NZ moving away from monarchy - Cullen
Dr Cullen appeared on TVNZ's breakfast this morning to discuss his new position on a New Zealand republic:
...the process of change could begin with the nomination of the Governor General by a super majority in parliament and when the queen dies that person could become the interim head of state while the country went through a process of choosing.
I suspect, as people have asked, that Cullen's going to call for a referendum following the end of the Queen's reign.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
when the queen dies that person could become the interim head of state while the country went through a process of choosing.
So under the Cullen plan, NZ becomes a republic on the death of the Queen (the new Monarch is not head of state, The GovGen becomes HoS). This occurs without a referendum. A referendum is then held some time later. Does the RM still consider this Cullen plan excellent?
I don't know Bill, I'll have to ask the exec what they think. I have my own views, as does Cullen.
Gillard's cowardice killed all possibility of a change during the Queen's lifetime in Australia. As the date of the Queen's death cannot be predicted, there is no real chance for a republic to be proclaimed at that date (unless there is going to be a regency during the last years of her reign) either in NZ or Australia. However, during the first few years of the next monarch's reign a change could be possible.
A referendum would be most advisable, and that is one more reason why the change should wait till the next reign. In Australia, though, a republican referendum would succeed any minute now, if only the politicians were more willing.
Gillard's cowardice killed all possibility of a change during the Queen's lifetime in Australia.
Her predecessor, Rudd, probably had probably mortally wounded republicanism in the current monarch's lifetime in Australia - not to mention ex-republican leader Turnbull's about turn when Liberal leader. At least John Howard was up-front about his opposition to a republic. No u-turn needed for him. Recently in Australia it does seem that when emphatic republican politicians end up as party leaders (Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull) they tone down their republican rhetoric and shelve their previous push for a referendum.
As I have read about it so far, the Cullen plan does seem to end up installing a parliamentary appointed president, without any referendum, at the end of the Queen's reign. He pre-empts a republic for the parliamentary-appointment republicans and allows for direct involvement of the public in a referendum process only after the shift to his favoured type of a republic. I would imagine many republican supporters would wish to distance themselves from that.
Bill, you're just spreading misinformation once again. Your petty attacks on the Republican Movement would be more threatening if they weren't so comical.
Our policy on a referendum is clear. Dean Knight repeated it again yesterday at the constitution conference. Unless you're terminally stupid, which I don't beleive you are, you might be able to think that we don't support a referendum. I don't know how we could be more explicit.
Of course, pushing the 'they don't want a referendum' line suits the monarchists. It's an argument borne of a disparate strategy of spreading as much FUD as quickly as possible.
Bill, as I've stated a number of times, we support the idea of a gradualist move towards a republic. That's clear from our media release. I note you're yet to actually provide a counter-argument to it, focussing on dancing on a pinhead regarding Cullen's views, which are just that: Cullen's views.
Does the RM chair and the RM still stand by the statement in the press release: "his (Cullen's) approach to the issue is well thought-through" and do they still stand by the last paragraph of the media release: ""He (Cullen) suggests that perhaps New Zealand should first elect its Governor-General by a three-quarters majority of parliament, and wait for the Queen's reign to end before declaring New Zealand a republic. We think that is an excellent idea" concluded Mr Holden."
As his scheme runs contrary to the RM's stated aim of "winning a referendum to establish the republic" by establishing a republic prior to a referendum, is the RM happy for that inconsistency to remain?
Under the Cullen scheme there would be no referendums on either whether NZ should become a republic or on the manner of how the Head of State is appointed. The Cullen scheme leads to a real politicians' republic. Only at some time after this republic had been declared would a referendum take place.
However it is also interesting to note that Cullen thinks that a move to a republic is unlikely to happen prior to the end of the Queen's reign:
''I don't think this is going to happen. It's all far too sensible and far too moderate. He says: "What will happen is the republicans will have an enormous argument about all this...and they will get bound up in all sorts of other issues. And the consequence is a vast confusion.'' http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4088941/NZ-told-to-prepare-for-a-republic
It can be surmised that because of those fears of his, that is why he wanted the republic to come about seemlessly and without a referendum at the end of the Queen's reign so that "an enormous argument" is avoided!
Ah, the sideshow goes on:
Yes. Because it is. I assume you've not read the speech Bill, spending all your time trolling here...
Yes.
As I've explained to you a number of times Bill, a declaration does not prevent or preclude a referendum. That's how basic it is. I don't beleive you're so stupid not to know that, so any reader of these threads, and your continual repetition of the same old points, only goes to show a desire to manipulate.
I think this steadfast dedication to the same rhetoric speaks volumes of the sort of thinking that eminates from monarchists. Monarchists obviously reject the ancient Chinese proverb that we should seek the truth from facts. Even when the facts are presented, they keep repeating the same old ridicolous points, hoping to exploit the public's ignorance of the facts. Nonetheless...
There's no inconsistency. There's plenty of inconsistency in your spin, however. You claimed earlier that the casual reader of the media release wouldn't know that our policy was for a referendum. Despite the fact that it was attached to both the media release on our website, repeated on the media outlets where I was interviewed, and all of the newsletter subscribers on our mailing list.
These facts clearly don't sit well with you Bill, do they? To keep claiming there's an inconsistency, you must ignore these facts. It's much like supporting the monarchy. To keep claiming the monarchy is "New Zealand's monarchy" you must ignore the fact that the Royals are British, and are British resident, and are funded by the British taxpayer, and represent Britain overseas. This is a strange sort of willful ignorance born of a bizzare sychophantic love of the Royals before country.
Oh please Bill. The "politicians' republic" is yet another tired piece of monarchist rhetoric. Cullen stated (a statement you ignore as you've actually quoted its source, which is rather comical) that the GG would be an interim head of state. In other words, we'd only become a republic after the referendum. You've ignored this because it doesn't suit your misinterpretation of what Cullen said.
Moreover, there's nothing in Cullen's speech that actually says we shouldn't have a referendum...
[Lots of nonsense follows, removed]:
In all of this, Bill once again misses the point in his despiration to spread FUD. I actually enjoy his trolling though - it gives me confidence that the monarchists actually don't have any real responses. They've only got pinheads to spin on.
Cullen accepts that New Zealand's parliamentary democracy isn't broken, as do I and most members of the Republican Movement. However, we all agree that the head of state is broken, being discriminatory, foreign and irrelevant. That's his reasoning for why we should take gradual steps towards becoming a republic.
So Lewis, if and when the New Zealand people vote to reject the republic. What would happen. As the "GG would be an interim head of state". No republic then. But what will we be? No monarch either.
Of all plans to change New Zealand's system of government, this has to be the worst. A republic should only happen if the New Zealand people want it. Not if certain New Zealanders want it. This proposed process sole goal is to ensure the success of something, that if it was put straight forward to the people would be rejected.
A republic is an absence of a monarch. This plan is a republic before the referendum to transform NZ into a republic has happened. It is hypocritical to claim this plan fits in with the RM long stated goals of a successfully winning a referendum to transform NZ into a republic.
If we are going to move to a republic. Fine. But ‘republicanism by stealth’, and proposals such as this are unbefitting. On a side note, I always find it funny how the ad hominem attacks that republicans adopt to defend there argument are usually as bad, or worst than the ones you guys accuse us of using.
Also, there are issues with the fomatting of your comments pages on IE atm. All rich formatting is lost and been playing up all day. Prehaps thats just the uni computers however.
Cullen stated (a statement you ignore as you've actually quoted its source, which is rather comical) that the GG would be an interim head of state. In other words, we'd only become a republic after the referendum.
Absolutely classic spin...an interim Head of State. If the Queen's heir, the new monarch, does not become the Head of State on the death of the Queen and the GovGen is the Head of State, until the result of a future referendum, then in that interim period, NZ is in fact a republic. A republic that would come about, under the Cullen scheme, on the Queen's death without a preceding referendum.
If under the Cullen plan, the subsequent referendum results in this parliamentary appointed Head of State remaining in office, then the republic, already declared on the death of the Queen, continues and the monarchy is not restored.
Oh how I *love* the fact that this thread is causing so much consternation.
The fact is that the views put forward by Dr Cullen are his, and while we might think gradual change is a good idea, that doesn't mean we're endorsing his position lock stock and barrell. Nonetheless despite Dr Cullen's speech now being in the public arena, it seems monarchists are still struggling to grasp it or provide any analysis of it:
Such confidence. I'm glad you think that way Brian... reminds me of what a certain Mr Benn once said.
Brian, I know you study law. You know Parliament can simply amend the succession law so that anyone can be deemed heir and successor to Queen Elizabeth II (that's why William of Orange succeeded Charles II, not James II). You also know Parliament can create a regency. While Cullen doesn't go into specifics, it's the most obvious way to make the Governor-General interim head of state. Hence I can't see how you've come to the conclusion that by making the Governor-General an interim head of state requires a declaration that New Zealand is a republic, unless you know of a more obvious legal mechanism.
The great irony of this argument is that Monarchy New Zealand was campaigning against a referendum just a few months ago.
I wouldn't be so sure Brian. While this sort of fighting talk is to be expected, I find it amazing that you assume the monarchy will be perpectually as popular as it is under Elizabeth II. Actually, it's not amazing, it's very comforting. The fact is we know the opposite is true. The intractable problems with amending the succession means William won't be taking the throne anytime soon.
What's a regency then Brian? Was Britain a republic during the regency period? No it was not.
You're right. This plan has been in train since 1967, when that dastardly republican Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Holyoake
appointedrecommended to Her Majesty a New Zealander (*gasp*) to the office of Governor-General. Ever since then it's been a slipperly slope...That's the problem the monarchists have. There's no actual argument against parliament electing the Governor-General by a super super-majority because deep down you know it means better checks and balances. So you've chosen to dance on a pinhead.
Brian, I know you can read. Above, I've explained to Bill that supporting gradual change does not equate to not supporting a referendum or contradicting our policy on a referendum. The implication that it does is simply scaremongering.
Brian, please tell us what the problem is with removing the Prime Minister's ability to appoint whatever crony they want into the Office of Governor-General, and remove them with little more than a fax to Buckingham Palace. It's much like the mornic "oh but we can't codify the reserve powers", when it can and has already been done in Commonwealth realms (and in NZ with the Royal prerogative of mercy).
Ad hominem attacks? Where? Bill's repetition of the same points are nothing more than a manipulation of language. He even cites sources that contradict his own claims. It is not an ad hominem attack to show why someone's views are wrong with facts. Indeed, I have not said once Bill's views are wrong because Bill holds them - I have simply pointed to the agenda behind them, and the reason for their endless repetition. I think the fact Bill either ignores or avoids responding to these arguments is enough of a concession that that assessment is correct.
Yes. Don't use IE.
I will will point out that I am not necessarily opposed to the HoR advising Her Majesty to appoint her next GG. I am opposed to Deans proposal that should the GG which to resign that office you tell the Speaker. The Queen is the HoS, the resignation should be to the current HoS.
Fascinating. Your non-response to the previous points is clearly a concession. So, you did ignore the interim head of state point.
No Bill. As with Brian above, I find it hard to beleive you've never heard of a regency. As I've pointed out above, a regency is the most legally obvious way to make the Governor-General head of state in the interim.
Of course, the reason you're dead against this is that in the intervening months between the end of Elizabeth II's regin, while the Governor-General is acting as regent and Charles is haggling with David Cameron over whether he can be Defender of Faith or not, the New Zealand public will become cogniscent of the fact that we're already a de facto republic and the Royals are a constitutionally useless appendix, and their replacement isn't as hard as paleo-conservatives make out.
Now, it just so happens, despite your strenous attempts to prove otherwise, that I don't support Cullen's position. But I'm sure you knew that.
No. Nowhere in Cullen's speech does it say a republic would be declared on the Queen's death.
So the head of New Zealand's House of Representatives shouldn't be informed when the perso they need to
appointnominate resigns? That's ridicolous Brian. I suspect the purpose of the GG resigning to the Queen is so that you can still argue the Queen has constitutional relevance...So, you did ignore the interim head of state point.
Actually no...but I cannot be bothered finding the earlier post in which I italicised the prefix interim. The addition of the prefix interim does not change the fact that the GG would be Head of State.
The Cullen plan mentioned that the GG would be declared Head of State not a regent. It seems clear that it is intended the new monarch would not be Head of State and that NZ would be a republic.
However, if a regency for the next monarch were declared on the death of the current Queen, then I imagine that the government would still operate in the name of the monarch and that oaths would still be made to the monarch etc.. Isn't a regent actually appointed to act as the Head of State or monarch concerned but is not actually the Head of State or Monarch.
Now, it just so happens, despite your strenous attempts to prove otherwise, that I don't support Cullen's position. But I'm sure you knew that.
No I did not know that, as I must admit you had me fooled by calling the Cullen scheme an excellent idea in the press release.
Fascinating. Your non-response to the previous points is clearly a concession.
Which part of the invective should I have responded to?:
"I don't beleive you're so stupid not to know that"
"your continual repetition of the same old points, only goes to show a desire to manipulate."
"I think this steadfast dedication to the same rhetoric speaks volumes of the sort of thinking that eminates from monarchists"
" Even when the facts are presented, they keep repeating the same old ridicolous points, hoping to exploit the public's ignorance of the facts. "
"This is a strange sort of willful ignorance born of a bizzare sychophantic love of the Royals before country."
"it gives me confidence that the monarchists actually don't have any real responses. They've only got pinheads to spin on."
For the sake of getting this argument to a conclusion, I'm about to post the links to both Dean and Dr Cullen's papers...
Now I've managed to read Cullen's speech I can say this isn't the case.
No. It would be an interim regime. Anyway, this discussion is really redundant as I've explained previously.
Yes. They're an interim head of state. That's why they get the prefix. But I still maintain it's the legally simplest way of creating the interim... and I'm yet to hear anything that shows otherwise.
Nonsense. You did know it, and conceded your assumption was wrong. Here's why:
commenting on. Does Cullen support that aspect of RM policy?"
reign is only considered an excellent idea by Mr Holden if it follows a
referendum result in favour of the parliamentary appointment of
Presidents allowing the transition from the parliamentary appointed
president." That's obviously a concession that your previous arguments were duplicitous.
contrast it with Cullen's proposal. So listeners on Radio Live and
NewstalkZB are aware of it, as is anyone reading the media release here." I also pointed to the fact that you'd not actually shown the Republican Movement had abandoned its policies, just assumed on a narrow interpretation of "declaration" that we had. You had conceded that our media release was clear.
We've then got this thread, which is so very tiresome I won't go through your attempts at repeating the same argument over and over again. But what's clear from the above exchange is despite the facts you refuse to accept your narrow presumption, contradictory claims over endorsements / non-endorsements, and back-track out of a concession as it didn't suit the argument you were making at the time.
Very good Bill, you've managed to misinterpret what I said once again and posted my statements in a way that makes them look as though they're personal attacks.
Your claim that the RM had contradicted itself in the media release was, and is, so transparently nothing more than an attempt at painting us as being duplicitous. In fact, it's so transparent that I pointed out you would have to be stupid to honestly beleive that in one media release we had back-tracked on our poliy. You clearly don't understand that I'm calling your bluff - you have to show that it's reasonable for someone reading the media release you were responding to that that was the case.
I suspect, as with most things, that in fact you understand the "invective" for what it is - I'm calling your bluff, and you don't like it.
In all of this, I keep wondering why this matters so much to yourself, and now Brian. Is it because we've pointed out the grand inconsistencies of the monarchist case - that the head of state cannot at once be neutral and able to intervene politically (and in fact the Queen doesn't)? Perhaps.
Or is it because you really, really want there to be a referendum on the monarchy. The truth is we know monarchists don't want a referendum. They will fight against it tooth and nail, as they fought against Keith Locke's Bill, not because they beleive they will win, but to shut down any debate on the republic, which you know will be bad for the monarchy.
The only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that you're just here to troll, and you think your trolling is going to somehow frustrate our efforts.
This is farce now. I cannot be bothered and don't have time to go through your response in detail...and perhaps you would say I would be called a trolling if I did. I do not make press releases and I doubt whether posts here are sufficient to frustrate the weight of all your lobbying and media activities!
However the concession you claimed I made was an expansion of the original press release with the the notes that came after the press release ended and the meaning, as revealed in your posts here, you had wished to convey . I had tried to place my self in your position and say what you had meant to say in that press release. It was not the meaning I had understood when I read the press release.
Oh, I'm sure you only ever wanted to clarify our hopelessly ambiguous media release. Your original comment was based on your own presumption that I thought was fairly easy to disabuse yourself of. But no... instead you insisted on ignoring the facts presented and repeating your presumption. If you were really interested in clarification you wouldn't have insisted your presumption was fact as you did. Nonetheless this is yet another example of a view point based on emotion over reason - it never mattered what facts I presented, you had a view and stuck to it with great gusto and panache. That's admirable, yet also very comical. It fills me with great confidence.
"I find it hard to beleive you've never heard of a regency..."
Interesting that Lewis is holding on to this regency idea when Cullen mentioned no such thing. A regent governs when the monarch is absent, debilitated, or a minor; yet, Cullen calls for there to be no monarch of New Zealand immediately upon the death of Elizabeth. The governor general cannot be a regent when there's no monarch; with the sovereign eliminated, the governor general moves up to become himself the head of state, which makes New Zealand a republic without any referendum having taken place.
Even if the parliament wanted to create an interregnum after Elizabeth, that would require an alteration to the line of succession, which, as per the Statute of Westminster, cannot be done without the permission of all the other Commonwealth Realms.
Cullen's idea hardly seems well thought out at all.
James, it's not hard to see that a regency with the GG as head of state would be legally the simplest way to implement Dr Cullen's proposal. Yes, he doesn't mention it in his speech, but that's not relevant.
It continues to fascinate me so much attention is put on Cullen when Dean Knights paper more accuratly reflects our policy.
As for the Statute of Westminster, it's been recited here a number of times that your position is wrong. The relevant part of the Act is actually the preamble, meaning it's not binding on the Commonwealth realms (note lower case R). Their is no requirement that New Zealand consult with the UK on the succesion. This legal position has been clearly set out by Prof Cox.
A regency requires that there still be a monarch.
Going some Franco-esque route of being regent to a throne with no sovereign on it (a bizarre and dodgy bit of constitutional sophistry) would, as I said, require a change in the Act of Settlement in New Zealand to alter the succession following on Elizabeth. The rule that the line be the same for all the Commonwealth Realms (capital 'R' - only those realms in the Commonwealth headed by Elizabeth II have the specific name) may well be spelled out only in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, but that doesn't detract from the convention's validity. Its force has been affirmed by the courts here in Canada, at least - likened therein to an international treaty - and as courts in the Commonwealth often cite as precedent the rulings of courts in other Commonwealth states, it's likely - though unknown until tested - that a New Zealand judge would rule the same.
I think Cullen's trying to achieve a republic using a constitutional loophole that simply isn't there.
There's nothing in the UK Regency Act that says the monarch must be reigning at the time of a regency
Ironically you name the most obvious example. Nonetheless, it is sophistry, which is exactly why we don't support it.
I'd love to read the precedent that says New Zealands Parliament is bound by the Statute of Westminster vis the succesion. Is it obiter dicta? The great irony of this is another Canadian monarchist was adamant that the statute was non-binding, therefore his assertion that the monarchy did not undermine New Zealands independence... so I'd love to read it.
Post new comment