Get Involved
Help us in our campaign for a New Zealand head of state by making a donation - or join the Republican Movement for just $10 a year.
Buy our guide to creating a New Zealand republic online - or get it free when you sign up for Republican Movement membership
Upcoming events
Polls
Search
Store
Poll shows New Zealanders don't want Prince Charles
MEDIA RELEASE: 19 January 2010
"The New Zealand Herald's poll on the monarchy today shows 59.6% of New Zealanders don't want Prince Charles to be their head of state" said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.
The poll asks what should happen when Queen Elizabeth's reign ends. 30.2% of those surveyed want Prince William as their next head of state, while 29.4% want a republic.
"While the result is devastating for Charles, it shows the great flaw of the monarchy. No-one gets to choose who our head of state is. Even if one in three New Zealanders want Prince William as their head of state, they don't get a choice either way. Prince Charles will be our King, and the popularity of the monarchy will inevitably decline" concluded Mr Holden.
NOTES
The Herald Readers' Panel poll surveyed 2,000 people and was conducted by the Nielsen Company between December 10 and 17.
"The New Zealand Herald's poll on the monarchy today shows 59.6% of New Zealanders don't want Prince Charles to be their head of state" said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.
The poll asks what should happen when Queen Elizabeth's reign ends. 30.2% of those surveyed want Prince William as their next head of state, while 29.4% want a republic.
"While the result is devastating for Charles, it shows the great flaw of the monarchy. No-one gets to choose who our head of state is. Even if one in three New Zealanders want Prince William as their head of state, they don't get a choice either way. Prince Charles will be our King, and the popularity of the monarchy will inevitably decline" concluded Mr Holden.
NOTES
The Herald Readers' Panel poll surveyed 2,000 people and was conducted by the Nielsen Company between December 10 and 17.
When Queen Elizabeth II dies or abdicates, who should replace her as New Zealand's head of state?
Prince Charles - 33.3 per cent
Prince William - 30.2 per cent
Another royal - 1 per cent
NZ to be a republic - 29.4 per cent
No opinion - 6 per cent
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendToday's popular content
- Models of a republic (137)
- Commonwealth membership (25)
- The Treaty of Waitangi and a republic (19)
- Reasons for a republic (16)
- The President of New Zealand (14)
- The Head of State Referenda Bill (13)
- Join the Republican Movement (13)
- Defending the monarchy (12)
- Whangamomona Republic Day (11)
- Why we need a republic (10)
Recent video
The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand Incorporated.
Mail: PO Box 5063, Wellesley Street,
Auckland 1141
Contact - Member login
Website designed and maintained by Web Social.
Comments
So the bottom line is that a
Not exactly... although
Republican Movement chair
OK then, pretty much most
I mean if I was asked in a poll I might say yeah, good idea, but then you have to think about what the model would be, and would the President have any real power, and if so how would you elect them and how would that fit into the national political scene and how would it affect the power balance, and if the Pres is just a figurehead like the GG is now, where's the point in changing, because the present arrangement doesn't cost us very much.
Reality is that the Prime Minister is a de facto Executive President, the Crown, whether here or in the UK, has absolutely no say in New Zealand affairs anyway and hasn't done for a good half century, so dumping the Monarchy wouldn't have any effect.
If you can come up with some good and tangible real advantages to making such a profound constitutional change, people will take more interest. In the meantime I don't think many people trust our politicians enough to let them create a Republic, however many may say they support it if a polling company rings them up.
OK then, pretty much most
True. The same goes for the status quo. Apathy is a double-edged sword.
if the Pres is just a figurehead like the GG is now, where's the point in changing, because the present arrangement doesn't cost us very much.
The point is such a president would be elected, not appointed de facto by the Prime Minister. That is an important change in emphasis from the status quo. The President of Ireland costs Irish taxpayers around $9m NZ every year. Our Gov-Gen costs us $11m - so I'm not sure how you figure the status quo is cheaper.
Reality is that the Prime Minister is a de facto Executive President, the Crown, whether here or in the UK, has absolutely no say in New Zealand affairs anyway and hasn't done for a good half century, so dumping the Monarchy wouldn't have any effect.
No, what you mean is the monarchy is constitutionally useless and irrelevant, and the argument that having a monarch keeps elected politicians in check is therefore nonsense.
If you can come up with some good and tangible real advantages to making such a profound constitutional change, people will take more interest.
As noted above, the primary advantage would be a head of state able to act in times of constitutional crisis, rather than under the status quo which creates Mexican stand-offs between Prime Ministers and Governors-General.
however many may say they support it if a polling company rings them up.
This was a reader poll, not a phone poll.
Republican Movement chair
"As noted above, the primary
"As noted above, the primary advantage would be a head of state able to act in times of constitutional crisis, rather than under the status quo which creates Mexican stand-offs between Prime Ministers and Governors-General."
What about the Whitlam supply crisis in Australia - no stand-off there...GG Kerr acted and sacked PM Whitlam and appointed Fraser provided that he would call an election. Also, Whitlam had advised the Queen of Australia to appoint Kerr as GG in the first place. Had it been left to Whitlam, Australia could well have faced severe financial crisis.
What about the Whitlam supply
Yeah there as. Whitlam had reminded Kerr that he could have him removed. Whether he was serious or not is a matter of ongoing debate - but really Kerr had reason to be alert, since Whitlam had already had a dormant appointment stripped from a stand-in Governor.
GG Kerr acted and sacked PM Whitlam and appointed Fraser provided that he would call an election.
He actually went further and dissolved parliament after Fraser lost a vote of confidence... anyway, it did resolve the impasse. But that's not the point - this sort of thing happens in republics too.
Also, Whitlam had advised the Queen of Australia to appoint Kerr as GG in the first place.
Ironic isn't it?
Had it been left to Whitlam, Australia could well have faced severe financial crisis.
This is arguable. Certainly Kerr had many options, he only appeared to choose to fire Whitlam because he was afraid of being fired himself. Whitlam had actually advised Kerr to request a half-senate election. It was likely that Whitlam could've restored the ALP's majority in the Senate, particularly given that they'd created new seats in the ACT and NT. Doing so would've ended the senate impasse over the budget.
In addition, two Liberal senators have came forward and said they were on the verge of voting with Labor to let the budget through when Kerr fired Whitlam - in other words, there never would've been a financial crisis.
Republican Movement chair
Who do you want to replace
We don't know what the
Republican Movement chair
"The question is irrelevant,
"The question is irrelevant, because whether the people want William as head of state or not doesn't matter in a monarchy" I agree with you there. I was merely commenting on the poll results. I was not commenting on whether there was any point in conducting that particular poll.
"there's probably a significant number who responded "Prince William" to the question because his name was in the news, they saw his picture on TV, and decided they liked him"
Sounds patronising to me.
The reason why air time and newspaper space is bought for marketing many products including political positions/ideas rests on the case that the more exposure (positive or negative) something is given the more likely it is to be remembered and, ultimately, bought.
Sounds patronising to me.Sure
Sure it is - but this isn't an actual poll of votes one way or another, so the amount of consideration of the issue is pretty small.
Republican Movement chair
Yeah, well, 55% didn't want
Nonsense - you vote for
"Pretty much" aye? One in three or 40% of New Zealand is not "pretty much" I'm afraid.
Republican Movement chair
Poll Shows Decreasing
Poll Shows Decreasing Republic Support-Down To Less Than 30%
Although the question is different from previous polls, this could also be a seen as quite a blow to republicans as 64% would like to see the monarchy continue. This continues a trend of increasing support for the monarchy in the last 3 years.
Trend of support away from a
It's a Herald readers poll so it isn't demographically weighed. There's a reason why they didn't release the margin of error (and wouldn't tell me what it was when I asked).
The question doesn't mean 64% of NZers support the monarchy. They're divided over who they want to be the next King.
Republican Movement chair
Post new comment