$200,000 for William to cut a ribbon

Posted 20 December, 2009 - 10:50 by LJ Holden
The Sunday Star-Times reveals that the cost of Prince William's tour to the New Zealand taxpayer is $200,000. That's around 7 hip operations, while the taxpayer also pays for the Chief Justice and Governor-General, both of whom are more than capable at cutting the ribbons themselves, and actually earned their respective law degrees. The ribbon for the Supreme Court must be the most expensive in New Zealand's history.

Let's be clear though: this is not a personal attack on Prince William. It's not his fault he's being sent to New Zealand and then Australia to "train" as our future King (why we're just a training ground to the Royal family is not explained). It was Buckingham Palace's decision. The Herald on Sunday takes issue with the faux-social media aspect of of the "first official visit", with carefully scripted public relations pieces masquerading as personal notes from the Prince.

Meanwhile, the Herald also notes that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to visit our shores on 11 January. It will be interesting to contrast the media coverage of Clinton's visit with William's. We suspect more attention will be given to William, even though Clinton's visit (at a time of international agreements on climate change and free trade between New Zealand and the United States) is much more important to New Zealand's future.
  • Share this
  • LJ Holden's blog
  • Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
  • Send to friendSend to friend

Comments

Anon's picture

How many hip operations will

by Anon (not verified) - 20/12/2009 - 11:00pm

How many hip operations will the HoS referenda Bill cost during its debate stage and if enacted, during its implementation at  time when polls do not show the support of a majority of voters for any type of republic let alone a specific republican constitution?

Also how many hip operations would it cost NZ to stage presidential election campaigns? I would like to see a good unbiassed cost comparision of republican alternatives compared with the exisiting system.

LJ Holden's picture

That's an irrelevant

by LJ Holden - 21/12/2009 - 8:27am
That's an irrelevant question. We've already got at least two people who are capable of cutting the ribbon to the Supreme Court, there's no alternative (yet) to the Head of State Referenda Bill. So we're spending $11 million per year paying, housing, transporting and supporting a Governor-General and an additional $200,000 for the head of state's grandson to come and cut a ribbon.

If you'd like a cost comparison, do one yourself. Presidential elections in the Republic of Ireland are every 7 years (unless there's only one candidate as was the case last time) and held at the same time as local body elections.
Republican Movement chair
Anon's picture

So someone has to pay for the

by Anon (not verified) - 21/12/2009 - 9:51am
So someone has to pay for the presidential campaigns unless they stay in their mansions....either from public purse or private. Either way they are funds taken from the NZ economy. Travel in NZ is more extensive than Ireland. etc etc. This is a little off this particular topic.
LJ Holden's picture

Well, if that's the case,

by LJ Holden - 21/12/2009 - 10:10am
Well, if that's the case, that would explain why New Zealand's Governor-General (about $11m p.a.) is more expensive than the President of Ireland (about $8m p.a.)
Republican Movement chair
Anon's picture

At issue was the cost of the

by Anon (not verified) - 21/12/2009 - 9:44am

At issue was the cost of the Head of State asking someone to represent her at a ceremony. A reduction of the number of hip operations able to be performed also seemed to be an issue. So I was wondering how many people would not be able to have new hips because of the proposed referendums.

Also, one could also say why is there  a need to have any formal opening of the Supreme Court Building? Why was there a need for the cost of a supreme Court? The Privy Council served us well and appeals to it were abolished without a referendum. The whole cost of having a supreme court may well cost us many more new hips than retaining the privy council.

LJ Holden's picture

So, on the one hand you're

by LJ Holden - 21/12/2009 - 10:17am
So, on the one hand you're complaining about the costs of referendums, on the other you're complaining that there wasn't a referendum on the Privy Council? Zero points for consistency (although I'd agree with you that there should've been one on the Privy Council, the petition for a CIR on the issue failed miserably).

When it comes to the Privy Council it all depends on who's paying for the hips. I can tell you from personal experience that litigation in this country is very expensive, and that due to the cost of appeals access to the Privy Council was limited to the big-name corporates and criminals on legal aid (and David Bain, thanks to Joe Karam). Your claim that the PC served us well doesn't stack up - the council barely served us at all. In its first year the Supreme Court heard more appeals than the JCPC did in its last five.

Moreover, the Supreme Court didn't simply refer its decisions back to the Court of Appeal as the JCPC did on most occasions in its final years. Despite what the naysayers said back in 2003, the imagined disasters of adopting our own Supreme Court never came to fruition.
Republican Movement chair
Anon's picture

I wondered if that may be

by Anon (not verified) - 21/12/2009 - 10:56am

I wondered if that may be questioned.....the need for a referendum has not been reached vis a vis the republic. If support is increasing as you have been trying to demonstrate by polling, the time for referendums may be approaching, but current polling suggests that may be some time off.

If there was a demonstrated demand for a new court of final apeal, then such an important change should have been put to the people with an additional option of tapping into the Australian High Court via maybe an Australasian High Court, whose international reputation may have allayed the fears of some business people. I can only assume that the Labour Government did not trust the people to make the "right" decision.

LJ Holden's picture

Sure, that and the campaign

by LJ Holden - 21/12/2009 - 12:42pm
Sure, that and the campaign for a referendum only came about at the last minute. It's too late for that now, or to go back to the JCPC.

I've not been "trying" to demonstrate anything, unless you dispute the statistics of the New Zealand Electoral Study, Colmar Brunton, Curia, UMR, Research NZ etc. All show the same trend.
Republican Movement chair
Anon's picture

Only those polls with a

by Anon (not verified) - 21/12/2009 - 11:10pm

Only those polls with a consisitent phrasing of questions over time should be taken into account. I agree that over the years it seems that there has been growing (albeit with variations according to current events) support for republic but not yet at a level to warrant the referendums proposed.

Why is it too late to return to the PC? What one government can do, another may undo, although it would come at considerable expense now. Knighthoods, abolished then reinstated "Kiwi" style.(without referendums)

If there are referendums on the monarchy and if there is a republic as a result, I would expect that there would be a subsequent referendum five or so years later on whether the republic should remain or whether the monarchy should be restored. That should be part of the Republic Act so that a government would be less likely to renege on a commitment (as happened with MMP).

LJ Holden's picture

Why is it too late to return

by LJ Holden - 22/12/2009 - 11:02am
Why is it too late to return to the PC? What one government can do, another may undo, although it would come at considerable expense now.

You've answered your own question. Aside from all the money we've already spent on setting up the Supreme Court, there's the issue that the UK's Government has to accept us back into the fold - and accept that we'll be using their court and law lord's time for free. Part of the impetus for the abolition of the JCPC was to be replaced in the UK Supreme Court, and the law lords to be put on UK related cases, with their juniors sitting on the JCPC... so the main argument for keeping the PC disappeared.

Knighthoods, abolished then reinstated "Kiwi" style.(without referendums)

Well, I'm sure if Labour had properly consulted over the change there would've been far greater public buy-in on the changes. As it was there was no public education and the newspapers simply said "this is equivalent to a knighthood".
Republican Movement chair

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Syndicate content