July 2007 newsletter

In this edition: Prince William rejected for Gov-Gen role, Poll question: Should Prince William be the next Gov-Gen of New Zealand? The Celebrity Monarchy by Lewis Holden, quotes in the republic debate from Spoken, the Case For a Republic and our latest YouTube video on Commonwealth membership.

Prince William rejected for Gov-Gen role

THE ARDENT MONARCHIST Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, will not appoint Prince William as the next Governor-General of Australia. A new biography of William's late mother, reviewed in Vanity Fair, claims the second in line for the throne wants the job. But Howard sank William's chances at being appointed the vice-regal job by quickly announcing that he had no intention of nominating the Prince to the Queen as Australia's next de facto head of state.

Prince William, seen here supporting the English rugby team, has been rejected as the next Governor-General of Australia.

However, monarchists nonetheless thought Howard has it all wrong. David Flint, of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, said "...the disgraceful, appalling behaviour of some of our leading politicians – all republican – has ensured that it won't happen. Imagine how they would behave if they controlled the presidency." Flint's comments came after the leader of the Australian Labor Party, Kevin Rudd - who has also declared his support for a republic - rejected the Prince. Despite this, there is no requirement for bi-partisan support for appointments to the office of Governor-General.

New Zealand actually provides the perfect counter-point to this claim - bi-partisan agreement was certainly was not the case with the appointment of former Prime Minister Sir Keith Holyoake as Governor-General in 1977 - the then leader of the opposition, Bill Rowling, opposed the appointment and suggested Sir Ed Hillary instead.

Prince William's appointment as Australian Governor-General would have probably raised the ire of New Zealanders also. It would raise the question of why New Zealand is apparently not good enough for members' of the Royal family? The same goes for any other Commonwealth realm.

This month's poll question: Should Prince William be the next Governor-General of New Zealand?

You'll need to have signed up to our website to vote. Results will be published in the August edition of REPUBLIC.

Kiwis trust former Governor-General more than the Queen

MORE NEW ZEALANDERS trust former Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright than their head of state, a poll of the "Most trusted New Zealanders" by Readers Digest has found.

The sample of 512 New Zealand adults ranked Sir Edmund Hillary as the most trusted Kiwi in the land. The magazine said that "Sir Ed typifies all things trustworthy. He's accessible, he reaches out to the community and he works for the common good. He is loved and admired. "

Dame Silvia Cartwright, former Governor-General of New Zealand, ranked at number 18. Queen Elizabeth II was ranked number 19. The reason for this appears to be in the above criteria. The Queen of New Zealand is not easily and readily accessible like Sir Ed is - Her Majesty lives exclusively in Great Britain; Her Majesty can only really reach out to the community in New Zealand on her fleeting Royal tours, and aside from a couple of nice, Government-written speeches at Waitangi Day, is unable to do much for the common good in New Zealand from the United Kingdom.

This is not to say the Queen isn't trustworthy, it is simply to say New Zealanders have more to trust Dame Silvia, Colin Meads or Hamish Carter for. That is the key problem of the "monarchy in New Zealand" - not something that is the fault of the Queen, or a slight on Her Majesty. It is the simple reality of having an absentee head of state. The poll also re-enforces that the Governor-General is a de facto head of state. While current Governor-General Anand Satyanand rates below Her Majesty, the Gov-Gen still rates above the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. We have more to trust these people with - the economy, health system, education, and other issues.

The Case for a Republic

This month we look at the parallels between the dominion debate and the republic debate.

IN JULY 1907 the dominion debate was raging in our parliament. Sir Joseph Ward, Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader squared off with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Massey. There are a number of parallels between the arguments used by supporters of dominion status and supporters of a republic, and vice versa for the opponents of dominion status and opponents of a republic.

Sir Joseph Ward argued that dominion status would raise our profile within the British Empire - just as the Republican Movement has argued that New Zealand needs to express its nationhood to the world. A number of events had shaped this view - most importantly, Australia had become a federation, leaving New Zealand as a colony. The parallel with our contemporary context is that our economic links to Britain have greatly decreased since the early 1970s, and New Zealand has been forced to seek alternative markets, mainly in Asia.

Ward's second claim was that Dominion status would lift New Zealand out of a "groove". This is much the same as the Republican Movement's view that a republic will signal New Zealand's independence and maturity to the world. Ward was right - a great number of New Zealand businesses and organisations quickly took up the name "Dominion" - famously, The Dominion newspaper and Dominion Breweries (DB) - and for its first five years, "Dominion Day" was a popular source of national mythology. The use of Dominion Day as a touch point for this mythology only died off when Massey became Prime Minister, and chose to emphasise ANZAC Day instead.

Bill Massey's opening gambit in the dominion debate was that the issue wasn't worth his time to consider. This is a self-interested argument: if you oppose something, it's very easy to say it's not an issue worth debating - supporters of the current status quo do it all the time - while giving no justification other than "there's nothing in it". Certainly, the move to a republic is a bigger - and arguably more important - change than the move to Dominion was. However, the parallel is clear: claiming nothing will change implies that the issue isn't worth the time to debate. And then, without any sense of irony, supporters of the status quo state that the sky will fall in should any change be made. This is a inherently silly position - any arguments for change by supporters of the status quo (such as "the Governor-General's role needs an update") is painted into a corner. The real issue is over the benefits of change, not the extent of change - and that is what should be debated.

Opponents of a dominion stated that the change in status would cost New Zealand greatly, and made erroneous comparisons between the Dominion of Canada and New Zealand. This is almost exactly the same as comparisons made by the Monarchist League - who claim "a republic is more expensive" by comparing the cost of the Presidency of the United States to New Zealand. This is a pointless and erroneous comparison.

Massey's final attack on Ward speaks volumes: "I have no doubt he would prefer to be the Prime Minister of the Dominion of New Zealand instead of the Premier of the Colony of New Zealand, and it seems to me that that is all there is in it." This is much like the "We don't want President Clark!" argument: attack a protagonist of change as self-interested and power-seeking, and tag on popular antipathy for the political process and politicians.

Massey's implication - particularly on the fact that under a Dominion the office of Governor was downgraded to that of Governor-General (which under the Letters Patent 1917 was much less powerful than the Governor was - even though most of these powers would never have been used) - was that the Prime Minister would be all-powerful. New Zealand republicans have all seen this argument before. And yet one of the benefits of a republic is the restricting of the parliamentary executive - as it is in every other parliamentary republic - in a subtle but effective way.