South Island autonomy?
It seems the Republican Movement has been endorsed by the "New Munster Party" a group advocating the South Island separate from New Zealand and become a republic called New Munster (after the short-lived early province of New Zealand that covered the South Island, 1846 - 1876:
We support the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand because any discussion on republicanism and changes to the New Zealand Constitution should be accompanied by the establishment of an independent Republic of New Munster.
I'm not sure what the other exec members will make of this, but it's probably the most interesting endorsement we've ever had. If the South Island did become a republic, would all republicans be compelled to move there? Would the North Island become a bastion of monarchism?
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
I can see why Cullen wanted a simple Act of parliament to make the GG head of state (interim!) at the end of the Queen's reign. Constitutional change to the apex of the constitution plus a pandora's box of possibilities may be opened if there are protracted discussions. Some relish this prospect; others such as Cullen presumably want any change kept to a minimum. If many groups with their own agenda step into the discussion, the result maybe one big turn-off by the general electorate.
Ah yes, the old fear chestnut: the gold standard of monarchist rhetoric. We can't debate becoming a republic as the South Island might declare independence! Luckily it gets ever more comical the more often it's trotted out, so keep up the good work. Please keep implying the public is stupid and would vote for things such as South Island independence.
The New Zealand public have already been through this sort of scaremongering with MMP and the Supreme Court. If we adopt proportional representation lilies will stop flowering, list MPs will walk around with bags on their heads, the Supreme Court will give Northland to the Harawira whanau and force us all to speak Maaaaaaaori, etc. There are nuts either side of the fence, I only linked to this one because it's entertaining, clearly you missed that.
If you'd done some quick Google searches Bill you'd have seen this "party" is really just one guy and his PC in a lone crusade to free the South Island from the shackles of the North... he can't even point to polls as we can to show any sort of support.
The New Zealand public have already been through this sort of scaremongering with MMP and the Supreme Court.
Interesting that you allude to MMP as it brings to mind John Key's recent comments that there is a distinct possibility that MMP may fail at the (at last we are getting one) referendum because of the antics of the minor parties. I imagine he was being mindful of NZ First and now ACT. Maybe there was no need for scaremongering as the minor parties may have scared the general public anyway. However, being a politican and from a "major" party Key's comments may well be self-serving to advance his own party's interests.
Similarly with republicanism, groups with little support may get the attention of the media with their antics (as with the Republican party and flag burning) and could turn off the general public from engaging in the debate.
If you'd done some quick Google searches Bill you'd have seen this "party" is really just one guy and his PC in a lone crusade to free the South Island from the shackles of the North
Maybe you should ask the media to allot the exposure given to various groups according to the level of support they achieve in polls....as opposed to according to what will achieve more readers/viewers
Got it in one. Nothing to do with reality.
They sure do. But does that mean they represent mainstream republican thinking? Of course it doesn't. Nonetheless, monarchists love pointing out this stuff ad nauseum.
Not sure how that's relevant here, or regarding the Republic of NZ Party. We actually manage to counter most of the nonsense put out by the Republic Party.
Got it in one. Nothing to do with reality.
Cannot answer that as I have not seen polls on MMP after the ACT implosion. However Key does seem to have read the public mood well in other situations. I doubt the latest revelations of the background of an ACT list MP would have done support for MMP with its party list MPs any favours.
They sure do. But does that mean they represent mainstream republican thinking? Of course it doesn't. Nonetheless, monarchists love pointing out this stuff ad nauseum.
Just as republicans do about monarchists.
Rubbish. If I did I'd have no end of material to post! Seriously.
You can debate it all you like, but until there is any real demand for a Republic amongst the population at large, that’s all it will remain, a debate. Every now and then the media will pull out their old files and dust them off, run a poll, interview your own good self and run a few seconds of footage on the 6 o’clock News, and then it will all die down again until the next time they get bored or have a slow news day or someone famous says something provocative.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I think the Republicanism issue gets as much coverage as it does because it’s a subject dear to the hearts of many a journo and media person, rather than because it has great sympathy within mainstream New Zealand. Media people often genuinely don’t realise that their social and political views are often not representative of those of the majority. This is not to say that Republicanism is necessarily a bad thing, just that most people don’t really care about it, even though you may find what you believe to be an encouragingly large percentage in favour when you run a suitably leading question in a poll.
And it is altogether possible that any serious Republican debate, if and when one should ever take place in NZ, may precipitate discussion concerning self-Government of some form for the South Island. Monarchist sentiment down here is generally far stronger than in the North, and many Southerners do feel somewhat disenfranchised from, and disadvantaged by, a Government which they perceive to be focussed on the demands of the North, most particularly the Auckland electorate.
That's a pretty accurate description of the debate so far. I would add though that over the last 30 years there has been a significant increase in support for a New Zealand republic, and the debate does have intensity, albeit repetitive.
Not really. You'd be surprised at how much resistance and outright refusal to acknowledge the debate we get - just look at The Listener. The idea that journalists are all lefty-liberal elite types who push their own agendas is as much of a myth as the corporate media regurgitating corporate propaganda.
Sure. I've acknowledged on numerous occasions in the past that this isn't a "bread and butter" issue like law and order, health, jobs, welfare or tax. That doesn't mean that the republic v monarchy debate is unimportant, it just means that it's long-term as most constitutional issues are. I suspect the apathy we encounter is not dissimilar to the apathy monarchists encounter, judging by their constant calls for supporters. The lack of visibility of the monarchy is both a blessing and a curse to both sides.
I'm pretty sure the Canterbury earthquake and South Canterbury Finance have put paid to that - I mean, if you ever wanted an argument against South Island independence or self-determination, SCF and the quake are it. For our own part, we've got an active group in Christchurch and members as far south as Stewart Island, so we're hardly a North Island only organisation.
Moreover I doubt that monarchist sentiment is actually stronger in the South Island than the north. According to our own research the split is strongest between urban and rural areas. The same is true for Christchurch and Dunedin versus the rest of the South Island.
I doubt that South Island self-determination is anywhere near as strong as its proponents feel it is, or that any move to a republic would mean increasing support for separation by the South Island. There just isn't a causal link.
I think the SCF argument is a little specious, and here’s why; much has been made of the Government’s bailing out of South Canterbury Finance by various media commentators, slanted to make it appear that the benevolent North Island has come to the rescue of an irresponsible and ungrateful South, as if it were only south Canterbury which had suffered loss, and only the North island’s taxpayers who were footing the bill.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
In reality about $900 million of the $1.7 billion paid to SCF investors is not taxpayers’ money at all, but has come from the levies paid by the banks and other lending institutions for the privilege of being part of the guarantee scheme, which was never a freebie.
On top of that, the payout gives the Government control of SCF’s assets, the sale of which will eventually bring the Government a return of $600M - $1B, so at the very least they will recover almost all of the cost, and at best return a profit to the taxpayer.
In addition, it is of course all taxpayers who have contributed to the Government’s share of the bailout, not only those from the NI or Auckland as some would have us believe. Further, around 25% of SCF investors, and about 15% of its investments, are North Island-based. Finally, there have been payouts to eight other finance companies under the scheme, six of them North Island based, and all of them contributed to by South Island taxpayers, no mention of which has been made by the media commentators referred to earlier.
As for the quake, I have to say in all honesty I don’t know what additional disadvantage would have been faced by Christchurch had it not been part of a unified New Zealand at the time. Auckland sent some Police who it turned out we really didn’t need, and a couple of hundred portaloos, and Hawke’s Bay and Tauranga sent glaziers and bricklayers, but they would have done so even if we’d been a foreign country, just like New Zealand sends rural firefighters to Australia, and like New Zealand sent roofers and tilers to Sydney after the hailstorms. Countries provide each other with relief supplies and specialist people all the time in similar circumstances.
I don’t doubt or question that there are republicans in the South. What I can absolutely guarantee is that if and when push comes to shove with regards to Republicanism, there will be people arguing for a better deal for the South Island, because I will be one of them. It may take the form of a drive for greater self-determination, or full self-Government, Statehood, a federation, a confederation, a split nation with one half a republic and the other a Monarchy, or even equality of Government based on geography, rather than inequality based on population as it is now. But there will be something, because something needs to be done, and the end of the Monarchy and the beginning of a Republic is the logical time to do it.
I should say at this point I am something of a Federalist, and I like the Swiss system. I think local government in New Zealand should have more devolved power, I suspect the Auckland Council may become a neo-provincial model for the rest of NZ. Compared to most other countries our local governments have very little responsibility. I suspect that would assuage most of the concerns of South Islanders, in additional to greater constitutional protection for elected councils (cf Environment Canterbury).
However, I'm not so sure that when we become a republic we'll change the structure of local government or become a federation. Sure it may be discussed, but as we've stressed (cf Dean Knight's paper / Cullens) the whole republic project gets overcomplicated by the opponents of change, for the sake of preventing any change taking place. By all means campaign for greater autonomy for the South Island - but trying to attach it to the republic debate will only ensure neither argument is heard.
By all means campaign for greater autonomy for the South Island - but trying to attach it to the republic debate will only ensure neither argument is heard.
Sounds like you're trying to protect your own interests above all others. :-)
Do you really think we'll get a republic plus greater South Island autonomy? We don't do "big bang" constitutional change in this country. If South Island autonomy is higher on your priority list, go for it.
It begins ;-)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10680176
Mainland unites to fight Super City
Haha, I thought of this as soon as I saw it. I think the ODT is sensationalising a bit - the Southern councils want a fair share of the pie like everyone else. However as I said, I think the Auckland Council could be a model for the rest of the country - this could be the start of a "South Island Council", with a Governor or some such of the South Island, elected at the same time as local boards.
Sorry Lewis, I’m not trying to hijack either your blog or your movement, but I do think it’s a fair subject for consideration, simply because if and when people start seriously thinking about a Republic, the actual form and nature of that Republic will be up for question as well. Cullen and others have suggested a “soft republic”, Keith Locke wants an elected Head of State, and personally I have quite a bit of time for your Swiss Federation model. Maybe the old system of semi-autonomous Provinces could be resurrected, with the six South Island provinces making up one State and the seven North Island ones the other. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Full South Island Independence is probably quite some way away, and even I’m not sure how much real demand for it there is. More self-determination, certainly, and I do believe that the change to Republicanism is the time to look at this question as well.
It's not my "movement", I'm just the chair and the one who writes here... I'm not saying it can't be considered, I'm saying if you look at it from a game theory perspective if you really want South Island autonomy, trying to attach it to the fortunes (or otherwise) of republicanism doesn't make any sense. You're more likely to succeed in isolation of other changes that trying to group change all together - the RM has always been consistent on that point, that's why we don't push to change the flag, even though 90% of our members would support it. Trying to lump the two issues together is a recipe for achieving nothing.
maybe not full independence but greater autonomy would be welcomed i think.
the south shall rise
maybe not full independence but greater autonomy would be welcomed i think.
the south shall rise
Post new comment