In this edition: Aussies elect republican government; Statute of Westminster 60th celebrated; Charles at CHOGM; Republican Movement membership offer; Treason law "absurd"; Quotes in the republic debate from Spoken; Poll question: What does the Australian election mean for a republic here?; The Way Forward by David Farrar; The Case For a Republic looks at elections of a ceremonial President.

Australians elect republican PM

AUSTRALIANS HAVE ELECTED A REPUBLICAN Prime Minister, with the victory of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) at last weekend's election. The ALP, led by Kevin Rudd, won an astounding victory at the polls on Saturday. In an interview with Paul Kelly in The Australian, the Prime Minister elect apparently said "...a referendum on Aboriginal reconciliation, a separate Aboriginal treaty and a republican referendum would not occur in the first term of a Rudd Labor government, if at all." While the "if at all" caveat is interesting, it may relate to the Aboriginal treaty issue, not the republic. Reading the last few paragraphs of the article it becomes apparent that a republic referendum is "not a priority" for his first term, should Rudd and Labor be re-elected in three years time. This is in line with comments made by one of Mr Rudd's staffers to The Telegraph back in September, where it was stated a referendum might be held in 2010, which would be at the start of Mr Rudd's second term.

As Republic noted last month, had John Howard been re-elected, he would have been replaced by a republican from within his own ranks. It now looks as if that will be the case even though Peter Costello, Howard's republican deputy, will not replace him. Malcolm Turnbull, Liberal MP and former Chair of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) is a strong contender for the Liberal Party leadership.

Sixty years of independence celebrated

25 NOVEMBER 2007 MARKED SIXTY YEARS since New Zealand became fully independent by adopting the Statute of Westminster, an Act of the British Parliament passed in 1931, which granted us full legal independence.

Sixty years on, our journey to independence continues. The Statute of Westminster gave New Zealand full legal independence, but our head of state still reflects our former colonial status - symbolically we still have not achieved the full independence Britain granted to us in 1947.

Over the last 60 years, New Zealand has shed almost all of the remaining constitutional links to Britain: in the 60s we started appointing our own Governors-General, in the 70s we declared the Queen to be solely "Queen of New Zealand", in the 80s we removed the right of the British parliament to make laws for us at our request, during the 90s we created our own honours system, and recently we abolished appeals to the Privy Council are created our own highest court of appeal - and we still retain close relations with Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth.

Our historical links with Britain will always be relevant, but that does not mean we need to keep this one last link to vindicate those links. New Zealand's journey to independence has been by gradual, manageable changes. The move to a republic is much the same - it is a legally simple step, and one which brings about greater democratic participation.

Having an absentee head of state in Britain signals to the world that we are not mature enough to have a head of state of our own, or that we lack confidence in our own ability to elect someone to represent ourselves to the world. Yet we can see in our own Governor-General, who is picked by our elected Prime Minister, that we already have someone who is regarded as a de facto head of state. We should make this the constitutional reality, and signal our independence and maturity to the world.

Prince Charles at CHOGM

IN A PLOY DESIGNED TO WIN OVER THE COMMONWEALTH, Prince Charles is paying a visit to Uganda while there is a Commonwealth conference on. This is clearly meant to be part of a campaign to have Prince Charles made the next Head of the Commonwealth, a position not automatically for the British Monarch. Common Cause - an alliance of Commonwealth republican movements - has rejected the notion that Charles should automatically succeed the Queen as lifetime head of the organisation.

In a joint statement from republican groups in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, the movements have called for an end to the monarchy's favoured position within the Commonwealth.

As the Queen grows older, Charles is taking on more of her official duties. His attendance at this weekend's CHOGM Commonwealth conference in Uganda is clearly an attempt to promote the possibility of him becoming the next Head of the Commonwealth.

It has always been known that when the Queen dies, Charles will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth; that instead, it will be up to the Commonwealth heads of government to decide what will happen to this symbolic position. The Royal family must stop making the assumption that they will continue to have a role in the Commonwealth.

Prince Charles has no official status in the Commonwealth so there is no reason why he should be part of a retreat for elected leaders. He is clearly lobbying for the top job. As a unique community of nations, the Commonwealth is committed to democracy, liberty and equal rights for all. These principles, not hereditary privilege, are important to the Commonwealth's future.

Treason law "absurd"

WATCH HOW YOU USE POSTAGE STAMPS, because you might be committing treason if you stick them the wrong way around. The Telegraph reported in early November that a law making it an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down gained seven per cent of votes in a poll on Britain's most absurd laws.

The law is explained by Nigel Cawthorne in his book The Strange Laws of Old England, who claims that it is a possible interpretation of the ancient Treason Acts of England. Since Treason has been re-defined in New Zealand by the Crimes Act 1961 in New Zealand, you'll only have to worry about treason charges if you send stamps of the Queen upside to the United Kingdom.

Republican Movement membership offer

ALL NEW MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT will receive a free copy of Alan Wheelan and Barrie Cook's book, New Zealand Republic as part of the Movement's drive to attract new members. Current members of the Republican Movement may also receive a copy of the book by contacting the movement via our website.

The Republican Movement also now has a TradeMe account, which can be found here. At the moment, we are selling copies of New Zealand Republic, with proceeds going to the Republican Movement.

Check out our website for reasons to join the Republican Movement

The Case for a Republic

This month, the Case for a Republic looks at direct election of a ceremonial president.

A common issue taken with parliamentary-style republics is that direct election of a head of state in a Parliamentary republic raises the specter of the "mandate" - the problem that a directly elected president might go power-crazy and start to direct policy, fire governments at will, start the country on the slippery slope to unstable governments and, of course, anarchy in the streets. There is also the lingering question of whether elections for a mainly ceremonial office are actually needed at all. Irish presidential elections provides some answers to these questions.

Exploring unchartered territory: The Irish Presidential Election 1997 by Wouter van der Brug, Cees van der Eijk and Michael Marsh is an excellent study of Ireland's presidential election of 1997, and the above questions. The first two authors are from the University of Amsterdam, while the last is from Dublin's Trinity College. The abstract sets out the papers' contentions that elections of the Irish presidency belong to the category of those in which hardly any political power is involved. In elections such as this one, according to "second-order election theory", voter behaviour reflects mainly preferences in the first-order political arena, where actual policy is made. This theory fails, however, to explain voter preferences in the 1997 Irish presidential elections. An alternative perspective of a popularity contest, suggesting that voters' preferences are largely unconnected to their political opinions, and generally idiosyncratic in nature, also fails to fit the evidence. Nevertheless, the information, framing and priming that voters were subjected to during the 1997 campaign are shown here to result in the development of a significant unidimensional cognitive and preferential ordering of the candidates. In other words, elections for the President of Ireland do not follow Irish electors preferences in parliamentary elections, and do not become popularity contests between candidates either. Instead, Presidents are elected by a "unidimensional cognitive and preferential ordering of candidates" which means in lay terms that voters make decisions on who to vote for based on a whole range of issues.

The papers analysis of the election reveals that three issues were dominant throughout the campaign: Abortion - a big issue in Ireland, which held a bitterly fought and close referendum on the issue two years earlier in 1995; The nationalist - unionist schism in Northern Ireland; and the candidates competence for the job.

The paper argues that it was the candidates stances on each issue that determined the outcome of the election. Most interesting is that "extreme" positions did not wash that well with the electorate, neither did the superficial popular candidate who was a former pop star. The candidate who took a hard line on abortion - promising to use the presidential powers to refer bills on the issue to the Supreme Court or back to parliament - lost out, as did the candidate who was seen as not competent for the job for their lack of organisational ability. The paper theorises that the most competent and most conciliatory candidate - Mary McAleese - won the election the basis of her promise to use the position to "build bridges". This was despite her alleged links to the Sinn Fein and deeply conservative views on abortion (McAleese formerly represented the Catholic church).

While the paper states that it is difficult to know if Irish presidential elections are always like the 1997 one, the key point to take from this is that they are not simply a rehashed parliamentary election, nor are they a divisive popularity contest the opponents of change claim they are. They are about over-arching issues, which are nation-specific. It is not hard to see Anand Satyanand's declared "national identity" issue His Excellency articulated at his swearing-in ceremony being the sort of over-arching issue at a New Zealand presidential election.

This has fascinating implications for New Zealand, should we adopt a directly elected presidency. Our Governors-General have plenty of political views which they occasionally express, but often restrain themselves because the position demands a "non-partisan" individual.