Succession changes a desperate patch-up job
MEDIA RELEASE 13 May 2011
Britain's House of Commons will today debate a Bill to amend the succession to the Crown in the United Kingdom to remove the sexist succession rule putting males before females. Constitutional experts agree this will mean New Zealand's succession law will have to fall into line or risk splitting the monarchy. Prime Minister John Key has indicated he supports the move.
"Monarchy supporters are desperate to patch up an out-dated institution in case William's first born is a girl.
The minute that happens it shines a huge light on the true values of the monarchy and its centuries of discrimination against women and Catholics" said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.
"It is absurd New Zealand has to consult with 15 countries to repeal a sexist and unjust constitutional law, and one that breaches our Bill of Rights. It is plainly obvious that the monarchy does not work for New Zealand and does not represent New Zealand" continued Mr Holden.
"This attempt to amend the succession will more than likely fail, as the Prime Minister of Canada has indicated he wants to avoid any debate which might lead to talk of a republic. Likewise Australia's republican Prime Minister wants to avoid re-igniting the republic debate in Australia. No doubt the debate will continue though, especially with the CHOGM being held in Perth this October" concluded Mr Holden.
NOTES
NOTES
- The House of Commons has further information on the Succession to the Crown Bill: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/january/tmrm-succession-to-the-crown/
ENDS
Media contact: Lewis Holden 027 699 1350 (m)
The Republican Movement is a network of New Zealanders who want our head of state to be elected by New Zealanders - either directly or indirectly.
We are committed to:
- involving all New Zealanders in the republic debate;
- providing relevant and reliable information;
- focusing on ideas, not personalities;
- winning a referendum to establish the republic;
Creating a republic does not require any change to the Treaty of Waitangi, flag or Commonwealth membership. For more information, see our website: www.republic.org.nz
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
FYI, It's a "ten minute rule bill".
"Monarchy supporters are desperate to patch up an out-dated institution in case William's first born is a girl."
Surely they are attempting to amend the out-dated rules of succession rather than the monarchy itself - in the same way that the franchise for parliamentary elections has been patched up over the years, as indeed has the eligibility of parliamentary candidates.
You're comparing improving a democratic process to improving a hereditary one. I think our problem with the monarchy comes down to fundamentals, which is the point.
Interesting. Didn't know that - I should really read up on Commons procedure. It seems the Bill wasn't debated yesterday.
The heriditary monarch part of the constitution has no legislative powers, so our democratic process will remain unaffected by the proposed change in succession laws.
Both democracy and monarchy extend back to ancient history...so it is necessarily subjective to describe monarchy as out-dated.
Contemporary society (of which our constitution and politics are part) comprises both inherited and democratic elements. Privilege and wealth are passed down through families (yes - in NZ too) in society. Indeed in NZ these inherited disparities have grown ever wider. The ease with which you can achieve actual power (not just symbolic power) is greatly affected by the family into which you are born. In that way, the inherited monarch reflects, symbolically, what happens in society.
You may well consider that it is undesirable for our Monarch, whose power is controlled by the PM anyway, to inherit her position. Maybe you also consider inherited privilege in the rest of society is undesirable.
"it shines a huge light on the true values of the monarchy and its centuries of discrimination against women and Catholics" Discrimination against women and catholics was not just limited to the monarchy. Society as a whole was more disciminatory. The proposed changes are an attempt to make succession rules for the monarch to reflect changes in attitudes in society.
It's good to see an admission that the monarchy is constitutionally useless, an appendix on the body politic:
Exactly. Changing the succession laws is a pointless exercise when we could have a democratic head of state. I'm glad to see this acceptance that the monarchy has no "legislative" powers. Of course the reality is the monarchy has no power other than soft, symbolic power. If the Queen or her representatives were to use their executive powers, it would lead to their swift replacement. So of course, they don't use their executive powers, rendering the institution constitutionally defunct.
Well, back in ancient Greece neither women nor slaves could vote. The ancient version of democracy was somewhat different from the democracy we know today. On the other hand, the monarchy retains its ancient discriminatory rules.
This has to be the worst argument for discrimination in the monarchy. Even if we accepted hereditary inheritance of power, albeit soft, as a normal practice in society, that doesn't mean it should be so, nor does it justify the monarchy or its succession rules. Unless you believe that some people are born better than others, there is no logical defence for the monarchy.
However it's a gross oversimplification to compare the inheritance of wealth in New Zealand society to the inheritance of a position you admit to be constitutionally useless. If it were true that New Zealanders believed in that, then Max Key would be in line for the next Prime Minister of New Zealand after his dad, ahead of his sister Stephy.
Not just me, I'm afraid to tell you. I realise you need to believe I'm the only republican in New Zealand, but there's more than one of us. I'm just the stupid one who writes responses to this...
I wish I kept count of the number of times I'm accused of this. The truth is, there is no real inherited privilege in New Zealand society. It's not even the case amongst Maori. It is true that the wealth-gap has got worse in New Zealand. But what does that have to do with the British Royal Family automatically inheriting the position of New Zealand's head of state? Nothing at all. It's a straw-man comparison. And at its basis is the view that "we" - New Zealand society - can do it because "they" - the British aristocracy - do it. I want something more for my country than that.
Sadly, you are right. But nonetheless even the most hardcore monarchist cannot ignore that New Zealand is somewhat more liberal in regard to women's rights than the United Kingdom... the only area they were ahead of us was for the first woman Prime Minister. Even then that was, ironically, the upper echelons of the Conservative Party didn't like the Queen choosing who their leader would be. In basically every other area - like votes for women, women MPs, cabinet ministers, criminal issues such as rape in marriage, or the equal division of property on divorce - New Zealand is much more advanced. Hence there is no justification for the succession rules, unless you really believe that our proud tradition of social egalitarianism should be abandoned.
Exactly. The succession rules, and hence the monarchy as a whole, is out-dated - they date from a time when it was ok to discriminate against women and Catholics.
Of course they are. Unfortunately, they will more than likely fail. The last thing John Key, Stephen Harper or Julia Gillard wants is to actually have this debate. David Cameron would probably rather Keith Vaz's Bill goes away, but he'll probably get his wish if the other comments in this thread are correct.
You may well consider that it is undesirable for our Monarch, whose power is controlled by the PM anyway, to inherit her position.
VichyEuropean equality diktats: "Why that would be un-British old boy!" But are you able to tell me how or why the concept of a democratically-mandated and constitutionally significant head of state is in any way un-Kiwi?"This has to be the worst argument for discrimination in the monarchy."
It was not actually an argument for discrimination. I was illustrating the subjective application of desire to eliminate discrimination and privilege. I would be happy if discrimination both in the sucession AND in society were eliminated. NZ society has considerable inherited wealth and the disparity in wealth is growing (there has been zero inheritance tax since the 1980's). With wealth (and inherited land) come the advantages and privilege that money can buy.
"The truth is, there is no real inherited privilege in New Zealand society." I don't know where this "truth" comes from. Inherited land and wealth is a privilege, unearned by the recipient. Aristocracy is indeed based on land, wealth and the power that comes with them.
"Why not have a head of state who does have democratic legitimacy and is therefore able to act as an independent check-and-balance on the PM and cabinet" Well that involves a more significant constitutional change - beyond the so-called minimalist republic that some republicans tout, which involves "swapping" the Monarch and GG for a president with the same powers and conventions. For example you would have to decide on how political differences between PM and HoS would be resolved. Anyway, as previously said, if desired, further checks and balances could be introduced into our constitutional monarchy.
Both democracy and monarchy have been and continue to be part of the "Kiwi" way.
Not some republicans, most. Our own research shows a very strong preference for a Parliamentary republic.
I never knew the Kiwi way was to prevent everyone bar a certain aristocratic family from holding political office. If what you're saying was true, we would've made the office of Governor-General the exclusive domain of one family - perhaps the Ferguson's?
Oh of course you'd be against the monarchy if it meant re-introducing gift duty to eliminate discrimination against New Zealanders and inherited privilege. You can't compare taxation policy* with an inherited political office.
"The fact as we know the Governor-General doesn't use or even threaten to use their powers." So you would anticipate under the so-called "minimalist" approach, that the President, elected or appointed, would be emboldened to use the reserve powers more frequently - so in other words it would not be business as usual, not minimal - not just a switch to a president from Monarch and GG. Current practice would cease. Looks like that should be best be written down -spell out what to do when you have a President and PM at daggers drawn, both emboldened by their popular mandates. Looks like faux-minimalism to me.
Wrong again.
"You can't compare taxation policy* with an inherited political office. " But you can compare inherited privileges with inherited privileges.
"I'm yet to see Graeme Hart buying his way into the office of Head of State of New Zealand" Ah but the power behind our symbolic throne emanates from the PM, and wealthy landowners and business owners have ready access to the PM's ear.
America is classic example of the need to have wealth or wealthy supporters to run presidential campaigns.
"I think the point I was making is that no-one really inherits power in New Zealand, not even the wealthy." Agree, not the positions of power per se....but there is the ability to buy a privileged lifestyle and influence by virtue of the inheritance. That can amount to the same thing.
*Loopholes could have been tightened. I think there may have been a policy to reduce inheritance taxes, as the government did not want large farms to be sold or to be partitioned into ever decreasing smaller runs. Family trust laws also became more liberal - allowing settlors to still use the assets they transferred to trusts. Traditionally, the law of trusts meant that settlors could not have anything to do with assets they put on trust.
" power-mad and start using the reserve powers irrationally or breaking conventions, unless you really believe New Zealanders are stupid and politically immature. " So business as usual...not much of an extra check or balance compared with the present...just a symbolic change from an inherited position.
Last time I checked, California is part of the United States. So no QED. The weight of academic literature shows wealth is not actually indicative of who wins elections. Other factors matter more.
No.
" ...with British aristocrats inheriting the position of head of state, with all the privilege that goes with it. " ...privilege but as you always say, no power. You are troubled over a position inherited but with no power - I cannot see why that should trouble you more than the growing real widespread inherited privilege in the rest of society. It would be hollow and pretence to claim a victory for egality by removing the inherited figurehead monarch whilst the rest of society had substantial (and growing) state-supported inegality.
"The weight of academic literature shows wealth is not actually indicative of who wins elections. Other factors matter more." Well Arnie the actor was individually wealthy married to a Kennedy descendant. All those connections...and indeed money... led to the California throne. Now Arnie and Shriver are separated...it is sounding Windsor-like BUT actual power was involved. And that happens on the USA federal level too. Voters become the pawns.
No
If there is change from current practice - it is not business as usual...
Now you're trolling. At no point did anyone here say that were not concerned about the growing gap between rich and poor - that's something you made up in your own head to justify the continued discrimination of the monarchy. You should withdraw that comment and apologise.
You claim that the elected head of state would either be "emboldened" to use their reserve powers "frequently", irrationally and break convention or they wouldn't use them at all, which is business as usual.