The Wisdom of the Taxi Driver

Posted 16 October, 2009 - 19:03 by LJ Holden
"I think for New Zealand it's a case of making the Governor-General a president, that's not hard - so why do these people oppose it?" my taxi driver told me on the way to a client meeting yesterday. We were chatting about the talk back callers to Newstalk ZB, who were themselves discussing Keith Locke's Head of State Bill. He related that New Zealand could stay in the Commonwealth, like his country of birth, India.

It was a fascinating segment - most of the callers spoke against either the Bill, politicians in general or republics around the world, with a few republicans dialing in. Interestingly, those opposed to a republic made very little mention of the monarchy. Most attacked the Bill's sponsor, Keith Locke.

Sadly, that's been a familiar theme. Not PC and Liberty Scott both typify this attitude. Liberty Scott states a republic is:
"a once in a lifetime chance to fundamentally change the constitutional structure"
Nandor Tanczos also repeats this argument from a left-wing perspective. The short answer is "it isn't". If we try to turn the change into an "all or nothing" change, nothing is what we'll get. It is far more sensible to make smaller, manageable steps for constitutional reform. That said, at this stage the Bill is just about having a debate. Tanczos points out:
"I don't want the bill to pass. I do very much want it to pass a first reading and go to select committee. The people of New Zealand deserve an opportunity to have a say on whether we want royals or not, and the select committee public process would be a good start. In addition, it will spark a national debate in a constitutionally illiterate nation. That status is not surprising since most school don't teach civics education or even much New Zealand history, but it is shameful."

Comments

Anon's picture

Yes, but you *do* change the

by Anon - 16/10/2009 - 9:51pm
Yes, but you *do* change the constitutional position.

If the bill were somehow to pass, and we had an elected president with the powers, or non-powers of the G-G, it's likely that at some stage, the government will embark on a course that's at odds with the ideology of the president. Like legalising drugs, or privatising the army.

At that point, the president may decide to try and use reserve powers to restrain the government, or indeed depose it and force an election. With the existing arrangements, the G-G is unlilkely to try this, because they don't have a mandate, and can in any case be sacked by the PM at will. A president will have a mandate through their election, and will (probably) no longer be sackable at the will of the PM. (Interestingly, the bill doesn't provide for them to be sacked at all, even if caught in flagrante with three boy scouts and a donkey...)

Now it may be that we consider that having the elected government checked by a separately elected president to be a good model, but it isn't what we have now. So we really do need to consider our constitutional balance and how it will be changed.

(One way of doing this would be to enact measures to remove the president from the loop, such as making bills become law on 3rd reading, with no presidential assent. This isn't in Locke's bill).
LJ Holden's picture

Agreed, having an elected

by LJ Holden - 16/10/2009 - 10:18pm
Agreed, having an elected head of state would be a much better check than what we currently have in the GG. Interestingly, the Monarchists argue that we already have a good check on government with the GG (i.e. they "deny power to the politicians").

Yes, the lack of dismissal mechanism has been pointed out as a weakness in the Bill. But it's easily fixed - just a resolution of parliament would do the trick (the same procedure required for parliament to dismiss judges). Our advice is that a dismissal would have to be by a resolution of Parliament under normal circumstances anyway, unlike the dismissal of the GG which is solely on the advice of the PM to the Queen (as was the case in the Irish Free State and Papua New Guinea).

The Assent issue is interesting. Niue, which is a New Zealand associated state, did away with it when that country became independent. Again, it could be easily fixed by a select committee. I also understand there's a proposed members' Bill that would remove Royal Assent, and ensure that so long as the Bill was legally sound and procedurally correct, it could be signed by the Speaker after the 3rd reading.
Chair of the Republican Movement

Latest Video

Latest Republican Movement video:

For more, see our video page.

Syndicate content