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

Polls

Search

Store

Mike Moore: a constitutional convention

Posted 8 February, 2010 - 07:13 by LJ Holden

Mike Moore has a opinion piece in today's New Zealand Herald, again calling for a constitutional convention. He makes a number of mistakes about the Head of State Referenda Bill:

"A bill will go before Parliament next year on becoming a republic. What sort of republic, what powers will our head of state have? An American or French presidency based on a popular vote or a mainly ceremonial presidency like Israel, Ireland or Germany where their parliaments elect the President"

The Head of State Referenda Bill proposes a non-executive head of state, that is either elected by Parliament (as in Germany) by 75% majority or directly elected as in Ireland. The new head of state would have all the same powers as the Governor-General - the Bill makes this clear.

Conflict between the Parliament and a presidency need to be thought through. How many hands do we need on the steering wheel in Wellington?

The risk of conflict between Parliament and a president is overblown. There are plenty of examples of Governors-General coming into conflict with Parliament - Australia in 1975 was a good example of this.

The strength of a monarchy and a Governor-General is not the powers they have but the powers they deny others."

The monarchy doesn't deny anything to politicians. Apart from a rare occasion when the Governor-General takes the most extreme course of action in firing a Prime Minister, the reality is the Governor-General cannot keep the Prime Minister in check. This is because the Prime Minister can remove the Governor-General at will.

Comments

The historical experience and

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 09/02/2010 - 12:59am

The historical experience and culture of the nation does often determine the manner in which conflicts are resolved. Given the same constitution in differing nations will see differing results.

Those two statements

by LJ Holden - 09/02/2010 - 8:16am

Those two statements contradict each other - which is more important, cultural and historical experience or the form of government? The reality - from every unstable country around - appears to be that cultural and historical experience matter much more than form of government.

Chair of the Republican Movement

"The historical experience

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 09/02/2010 - 12:06pm

"The historical experience and culture of the nation does often determine the manner in which conflicts are resolved. Given the same constitution in differing nations will see differing results."

How are these sentences inconsistent? I have said that the same constitutions in different countries will produce varying results, as the experience and national culture often affect how conflicts are resolved. So reading the sentences together, I recognise the same constitution in two countries with different cultures will be interpreted and applied differently.

It seems to me that your only argument with my post relates to the fact I said "does often determine" instead of "does always determine".

Sure "read together" that's

by LJ Holden - 09/02/2010 - 12:15pm

Sure "read together" that's how it appears, and I should've acknowledged that. However as separate sentences you appear to be saying that the "differing results" are a product of the form of government adopted, as historical experience and culture are guided (hence "Given") by the "same" constitutional make-up.

Chair of the Republican Movement

Yep....I could have expressed

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 09/02/2010 - 12:26pm

Yep....I could have expressed it more clearly.

"Given the same constitution in differing nations will see differing results. " By that statement what I understand is that the different nations' culture affects how the same constitution is interpreted and applied. I may have been too succinct to express the idea clearly. I sould have avoided "given".

Even when we agree on something, we still end up finding something to disagree upon, even if it is the use of English. :)

Hey? I'm not looking for

by LJ Holden - 09/02/2010 - 8:39pm

Hey? I'm not looking for things to disagree on...

Chair of the Republican Movement

I'd agree with that.

by Craig Young (not verified) - 09/02/2010 - 11:29am

I'd agree with that. Practically, is Russia (for example) any less autocratic and undemocratic now than it was under the Tsars or Stalin? Putin isn't exactly a boy scout... which does suggest that sometimes, historical continuities will have their way, regardless of the formal structures that exist. Or, for that matter, the existence of deep ethnic cleavages, as in the case of the former Yugoslavia and its woes during the Balkan Wars of the nineties.

I agree entirely with you!

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 09/02/2010 - 12:08pm

I agree entirely with you!

However in the same country,

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 09/02/2010 - 12:13pm

However in the same country, when you do change from one constitution to another, with a slight change in the balance of power (from weak Head of State to one with more powers) there may be a risk of instability - especially initially until the constitution becomes more familiar. Of course, this is where drafting plays a part as a badly drafted constitution will fail in the most uniform and stable of cultures and societies.

Examples? In almost every

by LJ Holden - 09/02/2010 - 12:18pm

Examples? In almost every instance of a long-standing democracy making changes to its constitutional structure does not result in instability. It's usually the young democracies (Fiji and most of Africa for example) where constitutional changes create instability.

Moreover, the changes proposed by the Head of State Referenda Bill do not radically increase the power of the head of state. They do, however, reduce the Prime Minister's power to appoint and dismiss anyone they want, and devolve that power to either parliament or the general public.

Chair of the Republican Movement

"Head of State Referenda Bill

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 09/02/2010 - 12:42pm

"Head of State Referenda Bill do not radically increase the power of the head of state." Never said it did, but there is some change to the balance of power as you say. And with this change, can you be absolutely certain that there will be no teething problems. Even if there were no changes in the power balance, with the only change being that the HoS was subject to a direct election every Five years. There is still a change as the HoS method of appointment had changed, emboldening him to take a more pro-active role in determinging when he could use his constitutional position.

The actual drafting of changes requires care. For example, poorly drafted acts of parliaments can be subject to wide interpretations in courts, when disputes arise as to the meaing of words and whole sections of Acts. Amendments may be necessary to correct poor wording or ambiguous drafting.

There is still a change as

by LJ Holden - 09/02/2010 - 8:54pm

There is still a change as the HoS method of appointment had changed, emboldening him to take a more pro-active role in determinging when he could use his constitutional position.

Sure - keeping the Prime Minister in check where the Governor-General currently doesn't. Although I suspect that would not actually result in greater use of the reserve powers; it means the PM is more likely not to push the head of state into things they might otherwise consider saying no to.

Sure. Then those disputes are adjudicated by the courts, and parliament amends the enactments (or in the case of the SOE Act, not). That's why Parliamentary democracy works.

Chair of the Republican Movement

I can think of one situation

by Craig (not verified) - 08/02/2010 - 10:29am

I can think of one situation where there might be potential conflict between a Governor General and elected Prime Minister, for there is the question of Canada. According to the Globe and Mail (Toronto), the Conservative Harper administration is in a minority government situation, with some implications for the Governor General if he can't maintain that situation indefinitely- largely due to the Liberal Party, New Democratic Party (centre-left) and Bloc Quebecois being able theoretically to pull the plug when they're ready and reasonably unified.

Could there be a potential Kerr/Whitlam situation there, albeit in the blue corner this time?

It'll be interesting to see how that situation resolves itself. As for the Constitutional Convention idea, if it was specifically about a written constitution, then yes. However, the republican debate is far more straightforward and more elaborated. Let's have a referendum, although there is still the question of timing.

But how many more would there

by LJ Holden - 08/02/2010 - 9:35am

But how many more would there have been if there had been a President with even a slight variation in independent power (e.g. in relation to calling for a fresh election.) and/or with a slight variation in dismissal procedure.

Looking at the Parliamentary republics around the world, the answer is no more than there currently are. The dismissal of the President of Israel is no different from the dismissal of the PNG Gov-Gen in 1991; as the early election in Australia in 1975 was no different from the early election in (then) West Germany in 1982(?).

Of course you have the benefit of looking for signs of conflict in all the similar constitutions of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms.

...and the benefit of other Parliamentary republics around the world.

Sure, the Australian example was 35 years ago. So what? There's been plenty of other examples since.

Chair of the Republican Movement

So give us an example from NZ

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 08/02/2010 - 1:12pm

So give us an example from NZ or from a unicameral commonwealth realm then.

NZ - 1984 was the closest we

by LJ Holden - 08/02/2010 - 1:17pm

NZ - 1984 was the closest we came, albeit the GG didn't have to get involved because the National Party caucus forced Muldoon to back down; and there was a constitutional crisis in Ceylon in 1965 (when that country was a Commonwealth realm). Not that either have any relevance to New Zealand...

Chair of the Republican Movement

Relevance yes...but as you

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 08/02/2010 - 1:27pm

Relevance yes...but as you said crisis did not arise in 1984. Any crisis there was in the transitional phase after Muldoon Nationals lost the election and before the elected Lange Govt took over.

"There are plenty of examples

by WestmiNZter Monarchist (not verified) - 08/02/2010 - 9:08am

"There are plenty of examples of Governors-General coming into conflict with Parliament" But how many more would there have been if there had been a President with even a slight variation in independent power (e.g. in relation to calling for a fresh election.) and/or with a slight variation in dismissal procedure.

Of course you have the benefit of looking for signs of conflict in all the similar constitutions of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms. So when making international comparisons you have sixteen-times the opportunity of finding signs of conflict in our system of westminster-style constitutional monarchy. Even so, the best that can be found occured in Australia some 35 years ago. Even that was a conflict between its two houses of parliament, which was causing money supply to dry up. It was that inter-parliamentary dispute that their Governor-General had to resolve.

Well, let's look at

by Craig (not verified) - 08/02/2010 - 5:09pm

Well, let's look at republican examples, then. Restricting it to liberal democratic states, France's disparate presidents and legislative assemblies seem to co-exist quite amiably. Not so the Republican Party and Presidents Clinton and Obama, but that's due to the addiction of the Republicans to numbskull lowest common denominator conservative populism (ie Sarah Palin).

India is a multilingual, multiethnic and multifaith state and as such has to combat fissaparous tendencies, confessional extremists and ethnic nationalist and seperatist elements, which produces a vastly different political culture to consider.

South Africa's post-apartheid governments have their share of woes, but democratic procedures and accountability aren't amongst them (and I wasn't a great fan of Thabo Mbeki, let it be added!) In that instance, the presidency and its legislature seem to co-exist reasonably well.

Ireland seems quite happy with its presidency and legislature (and STV electoral system!) Germany is quite stable, with no tensions between the arms of republican government.

(Russia is an oligarchy governed by Putin, Medvedev and their cronies in Rodina's newly privatised petrochemical industries and other former Soviet energy utilities. Putinism seems little different from Stalinism, the Brezhnev era, or indeed the more autocratic tsars before the advent of communism. It never had an Enlightenment, and is not a bona fide liberal democracy.)

Today's popular content

Latest Video

Latest Republican Movement video:

For more, see our video page.