An anonymous reader argues the Republican Movement has got it wrong on our Answering Back page, where we say that the Governor-General is politically impotent and unable to act as a check on the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They're wrong - while these powers look good on paper, the reality of their use is, again, very different from the letter of the law.

They say:

You ignored the Governor-General has the right to be consulted, advise and to warn Ministers of the Crown see the Letters patent, they aren't useless at all these powers are important checks.

This is an interesting argument - and one that, funnily enough for Anonymous, also appears on the Monarchist League's website:

Many people believe that because the Queen and Governor-General cannot veto the wishes of the Prime Minister they must be powerless. This is a very simplistic view. The truth is that the Queen and the Governor-General use the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn to constructively improve government in New Zealand behind the scenes.

There's no disputing this power exists - as Anonymous mentions, it appears in the Letters Patent 1983:

XVI. Our Ministers of the Crown in New Zealand shall keep Our Governor-General fully informed concerning the general conduct of the Government of Our said Realm, so far as they are responsible therefor, and shall furnish Our Governor-General with such information as he may request with respect to any particular matter relating to the Government of Our said Realm.

And:-

XVII. Our Ministers of the Crown and other Officers, civil and military, and all other inhabitants of Our Realm of New Zealand, shall obey, aid, and assist Our Governor-General in the performance of the functions of the office of Governor-General.

Sure, these powers exist - but to what extent are these powers actually used? Do they actually mean that the Governor-General is not constitutionally impotent? Are they actually "constructively improve" government in New Zealand.

It's difficult to know, because as the Monarchist League notes, the advice given by the Governor-General to Ministers is very private. They do say, however, that "There is evidence that Governors-General in New Zealand have used all of these rights as well."

Actually, there's evidence to the contrary. Former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves stated in an interview broadcast on Queen's Birthday this year (and later reported in The New Zealand Herald by Brian Rudman) "I had a little sense of being left alone and felt that I needed to be taken into the loop more, or be taken seriously." In other words, David Lange's Labour Government basically ignored the Governor-General. The Governor-General's ability to advise and warn the government is pretty much useless they're consulted.

Sir Paul then got Her Majesty involved: "I used to write to the Queen and express my opinion about this and that going on it the country and I wouldn't get a direct reply from her but I would always get a lengthy reply from her private secretary, which I took was expressing her viewpoint."

You're probably thinking that it's a bit unfair just to focus on Sir Paul. What about the current Governor-General, Anand Satyanand? Surely he uses the power to advise more readily, being a lawyer and former judge?

This is what His Excellency told a recent conference of law students on "the textbook right" to be consulted, to encourage and to warn:

In practice this is played out by receipt in advance of copies of all instruments I am expected to sign on the advice of the Executive Council.  As one would expect of someone with a legal background, I consider what is on offer and the statutory authority under which it might be made.  The Minister responsible for the recommendation on which the Council will base its advice will be present at the meeting and be called on to provide further information or clarification if that is sought.  In other words, an active role is called for although judgement is also called for—in being not ever being considered a pushover who might sign anything put up but also not being considered a nitpicking pedant whose attention ought be eleswhere.

So really, the Governor-General plays a coy game where he lets on that he might say no, but always says yes. If politicians are really as conniving and manipulative as monarchists would like us to think, then surely they would see through this.

And His Excellency wasn't the first Judge to make this point. The Governors notes former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys said that the Governor-General's power to be consulted was not taken "literally" in New Zealand - implying he was not consulted nearly as much as he might've wanted during his tenure as the Queen's representative.

The other point to make here is that despite what monarchists might think, the powers mentioned above have been easily transferred to new elected heads of State throughout the current and former British Commonwealth.

Take, for example, the President of Ireland. Article 13 section 9 of the Irish Constitution grants "where it is provided by this Constitution that he shall act in his absolute discretion or after consultation with or in relation to the Council of State, or on the advice or nomination of, or on receipt of any other communication from, any other person or body."

Meanwhile, the President of Trinidad and Tobago, a Commonwealth republic, has the same powers under section 80 of their 1976 Constitution. The Presidents of Ireland and Trinidad and Tobago have the same ability the Monarchist League attributes to the Governor-General.