This month's edition of Investigate Magazine carries my letter in response to Matt Showering's argument against a New Zealand republic. There's no need to reproduce Mr Wishart's response here, as the gist of it is in my response:

RE: AN ABSOLUTE REPUBLICAN

Dear Ian,

Your response (Vox populi, July 2008) that a "shallow" gene-pool means that a New Zealand head of State would be influenced by the Prime Minister in the same way Governors-General are is nonsense. It is especially so given your claim in Absolute Power that the Governor-General has not kept the Prime Minister in check.

The issue is that the Prime Minister has the sole right to advise the Queen on who is to be Governor-General, and when they are to leave office. As such the Prime Minister can advise the Governor-General to do anything they want, unless the Governor-General shoots first and sacks the Prime Minister.

Electing a head of State of our own inherently changes this; it removes the process from the Prime Minister's hands and creates an accountable office. The size of New Zealand's gene-pool is irrelevant - we've produced world-class sailors, rugby players, scientists, and maybe even investigative journalists, all despite our size. As an aside, the Republican Movement is conducting an online election (www.president.org.nz) for an ideal head of State of New Zealand, which is in itself showing that New Zealanders are more than capable of electing a head of State of our own.

That the head of State have once been a member of a political party is not an issue; firstly because there are several republics which require their head of State to end any allegiance to a political party before taking up office (Australia did so in 1999, although that model was rejected by the Australian people). Secondly, as we have seen in republics such as Ireland, India and Iceland, it's often the Presidents from the ruling parties who are the most willing to bring their former party into line.

Both Ireland and Iceland provide examples of where this has happened. In 2006, the President of Iceland informed the Icelandic government that he was going to send a controversial Bill of Parliament regulating the media to a referendum. As a result, the government withdrew the Bill and substantially re-wrote it. The current President of Ireland has sent four Bills of the Irish parliament to the Irish Supreme Court to be constitutionally tested. This sort of checking is normal in parliamentary republics, but unheard of in New Zealand.

If we want to develop proper checks and balances on the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we must firstly look to the head of State. The argument that change is purely cosmetic is based on the status quo reality that the Governor-General is appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister at will. Removing the Prime Ministers' ability to do so and creating an elected head of State will change this.

Regards,

 

Lewis Holden,

Chair, Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand.