Dean Knight has posted his paper and Dr Michael Cullen's from the republic discussion at the Reconstituting the Constitution conference yesterday (2 September).

The Dominion Post writes:

Ultimately it is for New Zealanders to decide their constitutional
arrangements at the ballot box, but it makes sense to begin
consideration now. If there is to be change, the end of the reign of

Dr Cullen appeared on TVNZ's breakfast this morning to discuss his new position on a New Zealand republic:

Dave Guerin appeared on TVNZ's Back Benches last night to put the case for a New Zealand republic. Dave did a stirling job representing the Republican Movement - good onya!

TVNZ's Breakfast program featured Dr Cullen's comments today. Simon O'Connor of Monarchy New Zealand and myself went on and discussed the speech with Pippa Wetzell.

A street in Beirut during the Lebanese civil war. Monarchy New Zealand thinks this is what a New Zealand republic will be like

The Herald on Sunday feature article (not online) on the future of the monarchy has revealed some interesting sentiments from Monarchy New Zealand's Simon O'Connor:

"In terms of Julia Gillard I think it's quite disappointing, she is stuck in a 20th-century mindset. Republicanism is an outdated idea."

This is a nice piece of spin, but the reality is that Mr O'Connor is defending an 18th century institution in the form of the constitutional monarchy. The fact the British monarchy lost its appeal during the 20th century doesn't make republicanism "outdated" by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is Gillard was repeating a long-standing ALP policy for plebiscites on a republic.

However, the really interesting bit is an unquoted statement wherein Simon "cites violence in Lebanon and the contentious 2000 US elections of examples of where republics have faltered." If this is verbatim what Mr O'Connor said, it's simply staggering. There is no analogy between New Zealand, the United States and Lebanon. For starters, Lebanon's civil war was created by deep seated religious divisions, not by republicanism. Secondly, assuming Lebanon was like New Zealand with the Queen as its head of state, that would hardly have helped since the Queen is head of an established church and reigns "by Grace of God".

The US example is laughable - that was an argument over a closely fought election that was decided in the US Supreme Court, hardly any different from parliamentary disputes over legitimacy. There have been two elections since that have gone without a hitch. I suspect, like the comparison with the United States, that Mr O'Connor isn't serious or is being deliberately deceptive.

In the past, supporters of the monarchy have had beer adverts they found "offensive" removed. More recently, Monarchy New Zealand made a lame attempt at humour, calling on members to "hug a republican", all the while gloating about the defeat of Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill.

Benjamin Jones recently railed against the "real monarchists". According to Benjamin they're the true believers who are:

...people who oppose a republic, not because of any perceived faults, but because they actually approve of the monarchic system.

In my experience, the vast majority of supporters of the monarchy aren't "real monarchists", they support the monarchy for what they see as practical reasons. They're happy to listen to reason and sometimes come on your side, especially as their fears and assumptions (things like Commonwealth membership, model of a republic or who might be head of state) are discussed and corrected.

The real monarchists - those who run the monarchist leagues of the Commonwealth - know that such discussion are the biggest threat to the monarchy. Preventing any debate is their current modus operandi in Australia and New Zealand. That's why real monarchists in New Zealand vehemently opposed Head of State Referenda Bill with a hyperbolic campaign, disingenuously claiming they're interested in saving the taxpayer money (at the same time they appear to not be able to read budgetary documents plainly showing the Governor-General of New Zealand is more expensive than foreign (head of state) equivalents, or make up ridiculous arguments to justify spending $200,000 of taxpayer's money for a young royal to cut a ribbon). And where they do engage in debate, they offer contradictory and inconsistent arguments, which is explained by Craig Young as being nothing more than "lazy, populist anti-intellectualism".

But there will come a time when the real monarchists have to engage, and it will be more of the same. Aside from trying to divide and rule supporters of a republic, their other strategy is to attack democracy, politicians, the 'political elite' and the political process (aka the 'system'); to show that these things are against the interests of the 'little people' and that the monarchy is in their interests, keeps politicians in check and 'holds back' the political class.