Men and women split on republic: Republican Movement
"A poll commissioned by the Republican Movement and published today - the Queen's 84th birthday - has found Kiwis are divided on the republic issue, especially by gender" said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.
44%
of men surveyed in the poll stated they wanted New Zealand to become
a republic, and did not want Prince Charles to become New Zealand's
head of state when the Queen's reign ends, compared with 31% of women. 45% of men and 55% of women supported Charles as
King respectively. 8% of men and 11% of women stated they wouldn't answer or didn't know.
"The reason for the gender difference is something of a mystery to us. There is also strong difference between older and younger New Zealanders" continued Mr Holden.
"But whether they support the monarchy or a republic, all New Zealanders deserve the chance to choose who their future head of state is - Keith Locke currently has a Bill before Parliament to let them do just that" concluded Mr Holden.
NOTES
The phone poll of 1,053 voting-age New Zealanders was conducted between 29 March - 13 April 2010. The question asked was:
"When the Queen dies, which option would you prefer: Prince Charles becoming King of New Zealand or New Zealand to becoming a republic?"
The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%. The poll was commissioned by the Republican Movement and undertaken by Curia Market Research Limited.
For more opinion polls, see our page on polling: www.republic.org.nz/polling
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
""When the Queen dies, which option would you prefer: Prince Charles becoming King of New Zealand or New Zealand to becoming a republic?"
Well the question is flawed because you have specifically mentioned a person - Prince Charles. So people's feelings toward the person- rather than the position will come into play. That could also affect the gender difference. Whilst it is a probability that Charles would become king it is not a certainty and anyway you are trying to gauge the feelings towards two constitutional systems, aren't you?
A more appropriate question to gauge the feeling towards either the status quo or an undefined "republic" option would be:
"would you prefer the current monarchy or a republic?"
Sure, but a monarchy is inevitably about a monarch. Otherwise we wouldn't talk about why QEII is such a nice old lady.
A more appropriate question to gauge the feeling towards either the status quo or an undefined "republic" option would be:
"would you prefer the current monarchy or a republic?"
The most accurate question would be "Would you prefer an absentee monarch for life with a local conduit at the New Zealand taxpayers expense, appointed and able to be dismissed by the Prime Minister, or a New Zealander elected as head of state every five years either by three-quarters of parliament or directly using single transferable vote?"
"Would you prefer an absentee monarch for life with a local conduit at the New Zealand taxpayers expense, appointed and able to be dismissed by the Prime Minister, or a New Zealander elected as head of state every five years either by three-quarters of parliament or directly using single transferable vote?"
Of course if you mention cost and method of appointment on one side you would have to mention it for the other side too. You would mention the expense of a president and cost of elections....and how he would he be elected....who would pay for the expense of the campaign for election...political parties? Lobby groups? big business? To whom would a president be indebted to for his election or appointment?
No, I'm pointing out the common lie peddled by monarchists that the monarchy is free is nonsense.
You would mention the expense of a president and cost of elections....and how he would he be elected....
The election process is mentioned. I suspect you mightn't have got to that part of the question, probably because you decided to post a comment after you saw "absentee monarchy" and "taxpayer"...
who would pay for the expense of the campaign for election...political parties? Lobby groups? big business? To whom would a president be indebted to for his election or appointment?
Well, you're assuming that we'd go with direct election. Our research doesn't bear that assumption out I'm afraid.
But to answer your questions, candidate finance all depends on the candidacy and how the nominations process works. In Ireland, as I've pointed out before, the nominations process is controlled by parliament and hence political parties are involved. But I suspect in New Zealand that like Mayoral competitions the candidates will be largely self-funded along with donations from the public at large, and not run with a party ticket.
As for elections, the postal referendum held last year cost $9m. If elections are held every 6 years as proposed (and in my view at the same time as local government elections) the cost would be mitigated, you'd only have to pay for additional ballot papers, scrutineers and storage, which I estimate (given it costs about $3m to send a letter to every NZ house hold) to be around $6m, or $1m for every year.
[Spam]
Post new comment