Parliament Must Adopt Gov-Gen Bill: Republican Movement
MEDIA RELEASE: 18 December 2009
The Republican Movement strongly urges Parliament to enact the Law Commission's proposed Governor-General Bill. The Bill has been put forward following review of the outdated colonial provisions of the Civil List Act, which give the Governor-General tax-free status.
"We are pleased that the Bill would make the Governor-General pay income tax like every other New Zealander, as we argued in our submission to the review" said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.
"It is also great to see that outdated and irrelevant provisions from the colonial era are to be repealed. The Act currently provides for payments for a Governors' sail-boat trip from Britain to New Zealand!" continued Mr Holden.
All Governors-General since 1972 have been New Zealand residents. The office of Governor-General has evolved rapidly since World War II; from the British Government's mouthpiece in New Zealand to a position of some standing in the community. But the Governor-General is not representative of New Zealand and New Zealanders, as he or she is the Queen's representative first and foremost. They are appointed by the Queen on the Prime Minister's advice, not by public nomination or election.
"The Bill will make the transition of to an elected head of state similar to the position of Governor-General a far more straight forward process. With Parliament set to debate the Head of State Referenda Bill next year, and Prince William's Royal Tour, the republic issue will be front of mind for many New Zealanders" concluded Mr Holden.
The Republican Movement strongly urges Parliament to enact the Law Commission's proposed Governor-General Bill. The Bill has been put forward following review of the outdated colonial provisions of the Civil List Act, which give the Governor-General tax-free status.
"We are pleased that the Bill would make the Governor-General pay income tax like every other New Zealander, as we argued in our submission to the review" said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.
"It is also great to see that outdated and irrelevant provisions from the colonial era are to be repealed. The Act currently provides for payments for a Governors' sail-boat trip from Britain to New Zealand!" continued Mr Holden.
All Governors-General since 1972 have been New Zealand residents. The office of Governor-General has evolved rapidly since World War II; from the British Government's mouthpiece in New Zealand to a position of some standing in the community. But the Governor-General is not representative of New Zealand and New Zealanders, as he or she is the Queen's representative first and foremost. They are appointed by the Queen on the Prime Minister's advice, not by public nomination or election.
"The Bill will make the transition of to an elected head of state similar to the position of Governor-General a far more straight forward process. With Parliament set to debate the Head of State Referenda Bill next year, and Prince William's Royal Tour, the republic issue will be front of mind for many New Zealanders" concluded Mr Holden.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
I would have thought that it would encourage the republican debate for the postition of G-G to be as out-of-touch as possible. Encouraging its reform may make it seem more relevant in the eyes of the public, negating the necessity for further constitutional reform.
I wonder...if the Queen in respect to NZ were still styled Queen of the UK advised by her UK PM, handing out Imperial Honours and appointing British aritocrats as Goverors-General would NZ would be closer to a republic?
Perhaps if the Queen was still head of state of NZ as Queen of the United Kingdom but the idea of the "Queen of New Zealand" is really a legal fiction. HM is Queen of the UK first and foremost. The monarchy has slowly extricated itself from New Zealand's constitution and public life to the point where they're almost invisible.
Why would any new head of state have to exist within the framework that has developed to accommodate our current constitutional monarchy. Surely, if you are going for a republic the opportunity presents itself for an overhaul of the constitution you are rejecting. I think if you just graft a president onto the severed heads of the G-G and Monarch you are going to run into trouble. I doubt the simplicity you suggest will offer a feasible solution.
Also, the minimalist republicans will conflict with the those who want a more major overhaul; direct electionists will conflict with parliamentary appointment. Lack of agreement will kill off the likelihood of a republic for many a decade (as has happened in Australia).
If the Monarch and GG were removed from our constitution, I wonder how long it would take for the maori King or another Maori ariki to assume the position of head of state. It may be claimed under the treaty that special status should be given to Maori. Special status has already been given to Maori in numerous fields (sport, health, education, policy, parliamentary seats etc.).
The monarch and GG, symbolic though they may be, are a direct link to the British or Non-maori side of the Treaty Of Waitiangi. Without the monarch or gov gen, I would not be surprised if Maori special status would develop even further, so that your wished for republic would have a chosen race of tangata whenua and democracy and equality of all assigned to NZ's history books. The Peoples Palace (Government House) would be more likely a Whare Nui for te Ariki o Aotearoa. There would be further Anglo-NZ migration to Australia.
So your conspiracy theory is nonsense and without basis.
BTW, you're wrong on immigration to Australia. Statistics show a significant component of non-European immigration (particularly Maori).
So despite what you say, the reality is that we're not rejecting New Zealand's "constitution" as it stands, only the irrelevant part of it.
The Aussies could've easily got around the conflicts over models (i.e. direct vs Parliamentary election) by adopting plebiscites. That's what they're not proposing. So John Howard strategically won the battle in 1999; it's likely monarchists will eventually lose the war - either this decade or the next.
"It's never claimed to be head of state of all of New Zealand, or even all Maori" That is why I added...."or other ariki". However the king movement has an influence I would think many would consider extending beyond the constituent iwi. I try not to assume my knowledge is superior to others without ensuring I have understood the point that they were trying to convey. Maybe a "maori" H of S could be on a rotating basis as in Malaysia.
I don't dispute that there is "significant" non-euro migration. I wrote "further anglo-nz migration" which is not in contradiction to that. The current migration to Australia of both maori and non-maori is already significant.
Have you got any links to your studies or polls backing up the statement that the vast majority of nz republicans are minimalists? And what percentages of the total voting age population are parliamentary appointment and direct election minimalist republicans? Any final referendum on a change will need to be specific.
To change the Aussie constitution it would always have to come down to one specific republican option v. the existing constitution. What was presented was what the leading republican organisation plus convention wanted. Howard did not kill their republic....the voters did. Also, if you have a series of plebiscites you would risk alienating some swinging republican voters, concerned that too much money was being thrown at what they may consider an issue concerning the "intelligentsia".
Further, you've not refuted that what you're putting forward here is nothing more than idle speculation.
Oh yes, of course republicanism is of the "intelligentsia". That line worked really well in 1999... after all, monarchists' aren't defending a system of elites, are they?
Howard originally proposed the plebiscites. Just go read his speech to the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Sure, the Australian people eventually voted against the proposal. But as you said yourself, the question needs to be specific. Well, Howard knew that the Queen was / is still popular, so he ensured the Queen was mentioned in the question (even though strictly speaking the Bill was to remove the Sovereign, the Queen was merely the person holding that office at the time); and that the Australian public wanted a hand in selecting the president, so he didn't mention the public nomination process; and that the public did not like the idea of politicians choosing the head of state; so he emphasised that in the question.
Howard has been very unapologetic for defeating the republic, and has made a number of speeches to that affect (most recently in November of this year). I find it difficult to understand why it is that monarchists claim he had nothing to do with the defeat when he claims it as being one of his major achievements while in office...
Sure it is speculation, I don't deny, as we will be in uncharted waters for NZ.
Polling shows that given a choice between the current British-based monarchy and a republic, maori prefer a republic. Have polls ever included an option for a heriditary or non-heriditary Maori head of state?
I did not imply that Maori were more or less anti-democratic. Supporting a titular heriditary head of state with democratic parliament provides a robust democracy. Just look at the democratic monarchies of Northern Europe that have stood the test of time compared with France, Germany, Italy,etc.
Sure it is speculation, I don't deny, as we will be in uncharted waters for NZ.
Well yes, but we have the benefit of many other countries experience, particularly those using parliamentary systems like ours.
Polling shows that given a choice between the current British-based monarchy and a republic, maori prefer a republic. Have polls ever included an option for a heriditary or non-heriditary Maori head of state?
Not that I'm aware of - although your question wouldn't exclude a republic, it's possible to have a non-hereditary Maori head of state under Keith Locke's Bill.
I did not imply that Maori were more or less anti-democratic. Supporting a titular heriditary head of state with democratic parliament provides a robust democracy.
The key being a democratic parliament there.
Just look at the democratic monarchies of Northern Europe that have stood the test of time compared with France, Germany, Italy,etc.
As opposed to the stable republics of Switzerland, Iceland, Finland, or the world's oldest contiguous state, San Marino? Out of all the monarchies in Europe the only state that can claim the monarch has protected democracy is Spain - since the monarch of that country was put in power by the country's former monarchist dictator, and commands the respect of the military. In all of your three examples above the monarchies failed to protect democracy (Germany and Italy in particular) and were overthrown (in France and Italy by way of referendum).
I said "we will be in uncharted waters for NZ. " to which you replied: "Well yes, but we have the benefit of many other countries experience, particularly those using parliamentary systems like ours."
However those countries are NOT New Zealand. We cannot rely on their experiences and to do so would be a type of colonial cringe that you have been quick to criticise. Do those other countries have the same social composition, history of foundation etc.? NZ's current constitution has developed according to our unique circumstances.
It doesn't make any sense on that basis to then to say that drawing on the experience of other countries is "colonial cringe". It's ridicolous to suggest we can't draw on the experience of other parliamentary democracies in discussing constitutional change - everyone compared MMP, for example, to the German system of proportional representation.
I was using "colonial cringe" in its broader meaning which does not limit it to attitudes to Britain. For example, there can be found with some people a "colonial cringe" vis a vis the USA too.
I would just like to know which these other similar countries are whose settlement, culture and society are similar to ours so that we can draw on their experience and history to help us rip up our constitution, that has evolved since 1840, providing us with democracy, stability and order. The only countries I can think of are Canada and Australia They are definitely Commonwealth Realms.
Yes, but you're talking about colonial cringe in New Zealand, which is in the main used by supporters to the monarchy.
I would just like to know which these other similar countries are whose settlement, culture and society are similar to ours so that we can draw on their experience and history to help us rip up our constitution, that has evolved since 1840, providing us with democracy, stability and order. The only countries I can think of are Canada and Australia They are definitely Commonwealth Realms.
You've arfitically limited the countries to which we can refer to the settler governments that are of majority British descent. Perhaps thats because the two "outliers" - South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe - aren't such great examples to follow.
Unlike yourself, I don't see the exact ethnic composition of members of a nation-state as being a determinant of stability. Education and wealth matter much more than race.
We can most certainly draw on the experience of countries such as the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Trinidad and Tobago, India, Samoa, the Maldives, Mauritious, the Seychelles - all of which follow a Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy, are stable as any constitutional monarchy under the Queen (and before you try to claim India isn't stable, remember the Queen reigns over several failed states...). None of these countries "ripped up" their constitutions as you seem to imply, giving the monarch and the monarchy a much greater importance than they deserve in our constitution.
It is nonsense to suggest that it is the monarchy that has made New Zealand the stable, mature democracy that it has become. That was largely thanks to the hard work of both British and Irish immigrants and Maori, in New Zealand not the UK. The monarchy has always been "constitutional" while it interacted with New Zealand. By 1840 the Sovereign's role in Government was limited to writing letters of "advice" to Parliamentarians. It was the Government of the day that decided to make a Treaty with Maori, not Queen Victoria. New Zealand history would be better served if monarchists stoppped living in the past and claiming the Sovereign has and had a greater role in our constitution, when objectively she doesn't.
Post new comment