The Listener on a republic
The Listener continues its campaign to find any reason not to support a republic. Now they're saying moving the capital from Wellington to Auckland is of greater importance than becoming a republic, yet they open by saying:
That Prime Minister John Key, in deference to Canterbury’s suffering, was able to cancel both his weekend with the Queen and his planned British and European talks with a complete lack of political consequence this week underlines how very weak our colonial roots are these days.
But one of the many salutary lessons from the calamitous Canterbury earthquake is that the debate about the need for New Zealand to become a republic is a luxury we should save for another day.
And here's my response:
Dear Madam,
Your editorial (A capital question, Sept 14 - 24) asserts a republic would be more expensive. The evidence from similar Westminster-style systems in the world is the opposite.
NZ taxpayers currently spend around $8m p.a. supporting the office of Governor-General, who academics often describe as a 'de-facto head of state'. This doesn't include the cost of upgrading Government House Wellington, at a total cost of $48m.
Compare this with the President of Ireland, the head of state of a country with a parliamentary system, who has similar powers and responsibilities to our Governor-General. They cost Irish taxpayers about $6m p.a.
Even when you factor in election costs of about $4m, (once every seven years - the next one is in 2011) the President of Ireland is still cheaper than our Governor-General.
Aside from the expense issue, the fact is the Prime Minister gets to choose whoever they want to be our de facto head of state. They can also remove them at will. In Ireland the people actually get a say in who their head of state is.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
President of Ireland is still cheaper than our Governor-General.
The Republic of Ireland, as a comparison, is a god-send for advocates of a NZ republic. A small tight island, a President can gad about quickly and much cheaper than in NZ. NZ being a long archipelago, with a pacific island Empire to visit too, has greater travelling costs. There are international travel costs exceeding those that the President of the RoI incurs. The Irish President needs to have just the one official residence, whereas the history and geography of NZ has necessitated several. Are advocates for a NZ President suggesting that a NZ President would not travel as much and that provison of accommodation would change?
Considering the requirements of the Irish President, it could be argued that Irish expenses should be considerably less than what NZ pays for our Sovereign and GG.
Not really. It's just a useful example. I know monarchists are used to trying to compare New Zealand's democracy to Zimbabwe or Fiji should we become a republic, but those comparisons are ridiculous compared to the Republic of Ireland.
Yes, you've tried that one on before Bill. Since you keep trying, I'll keep responding. with facts... the total budgeted costs recorded for travel of the President of Ireland is €132,000.00, which is about $225,00.00 in NZ dollars. By contrast, New Zealand's Governor-General had budgeted spend of about $1,000,000 (the total figure is $1,279,000, the Governor-General's salary is about $200,000, with support staff covered in the other categories). So in real terms New Zealand's GG is spending four times the amount that Ireland's president is. What's interesting here is the proportions - travel makes up 4% of the Irish presidencys budget, whereas it makes up 13% of our GGs budget.
Of course, this reflects the fact that our GG travels more than the President of Ireland has to. Does that mean therefore that the GG is better value for money? Of course not. It's interesting you've missed the main point the Listener was making, which is that a New Zealand republic would be more expensive. It won't be, and we can prove it with maths.
There's two Bill, not "several" and at least one (Auckland) isn't necessary. In fact Government House Wellington is really redundant since Vogel House is now the GG's residence... there's plenty of scope for cost-cutting.
No Bill. As I've explained to you before, the claims by monarchists that a New Zealand republic would be much more expensive are simply wrong. Interestingly, you've made no mention of this fact... admission by omission I think they call it.
We don't pay anything for the Sovereign because she's not ours. We free-ride off the British taxpayer. However when our absentee head of state does visit us, it costs a fortune in security (about $1m back in 2002... that will probably be double again next time).
I await some factual justification of your assertion that the President of Ireland ought to be cheaper, because their requirements are supposedly less. More silence on that one too?
Yes, you've tried that one on before Bill. Since you keep trying, I'll keep responding.
Oh dear. As indeed you keep on using the dubious comparison to costs of the Irish President.
I await some factual justification of your assertion that the President of Ireland ought to be cheaper, because their requirements are supposedly less. More silence on that one too?
I presume you mean apart from fewer expenses due to domestic travel expenses, no requirement to visit Pacific colonies and associated states, cheaper international travel. Historically, Ireland needing just the one "Government House" because of its geographical size.
" In fact Government House Wellington is really redundant since Vogel House is now the GG's residence... there's plenty of scope for cost-cutting." Sure I agree with you...with modern travel there should be just the one official residence. That is a Government decision independent of whether NZ is a republic or not. Why would the Government be in any greater a hurry to sell off redundant houses if the GG were replaced by a President?
We don't pay anything for the Sovereign because she's not ours.
This is bizarre as you mention the cost of the Queen in NZ in the next sentence. She still is "ours" as no Act has slipped through making the GG "interim" Head of State yet. The cost of security for a cancelled US Sec. of State visit was $500,000.
Oh I see, so the comparison with Zimbabwe is not dubious, whereas a comparison with a country following the Westminster system with a population and economy of similar size to New Zealand. The comparison isn't perfect, but it certainly is better than anything else I've seen.
No. The proportion is 4% versus 13%, so while it's x3.25 the amount for the GG, that still doesn't explain why our GG is more expensive than the president.
It wouldn't have to. The Deed of Gift for Government House Auckland was to the Queen and her representatives. Become a republic and the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it any more.
Oh dear Bill... you've just shown why it's not bizarre. If the US Secretary of State isn't ours either, yet you note there was a $500,000.00 cost for not hosting her, then it doesn't follow that paying for the Queen's trips makes her "ours" in any sense other than legally.
Post new comment