In this edition: Kiwis To Choose Their Head of State!; Sir Paul Reeves: Crown important to Maori; Opinion: Half Way To Democracy by Savage; Book Review: King and Country; Spoken: Quotes from the republic debate; Video: Peter Dunne On Republicanism; Poll: Tell us who you want as your head of State; The Case For A Republic: Is the Royal prerogative justiciable?

Kiwis To Choose Their Head of State!

IT'S ELECTION YEAR and New Zealanders will get the chance to elect their political leaders - a fundamental right in any democracy. The Republican Movement believes it is time we were able to choose our head of State too. The organisation has launched a website - www.president.org.nz - to facilitate the election of New Zealand's first head of State.

The officially unofficial website of New Zealand's elected head of state is partly satirical but it illustrates a serious problem: New Zealand is a democracy where we are not allowed to choose our own head of state. This website helps to answer that problem.

The type of republic New Zealand chooses may be very different from models that other countries have chosen. The first thing New Zealanders have to decide is whether we even call our new head of state the "President".

The Royal Family have shown they are unable to do the job for New Zealand. With the participation of everyday people, this website will show that New Zealanders are more than capable of choosing an outstanding Kiwi as our head of state.

The website features online surveys on specific issues - such as the name of the head of state, and methods for electing them. Later in the year we will open up nominations for candidates worthy of being our head of state and then a knock-out electoral process, where candidates are eliminated weekly.

Nominations are now open to the public to put forward the names of New Zealanders they want as their head of State. When the top five candidates are announced, they will be put to a preferential vote.

Sir Paul Reeves: Crown important to Maori

THE FIRST MAORI REPRESENTATIVE OF THE QUEEN, Sir Paul Reeves, thinks the Crown is still important to Maori. "I'm not died-in-the-wool wedded to monarchy, but I'd say, for Maori, to personalise the Crown, to put a face on it, is very important" Sir Paul told National radio host Chris Laidlaw in a panel discussion on Queen's Birthday weekend.

The New Zealand Herald's Brian Rudman, arguing New Zealand should follow Nepal's example and become a republic, asked why this was. "The Crown, whether in person or metaphor, has failed to protect Maori interests when they called for help." he said.

Mr Rudman's comments were well on the mark. He also commented that Nepal became a republic because the King did not know his place. In New Zealand, the situation is much simpler. A British King has no place here. In practical terms that has long been the case.

Book Review: King and Country

KING AND COUNTRY- MONARCHY AND THE FUTURE KING CHARLES III, Robert Blackburn takes a pragmatic pro-monarchy stance. Blackburn reveals the difficult legal route for Prince Charles' second marriage, the powers of a future King, the attitude of Prince Charles to the title "Defender of the Faith" and the future of the succession law and the possibility of Prince William succeeding the Queen. Significantly, Blackburn also looks at the issue of republicanism in Great Britain.

Authors: Robert Blackburn
Publisher: Politico's Publishing
Copyright: 2006
ISBN: 10 1-84275-141-7
Pages: 187

While the book's pro-monarchy stance is obvious, Blackburn acknowledges the challenges facing a future King Charles III. As such Blackburn suggests "modernising" the monarchy, and a number of ways a more politically active King might get around difficult political issues.

The most disappointing aspect of the book is Blackburns analysis of republican arguments. While it is significant that a book on the future of the monarchy has looked at the issue of republicanism, the authors analysis is confined to simply noting that an elected head of state might face the same sorts of issue Prince Charles may face. There is no deeper analysis, although that is not unexpected.

Also disappointing is that lack of mention of the Commonwealth countries Charles may become the head of state of, with the exception of Australia. While the Australian republic debate is mentioned, the author seems uninterested in the debate, putting it to one side. It seems the survival of the monarchy in Britain is more important than in Britain's former colonies. The only real link between the "old Commonwealth" and the future of the monarchy is the succession law, and the need to consult should it be changed.

A number of interesting constitutional points are raised by the book. First, in order for Prince Charles to marry Camilla, he had to first gain permission from the Prime Minister. As absurd as it seems that anyone should have to ask the head of government whether they can marry, the constitutional reality of the Prime Ministers powers is highlighted. Even more absurd, if not ironic, is the fact that the legal opinion for the Prime Minister supporting Charles' right to marry Camilla is based on the Human Rights Act 1998, a piece of legislation the monarch's succession law contradicts.

Even more ironic is the mention of King Edward VIII's reign. While the author puts his focus on comparing Charles' marriage to Camilla to Edward's marriage to Wallis Simpson, the real comparison should have been on the political views of each monarch, and their clashes with Prime Ministers. As Susan Williams argued in The People's King - The True Story of the Abdication, the real reason why the Conservative government wanted to get rid of King Edward VIII was because of his political views.

Blackburn suggests Prince Charles might take the same route as King Baudoin of Belgium, who was declared unable to reign so that the government of the day could pass an abortion law he was opposed to. Blackburn argues that by using the Regency Act 1953, Charles could have himself declared incapacitated should any legislation come before him he feels he is unable to grant Royal Assent to.

Overall, Blackburn's book is an excellent insight into the constitutional machinations of the monarchy. However, it is written in a strictly British context and is too uncritical of its subject. Nonetheless, it is an important book on the future of the monarchy.

Video: Peter Dunne On Republicanism

UNITED FUTURE LEADER Peter Dunne explains why he supports a republic - and why New Zealand should not wait for Australia to make a move. This video was recently posted on United Future's YouTube channel:

The Case For A Republic

One reader asks: is the Royal prerogative justiciable?

A pretty boring and obscure legal question you would think, but an important one with implications for the republic debate. "Justiciable" is the fancy legal way of saying "able to be overruled by a court", and the "Royal prerogatives" are simply the Executive powers exercised by the Prime Minister and Cabinet through the Sovereign.

So in plain English, the question is whether the Executive powers are able to be challenged in court. The short answer is yes, the Royal prerogatives are justiciable - but only when they're being exercised by others (that is, ministers of the Crown) - which is most of the time.

However, there are some instances when the Royal prerogatives are exercised without the advice of the Prime Minister or their Cabinet. Most constitutional lawyers think that the Royal prerogatives as they stand is not justiciable when exercised by the Sovereign, or her vice roy (the Governor-General), in a reserve capacity - that is, where the Sovereign or Governor-General is acting without the advice of the Prime Minister. This is because of the established constitutional principle that the "Queen can do no wrong" - the Sovereign's actions cannot be overruled by a court established in her own name.

So, in moving to a republic, the reserve powers would become justiciable unless it is made explicit that no court could examine their use. Such a clause was included in the 1999 Australian republic model. That model kept the Governor-General's reserve powers intact (despite what the monarchists claimed in The Cane Toad Republic, there was a section which clearly stated the courts could not review the President's actions when using the reserve powers).

The supporters of the model argued that, since it was a minimal change model, it made sense to simply carry over the non-justiciable reserve powers. As noted above, supporters of the monarchy, who were more concerned with making the proposed model look risky, claimed that the President's powers would become justiciable. They argued this would be a bad thing because the President would not have the same ability the Governor-General has to sagely weigh up their options before appointing or firing the Prime Minister, dissolving or proroguing Parliament or refusing a dissolution without threat of the judiciary getting involved.

They cited the example of Sir John Kerr's dismissal of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 as a situation where you would not want the judiciary deciding a contentious political issue. But it's arguable that the reserve powers should be justiciable, and in fact, this is a good reason for a republic.

One oft-repeated argument against a republic is that an elected head of state would be politically partisan. While the reasoning behind this argument is suspect, the perfect counter-argument is that since the use of the reserve powers could be examined by, say, the Supreme Court, there is still a guarantee that their actions could be examined by a judicial panel of experts. Since we have made a habit of appointing Justices to the office of Governor-General anyway, allowing the Supreme Court to examine a future head of state's actions makes sense.

Republican Movement News

THE REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT's 14th Annual General Meeting was held on Friday 9th May. Lewis Holden was re-elected as Chair, and Dave Guerin, David Farrar, Savage and Jordan Carter were re-elected as National Councillors.

Yearly subscriptions for Republican Movement members are due by the start of July. Further details will be sent out to members following this newsletter, and are in the members area of the website.

Feedback

GOVERNOR-GENERAL EXPENSIVE INDULGENCE, SAYS REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT:

Saying your President/Chancellor/Whatever will be cheaper than the monarchy was just plain dumb. So what? Just because a Honda is cheaper than a BMW doesn't make that the better option, the opposite inn fact. Its nothing to do wit the Price of Milk!

Republican Movement's response: The Republican Movement did not say that New Zealand should become a republic because it might be cheaper than the status quo. The argument is made by supporters of the monarchy - our media release on the cost of Governor-General's office was to highlight the fact that the office is more expensive than other heads of state, such as the President of Ireland. As such it was a response to the usual claims that a republic is more expensive, not an argument for a republic.