Republicans: Let Satyanand speak

Hi Anon, I'm not sure if you meant to post your comment here but I'll reply here:

Your argument for a republic is sloppy at best .

Ok, fair call - please let us know where are we being sloppy.

The first thing we
need in New Zealand is a Constitution but you negate that argument
saying we have the treaty of Waitangi.

Sorry, that is wrong - firstly, NZ does have a constitution. We have never said the Treaty of Waitangi is or was New Zealand's constitution, because it isn't. New Zealand's constitution is a collection of statutes (principally the Constitution Act 1986), conventions and has other non-legal sources such as the Cabinet Manual. Calling the Treaty of Waitangi New Zealand's founding document does not mean that it is our constitution.

This is NOT  a   written and
binding constitution agreed by NZ'rs  and has been hi jacked by
political interest groups in ways it was never intended.

That may be so, but it's not the issue we're pursuing and it's not relevant to the head of state debate.

So if
we want to consider ourselves a grown up country we need to get rid of
the treaty  first, replace it with a constitution, and then talk about a
republic. But of course that is something for the Too Hard basket 

As I've said above, this is not relevant to becoming a republic. If you've got a bee in your bonnet about the Treaty, fine - but you've made a claim about the Republican Movement which is totally incorrect.

As a small country with weak politicians we will always be beholden to America; so how would or own representative help that ?

I'm not as certain as you are that New Zealand is "always" beholden to the US, or that even if we are beholden that that is the product of "weak politicians". The evidence tends to point the other way: our nuclear free stance, refusal to take part in the invasion of Iraq, etc. All signs New Zealand is independent of the US on the foreign policy front.

However, to answer your question, it's clear that letting the Americans know we don't need to borrow our head of state from someone else is a statement of our independence. Being a former British colony themselves, I'm sure they'll understand.

The
Monarchy has served NZ well and there is NO reason to suggest it won't
continue to do so.

There's plenty of reasons why the monarchy is no longer in New Zealand's interests. We can accept that in New Zealand's colonial past the monarchy was of use. But since we have gradually become more independent of the UK then the use of the monarchy has diminished to nothing. Moreover, the monarchy now prevents any rational discussion about constitutional checks and balances.

And at a far lesser expense than it would cost our
own representative.

I'm afraid you'll find this claim is nonsense. The Queen's representative costs NZ taxpayers around $7.6 million per annum. Ironically, they perform all the duties a New Zealand head of state would be required to fulfil. There is no reason to suggest a New Zealand head of state with similar powers to the Governor-General would be any more expensive. In fact we know from other Westminster style democracies that where the monarchy has been replaced by an elected head of state, there is very little difference in cost.

Finally to quote Micheal Laws and co. does your argument no credibility at all.

Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. We have an article by Michael Laws on our website, but that's just one article of many opinions from New Zealanders of all walks of life.