A challenge to Monarchy New Zealand
Monarchy New Zealand says the Head of State Referenda Bill is:
"A silly idea, put forward in a silly way, by a man with too much time and taxpayer money on his hands."At least they deigned to comment on the first piece of legislation to directly challenge the monarchy's hegemony. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a bit of celebration on their part that the Bill may be voted down - however, we do wonder what they mean by "put forward in a silly way". Our challenge to the monarchists is to explain how they'd put the question of a republic to the New Zealand people - irrespective of the fact they think it's a "silly" idea, or that it might cost the taxpayer one tenth of the price of the Royal tour...
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
I would not call the idea silly or that it has been put in a silly way. I do think that the referenda questions should be put in a simiar way as the MMP referenda: for example:
First referendum: (answer both questions)
1. Do you think that NZ should continue as constitutional monarchy with the Sovereign/Monarch/Queen of NZ as Head of State. Yes or No?
2. If NZ becomes a constitutional republic, the Head of State should be (tick one option)
(a) Appointed by parliament(b) Directly elected by registered voters
If the majority say Yes to continuing as a monarchy, there is no second referendum.
Second referendum: (tick one option)
1. I vote for NZ to continue as a constitutional monarchy with the Sovereign/Monarch/Queen of NZ as Head of State.
2. I vote for NZ to be a constitutional republic with the President to be (appointed by parliament/ directly elected by registered voters). *option according to whichever received more votes in the first referendum.
***************************
This is a private member's Bill pursued by a Green Party list mp who was elected by people voting for Green Party policies, none of which at the last election mentioned republicanism. So, a Party list MP is pursuing his own pet policy.
Either the Green Party should have adopted republicanism as an official policy or Locke should confine his work to pursuing those policies that were put to the voters by the Green Party at the last election.
Unfortunately the current system allows Locke to pursue his taxpayer-funded expensive personal policy interest. So, I agree it is an unjustified use of Locke's time and his taxpayer funded salary and expenses.
I don't think this government will run with a republic referendum...Could it justify to its supporters the time/effort/money needed to launch an information campaign and referenda, especially given that the present economic circumstances? Even amongst those who support a republic in polls, how many would regard it as a critical issue or an issue requiring priority attention?
An ideal situation would be to tag on various referendum questions at each election....e.g....1. Do you want a republic? 2. Do you want MMP to continue. 3. Do you want a flag change? 4. Should NZ continue with its nuclear free policy? 5. Should NZ set immigration quotas? 6. Should NZ adopt the seabed and foreshore legislation? 7. Should NZ replace QBH with Matariki? etc.
Not a republic referendum... but we are having one on MMP, at a cost of $20 m.
Even amongst those who support a republic in polls, how many would regard it as a critical issue or an issue requiring priority attention?
Not that many. We accept that it's not the biggest priority.
Post new comment