Meanwhile, on the opposition benches
The Otago Daily Times reports the leader of the opposition, Phil Goff, made this response to John Key's interview on BBC's Hardtalk program:
"I think as long as she's alive she will be Queen of New Zealand. At the point that she is no longer queen, New Zealanders will probably want to think about what they do for the future.
"But that's a decision for New Zealanders, it's not a decision for individual politicians -- it's a decision that all of us will need to make about what our future head of state might look like."
Mr Goff said the monarchy was very popular at the moment and if the issue went to a referendum New Zealanders would likely retain it.
"But as time passes, attitudes change and one day New Zealand will want to repatriate the head of state position to a New Zealander."
Key's monarchism has, predictably, lead to Labour repeating its call for a referendum on the issue.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
"But as time passes, attitudes change and one day New Zealand will want to repatriate the head of state position to a New Zealander." Surely Goff should have said "...New Zealand will want to nationalise the head of state position". Repatriate implies a return or restoration to a country - NZ never gave away the position in the first place. The position of HoS has always been held by the monarch. I suspect "repatriate" may be used both to minimise the aspect of change involved and to imply a sense of return to a previous state of affairs, that never actually existed.
"Key's monarchism has, predictably, lead to Labour repeating its call for a referendum on the issue." Goff said that it was a decision for NZers not politicians and NZers would likely retain the monarchy in a referendum. It does not sound like a call for an immediate referendum to me, unless he is advocating something he suspects would be a costly pointless exercise. If it is actually a call for a referendum, then the Labour Party should have the courage to, if not actually declare its republicanism in its manifesto, at least state that it would seek a referendum. I suspect that a more concealed approach is Labour's preferred option, as declared republicanism would probably not assist the chances of their re-election.
At the least, if they seek change, they should give party voters under MMP a clear indication as to policy. Likewise the Greens.
The current polling tells us there would be little loss to Labour or the Greens if they announced a republican policy - especially thanks to Labour's current polling. Likewise the Maori Party. Most republicans appear to be educated, urban middle-class males who tend to swing between the two major parties. I suspect this is part of John Key's thinking: the vast majority (about two-thirds) of monarchists are women, who typically don't vote National (I think from 2005 it was something like two-thirds of women voted Labour).
Interestingly even under the 1835 Declaration of Independence of NZ the British Monarch was declared to be the Matua/ Father of NZ. That position could be equivalent to a symbolic Head of State (similar to NZ's current monarch). With shades of T. of Waitangi disputes as to meaning (sigh), there seems to be a dispute as to how "paternalistic" the "matua" would be!
Lewis,
Hi Mike,
I agree it's not standing candidates, Lewis, but isn't the Movement still bidding for political popularity? Looking at the Aussie Movement's website, they believe that, "[a] number of options, including direct election, should be considered in the process leading up to the referendum." That sounds to me like an excellent platform for having the move to a republic subverted by the political process.
Post new comment