Dom Post: Time to prepare the way for a republic
The Dominion Post writes:
Ultimately it is for New Zealanders to decide their constitutional
arrangements at the ballot box, but it makes sense to begin
consideration now. If there is to be change, the end of the reign of
Queen Elizabeth II would be an appropriate time.Change should not be made because of reservations about whether
Prince Charles is suitable for the role. Rather, it should be because it
is becoming more and more anachronistic for a nation that prides itself
on its independence and its egalitarianism to continue to have as head
of state an absentee Briton who has the job by dint of birth.The decades since the Queen became New Zealand's head of state in
1952 have seen a seismic shift in the way both Britain and New Zealand
view the world. Then, Britain was still seen as home by many Kiwis and
was still the cultural touchstone. It was the destination for most of
what New Zealand's farms produced, and the source of much of what New
Zealand imported.Britain is now part of Europe and a member of the European Union,
and that is where its attention is focused. No longer can all of New
Zealand's sons and daughters count on being allowed to stay there even
when the OE visa expires – and no longer can Britons expect to emigrate
to New Zealand with a 10 subsidy to ease their passage.Now, New Zealand is part of the Asia-Pacific rim and that is where
its primary interests, present and future, lie. A head of state who
lives on the edge of Europe and visits only occasionally is an
incongruous fit with that.There are concerns – some valid and some not – about a move toward
republicanism. Some believe it would mean New Zealand would no longer be
part of the Commonwealth. That is a misconception. There are many
Commonwealth states that do not have the Queen as head of state.More legitimate are worries over how a president would be selected,
what powers he or she would have, and the cost of an expanded role. It
could be as easy as leaving the role, powers and selection process for
the office of governor-general untouched apart from a name change to
president. A simple and virtually costless safeguard would be to make
the appointment subject to the approval of something larger than a
simple majority of Parliament. It could be something more complicated.Prime Minister John Key agreed to a constitutional review as part of
his deal with the Maori Party. The terms of reference for that review
go to Cabinet soon. They should include drawing up a concrete plan for
how New Zealand could move towards becoming a republic – and what that
republic should look like.
Interesting note about the Constitutional Review. Of course the Republican Movement welcomes any review of our constitutional arrangements.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
"A head of state who lives on the edge of Europe and visits only occasionally is an incongruous fit with that."
I imagine if the newspaper had said the HoS lived in England or the UK it would not sound quite so distant as "on the edge of Europe". A good use of language to make the argument. Anyway, it is hardly incongruous as five other Asia-Pacific nations are Commonwealth Realms! And three of these Commonwealth realms are amongst the longest-standing democracies in the region. That alone, should put Australia, Canada and New Zealand in the position of being constitutional examples to the rest of the region.
Yeah, the Solomon Islands is a fine upstanding example of a Commonwealth realm, isn't it Bill? Funny how monarchists like to forget those realms when they claim monarchies are stable...
Interestingly, none of those countries are in Asia, so it would be more accurate to say the "Pacific". I wonder why?
Exactly - they'll be fine as republics.
Which is why Samoa became a republic in 2007?
Yeah, the Solomon Islands is a fine upstanding example of a Commonwealth realm, isn't it Bill?
The Dom Post's was arguing it was "incongrous" ... which, with four other realms with Elizabeth II as Head of State is obviously not the case.
Interestingly, none of those countries are in Asia, so it would be more accurate to say the "Pacific". I wonder why?
Dom Post referred to Asia-Pacific "Rim". But go on, you tell me the history behind why Asia has no Commonwealth Realms.
Which is why Samoa became a republic in 2007?
I thought that Samoa had not been a Commonwealth Realm since independence from NZ in 1960 and that Malietoa Tanumafili II was head of state until his death in 2007. Currently His Highness TUI ATUA Tupua Tamasese Efi is Head of State, having been selected by parliament.
I'm being facetious. Obviously the five realms are in harmony, constitutionally speaking. Their individual experiences with democracy vary greatly depending on factors unrelated to the monarchy - education, wealth and civic participation. It's interesting that PNG, the Solomons and Tuvalu are very poor areas of the Pacific. That correlation is difficult to dispute.
However, the point (which you've missed) is that we're clearly not in harmony with fellow independent countries in Asia, or North and South America, to use the Pacific rim.
Sure they referred to the Pacific Rim... but that only adds in Canada, which is not in Asia. I don't need to explain why there's no Commonwealth realms in Asia Bill. I assume you're smart enough to work it out yourself.
You're right. Samoa was never a Commonwealth realm. Mea culpa.
...but it was however a monarchy and still has some of the trappings of a monarchy. Selected by parliament for a fixed term, meaning Samoa is not an elective monarchy as the Vatican is.
However, the point (which you've missed) is that we're clearly not in harmony with fellow independent countries in Asia, or North and South America, to use the Pacific rim.
Well our Canadian brethren in North America owe allegiance to EiiR as well. However the distance from Newfoundland to the Western Edge of Europe is about 3700km. The distance from edge of Newfoundland to coastal BC is about 7200km (very approx! - see http://www.trailcanada.com/travel/in_canada/travel_distances/ ) So having a Canadian HoS living "on the edge of europe" would not seem particularly "unusual" as far as distance is concerned.
No, the point is the Canadian head of state isn't resident in Canada, neither is New Zealand's head of state. That's what the Dom Post obvious meant. This is not some complex calculation of travel distances - it's a simple fact.
The Dom Post's point was also that the NZ HoS living on the edge of Europe was an incongruous fit with NZ being part of Asia-Pacific Rim. Distance from the country to residence of the HoS is a factor in that. Other countries fail this DomPost determined test for "congruity" . So with four other nations (including Canada), it is not incongruous, even on this basis.
Also the DomPost seems to imply that there was some type of "normal or expected" behaviour or constitutional arrangements for nations in the region, against which the DomPost determines congruity. Since nations range from China, Vietnam, PNG, NZ, Chile to Canada, it would be a good challenge to determine what would be "congruous" for the region. If it were to be on a population-basis then we would need to be "congruous" with China....!
French imperialism (supported by a majority of New Caledonia's population incidentally) meaning New Caledonia's capital is deep in Europe is also another that they may call incongruous ? It looks like each country in the region has aspects which some may call "incongruous".
No it isn't. It's irrelevant. Your point was that Canada is 7,200km wide and the Queen lives 3,700km from Canada, therefore it's not unusual. The point you keep missing, intentionally I assume, is that the issue is that the Canadian head of state is not resident in Canada, nor are they in New Zealand or Australia or Tuvalu.
As I've said Bill we're obviously "in harmony" with the other Commonwealth realms in our region, but that doesn't mean we're in harmony with the independent countries in our region. You're talking five versus 48, and 5 < 48.
The constitutional norm for independent sovereign states is that they have their own resident head of state. That's what normal and expected behaviour is, it's plain that's what the Dom Post is talking about.
Oh yes, ye olde reds under the beds... I shouldn't dignify it with a response, other than to say that's clearly not what the Dom Post meant. Did they write an editorial calling for socialism with Chinese characteristics? No. Yes, there are a great many constitutional differences between the states, but there are common features for independent countries. China, Viet Nam, Chile, etc. have their own resident heads of state, we do not.
Yes it is. Interesting that you're comparing New Zealand to a French department Bill... that's a concession that having an absentee head of state makes us look like a Colony, or at least quasi-independent. Excellent.
but there are common features for independent countries. China, Viet Nam, Chile, etc. have their own resident heads of state, we do not
What about the independent regional countries of Australia Canada PNG etc. The DomPost is ignoring other Commonwealth realms in the region when it states we are "incongruous" on this point.
Yes it is. Interesting that you're comparing New Zealand to a French department Bill...
Indeed you got me there - NZ does seem just like a county of England....sort of an antipodean Sussex... because of Elizabeth II, Queen of NZ. Even though we were a founder member of the UN, constitutionally, we must appear on a par with New Cal!
48 > 5. It's kind of like saying Belarus is incongruous with the rest of Europe as it's not a liberal democracy. Does that ignore Cyprus, Russia, Turkey (if you consider them part of Europe), the Vatican, Andorra and Liechtenstein? No. The majority of European states are liberal democracies. The majority of states in the Asia-Pacific region have their own resident heads of states.
No, you compared New Zealand to New Caledonia in terms of constitutional structure - in that its head of state is resident in Paris, not Noumea. Just read your own comment above.
Post new comment