Formalising the Republican Movement's policy positions

Submitted by LJ Holden on 28 July, 2011 - 20:30
A number of members have asked the national executive to produce a clear statement of the Republican Movement's policies, similar to what our friends in the Australian Republican Movement have produced. I agree with this, and have initiated a discussion among the exec around what this could look like. We're using the Australian example as a guide, and will put our draft to the Republican Movement's upcoming AGM and conference.

But first, some background on what we've got at the moment. Currently, the Republican Movement's most important policy statement is the our goals and activities, which are derived from our constitution (as the "objects" of the society). These were last updated by members at our 2010 AGM and conference, where we added in a catch-all clause on a codified constitution.

The objects commit the Republican Movement and its members to: 
  • involving all New Zealanders in the debate; 
  • providing relevant and reliable information; 
  • focusing on ideas, not personalities; and 
  • winning a referendum to establish the republic. 

Creating a republic does not require a codified constitution any change to the Treaty of Waitangi, flag or Commonwealth membership.


By way of explanation, here's our understandings for each of these points:

Involving all New Zealanders in the debate


There won't be a New Zealand republic without including all New Zealanders in the republic debate, and bringing public opinion with us. For this reason, we are a non-partisan organisation. Our members are drawn from right across the political spectrum. Most of our members are also members of the major political parties on the left and right of the spectrum, and includes those who left right out of the spectrum.

Providing relevant and reliable information


We can't change public opinion with the current levels of understanding (and misinformation - take the issue of membership of the Commonwealth) about what a New Zealand republic means. Education is an important factor in this debate, and the Republican Movement is committed to providing relevant, reliable and correct information.

Focusing on ideas, not personalities


Not making personal attacks is an important aspect our the Republican Movement's approach to the New Zealand republic debate. Of course, some opponents of a New Zealand republic consider any mention of the Royal family in a negative light - especially where their interests go against New Zealand's - to be an attack on them. 


Winning a referendum to establish the republic


A New Zealand republic must have the legitimacy of a referendum - the consent of the people of New Zealand - behind it. We do not support the establishment of a republic by parliamentary fiat alone (currently only one party, Peter Dunne's United Future, has a policy for a referendum).

Creating a republic does not require a codified constitution any change to the Treaty of Waitangi, flag or Commonwealth membership.


These final "catch alls" relate to four major issues that are often raised, particularly by those who fear a New Zealand republic. They're kind of mini policies in themselves:
  • a codified constitution isn't a requirement for creating a republic. That might be the final process through which a republic is achieved (although the Canadian experience with codifying their constitution in the 1980s appears to contradict this), but it is not a requirement for a New Zealand republic;
  • The Treaty of Waitangi is another thorny issue that gets tossed about by opponents of a New Zealand republic (most of whom, interestingly enough, appear to oppose the position the Treaty holds in New Zealand's society today). However, it's actually not the "problem" opponents of a republic make it out to be. Nor is a New Zealand republic an opportunity to annul the Treaty that some claim it is;
  • New Zealand's flag doesn't need to change when we become a republic. Of course, almost universally New Zealand republicans support changing the flag. However, we acknowledge that the general public are fearful that they wouldn't get a say in what a new flag might look like, so we keep the flag and republic issues separate;
  • Commonwealth membership is another much debated issue. However, much like the Treaty the reality is that a New Zealand republic won't change our Commonwealth membership. Sadly, this is not a very well known fact.
So, there you have it - in the coming months the national executive is looking to formalise our policies, which might end up looking different from the above. Watch this space!

Comments

Mike Wilkinson's picture
Submitted by Mike Wilkinson on 29 July, 2011 - 11:45.

Lewis,


Is "Creating a republic does not require a codified constitution any change to the Treaty of Waitangi, flag or Commonwealth membership." actually a fifth object the Movement is committing to?  Or is it just a response to common objection to republicanism in NZ?  That is, how much of a priority is it for the Movement to avoid a codified constitution?

The reason I ask is that, I for one, believe the Movement may have to demand aspects to republicanism (such as, but not limited to, a directly elected HoS) that would fit into a codified constitution.  If the Movement is not able to call for those aspects, I suspect it may find itself unable to win a referendum on the issue (the fourth object).  That is, would the Movement be willing to sacrifice its (apparent) fifth object in order to reach its fourth object? 

Cheers,
Mike

LJ Holden's picture
Submitted by LJ Holden on 29 July, 2011 - 22:16.

Hi Mike,


This was a point of much debate at the AGM last year. Much of our discussion centered on the issue of whether we should advocate for a codified constitution as part of a move to a republic.

As you know, my view is that to do so not only greatly decreases the probability of any change being made, it also means the Republican Movement itself would split over issues that are actually of no relevance to the New Zealand republic debate. As the experience in Canada shows, a codified constitution can actually be used to entrench the position of the monarchy (in Canada, the new constitution adopted in 1982 requires that all the provinces of Canada agree unanimously to abolishing the Crown.)

However, as Kurt Sharpe pointed out, we can't dictate the terms of the events which might lead to a republic. So the smartest position for us to adopt is that a codified constitution is not required by a republic; that doesn't preclude a codified constitution and, much like our position on the flag, doesn't mean we're opposed to changing the status of New Zealand's constitution.

It simply means that we're not campaigning for that change.

Chair, Republican Movement - contact me online or call on +64 27 699 1350

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Syndicate content