NZ Herald poll: 34.5% republic 55.2% "keep the Queen"
The New Zealand Herald's latest summer of polls asks:
Do you think New Zealand should become a republic when the Queen dies?
34.5% said yes, 55.2% said "no", 10.3% don't know or refused to answer. The gender split was very much apparent: 38.6% of men support a republic, versus 30.5% of women, while 54.2% of men support the monarchy versus 56.1% of women. Interestingly, this result is inline with the last time the Herald asked the question, back in 2004. The sample size, 750, was exactly the same as the 2004 poll, and had a margin or error of 3.6%.
Strangely, the associated article records that 55% of respondents "still wanted the Queen as head of state". Given that the question was actually whether New Zealand should become a republic when the Queen dies, this response makes no sense. I've written to the journalist (Derek Cheng) to clarify as to whether this was a response from those polled.
What's also interesting is that this poll also asked about New Zealand's flag. 21.7% wanted to change the flag, as opposed to 52% last year. This goes to show the value of a public debate, and why opponents of change oppose any discussion of the issue: they know the monarchy does not stand up to critical scrutiny. That's why they ran a hyperbolic campaign against Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"NZ Herald poll: 34.5% republic 55.2% "keep the Queen"\""){kind=small}
Comments
Sour grapes their LJH? You're losing support faster than your mate Filk Off.
What's Phil Goff got to do with this poll? And he's not my mate.
I guess if you interpret this analysis as "sour grapes" then there's no way I can rationally discuss it with you. Never mind.
Of course, support for a Republic would be 80% if the Australian and NZ Republic movements stop pussy-footing and came out and told us they want 1) a directly-elected Head of State and 2) CIR (constitutionally entrenched citizen initiated referenda with a low threshold) - who would vote no to giving politicans' more power over the people? (Other obviously than the politicans' and monarchists who love the politicans' monarchy). I mean seriously...
But as it stands, if someone asked me about an unknown, undefined version of a Republic, I would also reply with 'NO - SHOW ME THE DETAILS'.
Just out of interest Spadj, are you a member of the ARM? If not why not sign up and call on them to adopt direct election as their model?
Personally I think you're right, but the issue is the process to put it in place. The experience from 1999 shows trying to impose a model from the top down will always fail.
Lewis, I'm above politics (oh, the irony!)- so I'm not too keen about joining organisations, but happy to provide input and objective, academic commentary. I merely report the facts. That's it.
Anyways, this is the precise problem in Australia: the model the people support, the politicans' do not. The model the politicans' support, the people do not. Our framers - by refusing to adopt Kingston's 1891 draft Constitution (which had CIR) - decided to allow politicans' only to start of a referendum. Hence, we live under a politicans' monarchy - where power resides in the politicans' (with the Crown as a DISGUISE), and not the people. Again - I do not mean to sound obssessed - but only Switzerland has shown historically to be properous - go back to the 1970s, 1940s, 1920s and 1890s and you will note Switzerland consistently is in the top 10 or so in economic output per capita, low unemployment, stability etc. The UK and other monarchies do not - they have their momment and disappear. The UK is hardly doing well nowadays, the same is true of Sweden (check out its ghettos and violence rates). One wonders what will happen to Qatar and Norway once the oil runs out.
I only see a PM adopting direct-election with CIR at the end of their term i.e. someone who has served a decade or so, and is about to retire. This ensures the people don't override them, but at the same time allows them to go down in history as the 'people's hero' for championing such a 'democratic' model.
I only see a PM adopting direct-election with CIR at the end of their
term i.e. someone who has served a decade or so, and is about to retire.
This ensures the people don't override them, but at the same time
allows them to go down in history as the 'people's hero' for championing
such a 'democratic' model.
Interestingly, in New Zealand the CIR Act was passed in 1993 as a way to stave of changes to the electoral system at a referendum held that year, largely forced on the incumbent National government (led, I might add, by republican PM Jim Bolger) by the Lange government.
On that basis, you're probably right Spadj - although I would say binding referendums are a long way off, and personally I wouldn't support them without first having an entrenched Bill of Rights, so we don't have the same sort of issues Switzerland has (cf. the infamous minaret referendum of 2009) - although I understand there is a legal challenge to that under way as the Swiss constitution does in fact protect freedom of religion.
I also think while a lower threshold for initiatives is desirable (that was a problem we had in 2005 with the change the flag campaign: while we managed to get 100,000 signatures, that was 100,000 short of the required number), there should be a majority requirement, i.e. a referendum is only deemed passed if a majority of registered electors vote for it. In the so-called anti-smacking referendum 87.4% voted no, but the turn-out was just 56% - in other words, only 48% of registered electors supported change (actually that's a bit of a stretch - the other problem with the referendum was that the question was unclear, and the Prime Minister used that as a reason to ignore the referendum's results, which also meant fewer people voted). IMHO initiated referendums should only be binding where an overall majority of electors support them, not just a plurality, as everyone has to live with the decision of a referendum.
With all respect Lewis, the minaret outcome was correct as I am a believer that symbols matter: Minaret's can be offensive to gay and women's rights (Islam is hardly the most tolerant religion), the environment of the country in question, the ability for a nation to orchestrate its own planning laws and Swiss sovereignty (recall PRIOR to the referendum Gadafi said he would "nuke" Switzerland, then he asserted he'd divide it up between France, Germany and Italty - he then declade Jihad on it). They banned Minaret's that tower over an area (not even part of Muslim culture until only a few centuries ago). They did not ban Mosques. Indeed, when I go to Switzerland, I want to see its beautiful natural skyline, not a skyline as if I were in the Middle East (otherwise, I would have paid to go there!). Equally, most of the Minarets' were being put up to inflame the local population, as leaked emails showed. I also note it was the secular left, local residents, environmentalists, the feminist left and the right-wing Peoples' Party that go together - what about their rights? You only get a majority in Switzerland when minorities join together. Luckily, in November the Swiss passed another measure to deport immigrants who commit welfare fraud, rape or murder: that's the whole point of having a nation isn't? - to promote the welfare and stability of its own citizens. In any event, that is the great thing about CIR - it doesn't allow you to troll out words like rights" without actually having an EMPIRICAL argument to back it up. Do you really want Switzerland ending up like Sweden? No wonder most of Europe is angry, decaying and increasingly violent - CIR curbs extremism as it curbs that excesses that give rise to it in the first place. Btw, the judiciary cannot strike down laws in Switzerland. My draft constitution provides for an 'advisory opinion' by the High Court to deal with these isolated scenarios. Meantime, get over it.
In any event, CIR has a better history of protecting civil liberties than a Bill of Rights. Who stopped the government banning the Communist Party in the 1950s in Oz? The People in a referendum! While in the U.S. their bill of rights did NOTHING for the murder, torture, threats, death, abuse against Communists in the US. Who gave gay couples civil unions in 2004? The People via CIR! Access to medical facilities to gay people? The People via CIR! Who refused to agree to a ban on gay people to work in educational facilities and gave them the same economics rights as Australia did in 2008, as they did in 1992? The People via CIR! Of course, CIR is great as for the marriage issue it allows a wait and see approach to see how other jurisidictions go - so its reformists, yet balanced. What about the best Transport System in the world? The People. Paid maternity leave? The People Cf. South with all its positive rights, but poor transport policies and the like. The US also had a bill of rights, but that did not stop them adhereing to Dred Scott for several years too - where is that one way street when it comes to bill of rights (i.e. rations of slavery?). Lewis, you deploy an incorrect premise to think bills of right are as effective as CIR in protecting rights - they are not - and we haven't even started discussing economic rights! (I reject the notion of rights, and think they are non-sense on silts, but thats another story). CIR would also deal with non-justiciable issues like going to war.
I agree regarding the threshold to start off a referendum (so minority groups can appeal to the people if the Parliament is going crazy), the minimum requirements for voter turnout (my draft constitutions deals with that), although if 87% of the population voted 'no' in the smacking case I would have thought even if voter turnout were higher than that, it still would not change the outcome of the referendum. In any event, wording of the question aside, the real issue before the people was very clear - do you want to go to gaol for a simple smack? Of course not. Constitutional amendments should be compuslory. My draft constitution provides that the President shall draft the question for both legislative and constitutional proposals, in consultation with the various interest groups.
Well, I happen to think freedom of religion is important and "troll" words like rights are important... but that's by the by. I think the referendum was wrong, and wouldn't meet the basic standards of turnout requirements anyway, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Lewis, I agree freedom of religion is important, but as I said 1) Minaret's are not part of the Islamic religion per se, but a cultural add on starting roughly 7-8 centuries after Islam first was concieved (it was not used prior to the 16th century in fact and should be viewed in context - someone just declared Jihad on your country and suggested it should be divided up!); 2) there are conflicting rights and issues (as I said, unlike other symbols of major religions, minaret do tower over serene views - they range from 32 m to 210 m - and may be offensive to some) and 3) it did NOT impose a ban on the religion itself, or a site of worship, nor did it repeal existing Minaret's. Of course, one may ask 'why not ban Christanity or Judiasm' - of course, the issue here is not banning a religion, and their symbols are not as ...welll tall as the others.
There is a whole literature on why rights are not important - but I am not going to get into that. But note I could use the word "freedom of religion" - but that does not address CONFLICTING rights - right of other minorities, citizens of a secular country, environmental rights etc. So by all means talk about rights; and I'll talk about rights as well. But ultimately, it gets us no where - as what should govern an outcome are not rights, but evidence based policy and conflict resolution.
Also, if you increased the voter turnout by, say, 4 or 5% - to meet your voter threshold - do you seriously believe the smacking referendum would have gone down? It's statistically unlikely. Anyways, with electronic/internet technologies, votes can more accessibility register a vote - so voter turnout may rise by simple institutional changes.
Also, on your claim that we need to "live with" CIR outcomes. I'm sorry, but we also need to live with Parliamentary outcomes and laws. So what? At least with CIR - if you honestly feel that you have been offended or aggrieved by a law, and feel so passionately about it that you will get off your seat and vote against it - you can do so. We can't do that with representative democracy. We vote in aggregates, not disaggregates.
Oh and one more point on the issue of turnout: you do realise that only one third of all MPs are required to be present in order for legislation to be enacted? It's a tad different in a hung Parliament, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
AH PARLIAMENT...SO REFLECTIVE OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
Give me a break.
Post new comment