In this edition: The Royal No-Show; Change by Convention; Poll question: Are Constitutional Conventions a good way to determine the republic issue?; Quotes in the republic debate from Spoken; The Way Forward by Greg Edwards; The Case for a Republic looks at symbolic and constitutional arguments.

The Royal No-Show

Sir Edmund Hillary KG, ONZ, KBE 1919 - 2008.

THE PASSING OF A GREAT KIWI, Sir Edmund Hillary, caused an unprecedented outpouring of grief and a great sense of loss amongst New Zealanders this month. With Sir Ed's state funeral pending, Buckingham Palace decided not to send a member of the Royal Family for this sombre occasion. Public sentiment quickly went against the decision, which highlighted the irrelevance of the monarchy.

Sir Ed was an outstanding example for all New Zealanders. A modest beekeeper from Auckland who conquered the world's highest peak in 1953, Sir Ed became renowned for his charity and application of the Kiwi 'can-do' spirit. His bluntness and determination were trademarks, as was his work to better the lives of the Nepalese people. Sir Ed was also loyal to Her Majesty the Queen, who personally rewarded him the Knight of the Garter, the highest order of the then British Empire.

So it was with great surprise to the New Zealand public that Buckingham Palace announced on 18 January that no member of the Royal Family would attend Sir Edmund's funeral. Just a week before The Dominion Post had stated "It is likely a member of the Royal Family will attend the funeral service", and this was followed by a Radio New Zealand report on 17 January that a palace spokeswoman was to announce on 19 January which member of the Royal Family was to attend. TV3 quickly reported that the Royal Family had "snubbed" New Zealand and Sir Ed.

The Republican Movement was careful not to attack the Royal Family in our media release. We expressed disappointment at the non-attendance of the Royal Family, because of the solemn nature of Sir Ed's funeral and his importance to New Zealanders. The monarchists pointed out that the Queen had written a personal letter to Sir Ed's family, and is to hold a private chapel service in his honour at Windsor Castle. They also noted that the long journey from the United Kingdom would be difficult for the Queen at 81 years old, and the busy schedules of the Royal Family made re-scheduling impossible. These might have been reasonable responses, but at a time of great sensitivity amongst the New Zealand public none of them would wash.

The response to the news of the non-attendance was immediate. A number of opinion polls confirmed the hurt the public felt: a TV3 internet survey revealed 17% of New Zealanders thought the non-attendance was "okay", a further 29% thought it was "understandable", with 54% calling it "completely unacceptable". The New Zealand Herald reported similar results, with 59% of those surveyed responding that someone from the Royal Family should attend. Comments on the Herald's "Your Views" section were indicative also. Many comments expressed anger at the alleged "snub" towards New Zealand and Sir Ed. A number of comments from self-declared monarchists stated they no longer supported the monarchy because of the apparent "snub".

These reports came at time when the republic was getting heightened coverage in the media. As Republic reports below, former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore proposed a constitutional convention as a solution to develop New Zealand's constitution. One of the areas to be considered is a republic.

All of these factors contributed to a very sensitive debate before Sir Ed's funeral. Fortunately the issue died off before the state funeral and the controversy evaporated. However, the monarchy has been damaged, and it is difficult to see the hurt of the New Zealand public being answered for.

Change by Convention

FORMER LABOUR PRIME MINISTER Mike Moore has again proposed a constitutional convention as a way of developing New Zealand's constitution. Mr Moore, writing in The New Zealand Herald on the 15 January, argues that New Zealand should establish a Constitutional Convention to resolve important constitutional issues.

Mr Moore reasons that the Australians are now likely to consider the republic issue sometime in the future, and that New Zealand should not make more ad-hoc changes to its constitution. The Republican Movement welcomed Mr Moore's call for a constitutional convention. We agreed with his sentiment that constitutional change should not to be rushed or hurried, and should only be entered into after deliberate, detailed and sober consideration, consultation and reflection. The proposed constitutional convention should look at all the republic options.

Since the republic debate began, republicans have consistently called for discussion about New Zealand's constitutional future, how we could improve our democracy and create a head of state of our own. We are pleased to see that Mr Moore is now involved in this discussion. In his article, Mr Moore reflects that without reform New Zealand's constitution risks losing the essential elements of democracy.

Constitutional Conventions fit with our policy that any final decision on a republic should be made by New Zealanders at a referendum. However, it seems the proposal will not find favour with the government. A spokesperson for Duty Minister David Cunliffe, who is a republican himself, said that the Government was "bemused" by Moore's suggestion. The spokesperson said the Government had no plans to hold a constitutional convention.

Monarchy to be abolished

...IN NEPAL. The Nepalese parliament voted in favour of abolishing the country's 250 year-old constitutional monarchy earlier this month.

Previously a fringe policy supported only by Nepal's Maoist rebels, republicanism entered the mainstream due to King Gyanendra's attempts to rule directly without recourse to a democratically elected government, something he managed to do only after firing several Prime Ministers and going it alone for two years. The King's repression of the major parties - now also under pressure from the parliamentary Maoists - led them to support a republic.

As a result, the newly reformed parliament has progressively stripped the King of his powers. This month a resolution was passed calling for the abolition of the monarchy. A new constitutional assembly is to be elected, which will determine the fate of the monarchy, and what sort of republic Nepal is to become. The final decision is in the hands of the Nepalese people, who will decide whether the assembly has a monarchist or republican majority.

The Case for a Republic:

This month, The Case for a Republic looks at the links between symbolic and constitutional arguments for a republic

In making the case for a republic, republicans make a lot of abstractions that are lost on the general public. So, we divide our arguments between the constitutional and symbolic. This makes it easier to put the case for change - the whole message versus medium thing - and then set out the benefits of change. But some arguments for a republic span both the constitutional and symbolic. It is important to understand that these two strands are linked.

Our constitution is a popular and democratic one, and the monarchy does not subvert that reality. However, it provides a means to the parliamentary executive to use the Royal prerogatives for their own devices. That is a reality of the ineffectiveness of the monarchy in restraining the power of the executive. Symbolically the monarchy might stand as a check on parliament, constitutionally it is not.

We could always make the Governor-General a elected position. That would resolve most of the constitutional issues we raise. But monarchists oppose this. They see it as the first step to a republic. Professor Noel Cox, Chairman of the Monarchist League, was vehemently against Colin James' suggested election of the Governor-General back in 2005. Just making the Governor-General an elective position does not go far enough, however.

The experience of other parliamentary republics shows non-executive presidents might have the constitutional power to stall or even prevent a Prime Minister from getting their way. But more often than not they stand aside, even if they may have personal reservations about any given policy. The reason for this is that Prime Ministers have a mandate to govern, make policy and set the tone of government. Presidents in parliamentary republics simply preside; in only a few notable cases they actually intervene. Their mandate is to act as a check on the Prime Minister. There are also numerous examples of non-executive presidents going against their political allegiances, or ordering referendums where they otherwise would not have been held.

This is where the link between the two streams of argument comes in. The constitutional arguments for a New Zealand head of state able to hold the executive to account and the symbolic arguments for a New Zealander as New Zealand's head of state are linked. The way in which we perceive our head of state is the key. Both sides accept that a head of state needs a certain amount of "mana" in order to resolve disputes, and have standing within New Zealand society. We know that under the status quo the Queen will not intervene. The Governor-General may, even if elected, not have the mana required. An elected New Zealand head of state would be perceived as having mana, as other non-executive presidents are, and user their mandate to check the Prime Minister.

Under the status quo we have an absentee head of state who is viewed as being the head of state of another country, and a de facto head of state unable to act in times of constitutional crises, because they are prevented from doing so by the head of government. It is a constitutional weakness that denies our sense of nationhood and an adequate constitutional backstop; and denies our national mythology. The symbolism of the monarchy and its constitutional failings are linked.