, a sportsman! (Lets just hope it’s not a sportswoman!). I think you’ll find virtually every sportsman has done more for this country than QEII.

You are not making any sense. the monarch is free the atachments may or may not be but they are all optional. If you have a good argument agaisnt one of them then you might be able to win a debate to remove it.No, you said, “If we have an executive its good to have a free one”. My point was not that the ‘attachments’ as you call them are inevitable – I merely noted that they were incidental. As I previously noted, you could do away with the Governor-General and spare yourself the expense of that Office. In answer to your point on the currency, yes, you could do away with the Queen’s head on the currency. But then you’d still have to pay for their Royal Tours. Are you going to do away with those also? I doubt it. You’d still need the Queen to give Royal Assent to legislation, appoint Judges, call Parliament’s elections, etc. Unless you are willing to make a big contribution to Telecom’s business, you would have to have the Queen resident in New Zealand to do these things. That just ain’t gonna happen. If you want to cut all constitutional ties to the Queen, and hence further the constitutional reality that the G-G is a de-facto Head of State,

How the G-G is apointed is also somthing that could be changed if you are that worried about seperation of powers.Yes, you could. Papua New Guinea elects their Governor-General by Parliamentary vote. That doesn’t strike at the core issue that Monarchy is fundamentally contradictory to our constitutions’ modus operandi.

If you are going to inceace his powers you will probably increace his cost so arguments like "he costs money" are nonsense if your solution is "have a more expensive president".Your point rests on the assumption that a President would have more powers, and hence be more expensive. Given that the driving force of many republican arguments is for the limiting of the power of the executive, and hence the office of the President, I find it highly doubtful that such a President would have more powers. As I have already canvassed above, your assumption is flawed. Contemporary experience in many other non-executive republics is that they are no more expensive than our Governor-General. Anyway, my argument against Monarchy has never been that the G-G costs money, I made this point because of your false assertion that the Monarch is ‘free’. They are not.

Any NZder can become the G-G just like any NZder can become the chairman of telecom. You are wrong on this point. The Chairman of Telecom is the Head of Telecom. The G-G is not the Head of State; even though it may be de-facto Head of State, it is not the top job. No New Zealander can attain the top job, save an unlikely marriage or ten and a couple of unfortunate incidences…

The G-g has basically no power so your power argumnt is irelevant. Again, you are wrong. The G-G has immense powers; indeed the introduction of MMP has seen the role of the G-G increased. The exercise of those powers is constrained by the Victorian belief that any appointees to the Office will act like Gentlemen. That simply will not suffice in 21st century New Zealand.

If you give him more power his job could be more like the hiring of an executive to a state owned company. Yes, but once again your answer rests on the assumption that the President would have more powers. Even if we assume that that were true, the President would be more like – well, a President in Corporate Governance terms. They would not be an executive.

what exactly are you trying to achieve with your head of state? I'm sure we can find a much better way to do it than your solution.Well, I’m all ears. How else do we get a Head of State that represents New Zealand other than having a New Zealander as Head of State?

so if you vote for a party you vote for a primeminister and thus a G-G.Yes and no, which is why I commented that general elections are a blunt instrument. Under MMP, you are less likely to be voting for a Prime Minister in any case.

Being recognised as the country's monarch, obviously.So, if the Monarch has no social, constitutional or symbolic worth, it simply suffices that ‘they are recognised as the country’s monarch’? Incredible.

then you will still have a Monarchy that is fundamentally symbolically against our belief in appointment by merit. You dont want a merit system you wnat an elected system. You’re wrong again. I personally favour a President appointed or confirmed by Parliament after being nominated by an independent group. On the other hand, you could, as I’ve noted twice before, abolish the Head of State outright. In any case, elections would be based more on merit than being born into the right family could ever be. That fact alone means that elections are inherently merit-based, while birth is privilege based.

merit is how a head of a company is chosen (hopefully) elections are based on a variety of other issues.That may be true, but the fact remains that while elections are not perfect, they are (to paraphrase Churchill) better than all other systems we’ve tried. They are most definitely better than choosing your head of state by birth.

Posted by Lewis Holden : 3/07/2005 11:08:00 PM

> You will still have to pay for the upkeep of the Governor-General’s residence

If they dont use it get rid of it. or give them a smaller place - who could complain about that? also - what does the G-g need security for? And the staff either do somthing useful or they dont if they do then nothing to complain about if they dont then get rid of them - your still jsut complaining about things that are under the juristiction of various government departments and committees.

> Anyway, who is going to want to be the G-G if there is no compensation for time spent doing the job?

what job? The G-g is largely symbolic personally I think its a waste of time getting them to sign off on laws on behalf of the queen but i also think it would be a waste of time for anyone else to do the rubber stamping. But if he stoped doing that then so what? the queen probably never saw any of those laws anyway.

> Exactly – the Governor-General is hence the de-facto Head of State.

so your problem is?

> I think you’ll find virtually every sportsman has done more for this country than QEII.

You cant measure it Im afraid. But if I was forced to measure it I would say the average sportsman has done far less and for more selfish reasons. The queen served some HOS functions during WWII for example (not that i was alive then) and had a fairly demanding job of "being the queen" ie not screwing up in public. Although you would probably argue that the very act of her doing her job is a negative..

> I merely noted that they were incidental.

still - it is a free monarchy, it is just that the head of state aparatus costs money. As I have noted already you could remove all of htat apparatus if you wanted and yet still have a queen.

> But then you’d still have to pay for their Royal Tours.

I expect they are a profit making enterprise - you get the media attention and so forth - besides many of us would be happy to put tax dollars in to buy that anyway. Soon you will be telling me we should not alow foreign diplomats to visit because htey cost alot of money (maybe even more than the prince - wow).

> You’d still need the Queen to give Royal Assent to legislation

no I think that is nonsense. if the queen isnt the one doing it personally then whats the point?

> The G-G is not the Head of State

We seemed to be complaining about hte g-g role now we are back to the queen.. ok.....
the choice of a queen is not hugely important therefore unworthy of an election (besides it would be beter not to have to change it more than once a generation or so) it could be a parlimentary apointment as you seem to suggest but then it lacks credibility and becomes a cushy position to strive for and a focus of corruption probably this is because it has no skills (very few skills anyway) required so there is no requirments against which to measure it just freindships and corruption. rather like how many people cynically think helen is positioning for a position in the UN. I guess the g-g is like that now but I would support reducing its role anyway.

> Again, you are wrong. The G-G has immense powers

As i said before a power that you cannot (or will not) use or even threaten to use - is not a power.

> Well, I’m all ears. How else do we get a Head of State that represents New Zealand other than having a New Zealander as Head of State?

You want a HOS that represents NZ... but why? Helen Clarke represents NZ - isn't she doing it right? If having more representitives is the aim your welcome to hire as many as you want and give them all sorts of names.

> So, if the Monarch has no social, constitutional or symbolic worth, it simply suffices that ‘they are recognised as the country’s monarch’? Incredible.

no they can have social and symbolic worth without any specific piece of funding or power. It is not particularly incredible there are examples of al sorts of heads of state around hte world I dont know of any common powers or pieces of funding that they all have so i find it surprising htat you seem to be arguing that certain aspects of this system are fundimental.

> That fact alone means that elections are inherently merit-based, while birth is privilege based.

> They are most definitely better than choosing your head of state by birth.

I Dont see why. Not to be flipant - your children are chosen by birth, sure you could go out and adopt one but there is a certain continuality to having your own. the system works ok so we dont bother with the forced adoption thing (i think the comunists tried htat right?)
I see no problem with alowing it for the monarchy as long as they dont have much power.

Posted by Genius : 3/08/2005 12:07:00 AM

The Governor-General is not largely symbolic; they carry out a number of important constitutional functions. If you don’t see calling elections, proroguing parliament or calling parties to form a government as important constitutional functions, then clearly you do not understand the way our constitution works.

Perhaps the most important power the G-G performs for the Monarch is the granting of Royal Assent for Acts of Parliament. This is because Monarch (in Constitutional Law the term ‘Crown’ is often used) is Sovereign. This means that Parliament’s authority to make laws devolves from the Monarch; Parliament under a constitutional monarchy sits at the sufferance of the Monarch. The Queen is legally a part of parliament. In order for you to remove this function you would need to delegate sovereignty from the Crown. This is exactly what we’re getting at; modus operandi New Zealand is a de-facto republic, our constitution should reflect this reality. In a strange twist of ideological fait, republicanism has become realist.

The important thing to note here is that the G-G is not a full Head of State; they are only a de-facto one. The Monarch is Head of State. You asserted that the G-G was Head of State. That is incorrect; the Queen is, both legally and constitutionally. That is not a complaint against the Queen per se, that is the constitutional reality. If you read my previous point on this, you’ll find that I noted that the monarch’s powers are devolved to the G-G. That is, in part, why the monarch is constitutionally useless. I never said that the G-G won’t use their powers; indeed the examples of Kerr or Ganilau to show that the G-G does indeed have immense powers; and is willing to exercise them.

The Monarchy is not free, despite your argument that it is only the ‘attachments’ we pay for; these ‘attachments’ are part of the function of the Monarch as Head of State. In order to avoid these costs, we would have to move to a bicycle monarchy. You’d never get to see monarch, the monarch or their representative wouldn’t sign off laws, and you’d have homeless a hobo for G-G. What, exactly, would be the point of having a Monarch that was totally constitutionally useless and totally symbolically irrelevant?

Your argument against parliamentary appointed Presidents is not confirmed by the experience of republics of this nature, such as Germany, Austria or Israel. On the other hand, your argument for a bicycle monarchy, such as Sweden, confirms that a powerless monarchy still costs the Swedish taxpayer money. The ‘Swedish’ model may very well do away with the Head of State in a constitutional sense, but, as you noted, you can still have the Queen. My argument is that there is no point, particularly given the way in which monarchy is totally against the grounding of our system, in retaining a useless Monarchy.

Posted by Lewis Holden : 3/08/2005 11:14:00 PM