Who should be our next Governor-General?
Ray Avery
16% (229 votes)
Jim Bolger
8% (120 votes)
Justice Sir Eddie Durie
5% (74 votes)
Jeanette Fitzsimons
4% (63 votes)
John Hood
2% (23 votes)
Sir Peter Leitch
12% (168 votes)
Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae
34% (490 votes)
Sir Don McKinnon
7% (96 votes)
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
3% (48 votes)
Dame Anne Salmond
4% (53 votes)
Someone else (add your suggestions in the comments)
5% (71 votes)
Total votes: 1435
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
Kevin Brady, the former Auditor General. He's already proven that he has the testicular fortitude to stand up to the Government of the Day and force them to obey the Law of the Land, which is precisely what we need in a Head of State.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/new-zealanders-of-the-year/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501017&objectid=10414510
And someone eminently qualified who is not yet on the list: Tame Iti.
Qualified? How?
Geoffrey Palmer should not even be considered for the list after his
This list is based on public nominations through our website.
How about allowing preferential votes?
Wish we could, but the module's not that advanced.
A lot of these choices for Governor-General would be quite political, don't think that would be a good thing. What electoral system do you guys think this would use in reality if it were elected given from these results there would clearly rarely be a majority candidate. (I personally prefer a 75% majority of parliament selected GG but still interested in your thoughts).
I agree - we shouldn't have former Prime Ministers as our head of state or de facto head of state. I think this poll is showing that NZers don't want that either (although a lot of people nominated Jim Bolger and Sir Geoffrey).
The best electoral system for single-office elections is STV, in my view. As this poll demonstrates it's pretty idiotic that the top candidate could win on, say, 33% of the vote. I'd expect a direct election of a non-executive head of state would have a lower turn-out (like local elections) so such splits are more likely to occur.
Yes we would be happy with a 75% majority in parliament choosing the GG, or a simple majority plus a majority of leaders of political parties (to ensure the choice was non-partisan).
True but 4 prominent politicians together form 30% of the vote on the poll and in a real election there would be many more people who were not concerned about neutrality and would even vote simply on name recognition alone as happens in local body. Makes me think there would perhaps need to be a rule against them standing...
Ah yes....democracy is welcomed....but only to a certain point and only if "acceptable"! Political figures depend on name recognition and "brand image" to garner votes from as many voters as possible. Why exclude ex-PMs and other politicians? If the people want to vote for them, let democracy have its day! Similarly, elected officials should not be limited in the number of terms in office.
I do sympathise with you in that many people do not regard politicians in a high light. Perhaps it is best to keep all those who actively seek the position of "de facto" Head of State away from the position altogether!
So let me get this straight... you're against banning having former politicians being elected to the office of head of state, but for banning them from being our de facto head of state?
The record of other parliamentary republics where the head of state is directly elected shows politicians often don't get elected to the office. The notable exception being Ireland's Eamon de Valera, which is hardly surprising since he basically co-founded the modern Republic of Ireland.
I reckon Sir Peter Gluckman would make a cool GG
Actually he's a really rude guy face to face, he probably would be aweful for the job. He can't relate to "commoners" at all.
Agreed.
Although I am a monarchist I do believe that it should be a New Zealander representing the Queen as republicans rightly say, it is our country and our Governor General should be someone that is able to communicate with the Queen from a New Zealander's perspective. It is always good to have that connection back to the Queen from someone that shares the New Zealand identity. I do however believe that it is wrong for a Governor General to be a republican as he/she is the Queen's representative.
I also believe that the choosing of a Governor General should be a collaborative process between the Queen, the Prime Minister as well as the New Zealand public on the whole because I beleive that New Zealand citizens should have a say in choosing the Head of State's representative in this country.
Why do monarchists always seek to exclude republicans from public life?
Why not just elect the Governor-General? Moreover why should an unelected monarchy have a direct say in who gets to be our Governor-General?
"Why do monarchists always seek to exclude republicans from public life?"
I am not seeking to exclude Republicans from public life. It just doesn't seem right for the Governor General to be a republican. The whole point behind the Governor General is to act as the Queen's representative in New Zealand. If this person is a republican then it provides an entirely false message across to the New Zealand public. Monarchists also like to be included, especially when the subject in question is the representation of the person we believe is the rightful Head of State of New Zealand. Whether you look at it logically or not, a republican simply isn't suitable for this job.
You're not seeking to exclude republicans but you want them excluded from being Governor-General. Righto...
There's no reason why a republican couldn't act as Governor-General. You seem to believe that we're inherently evil and therefore not to be trusted as representatives of the Queen.
I guess this is the real difference in mindset between us. We see the Queen as our political equal, and while we might respect her as Head of State we disagree with how that position is constituted.
Okay, fair enough, let's look at this from a new angle,
You claim that republicans don't see the Queen as the rightful Head of State because of the process in which she was selected, the fact that it should be a New Zealander etc. If this is the case then why would a republican want to take on the role of Governor General in the first place? Why would they want to represent the Queen on a national and international level when they strongly don't believe in New Zealand being a Constitutional Monarchy? Isn't this simply creating a false public impression of themselves?
No, I didn't say we don't see the Queen as New Zealand's rightful head of state. Don't put words into my mouth.
What I said was we disagree with how the Queen's position is constituted. Hence there's no contradiction in a republican holding the office of Governor-General any more than there is an MP who supports changing the electoral system sitting in parliament.
Sorry, I'll rephrase that, I'm saying that in general Republicans don't feel that the Queen is the rightful Head of State because of the reasons I stated previously.
Okay, So what you're saying is that just because you don't believe in the way the New Zealand constitiution is run that it can be changed in order to accomodate republicans who feel that they need to be included in offices such as that of the Governor General?
The fact is that the members of parliament are people representing parties and who are from various cities. This is hugely different from one single person who has been chosen to represent one single Head of State in another country. Choosing a republican to represent the Queen is like getting a Labour MP to represent a National MP in parliament.
Nope.
Nope. You assume that by being Governor-General the individual acting as Governor-General must support the monarchy, and that it's impossible for a republican to hold that position because of the prerequisite support; just as it would be absurd for a Labour MP to represent a National MP.
Like I said, it seems you can't detach the individual from the institution.
"Nope."
Can you please then explain what your reasons are for not wanting the King or Queen of England as our Head of State?
"Nope. You assume that by being Governor-General the individual acting as Governor-General must support the monarchy, and that it's impossible for a republican to hold that position because of the prerequisite support; just as it would be absurd for a Labour MP to represent a National MP."
That's exactly what I believe.
It is illogical for anyone, whether it be a republican or not to assume that the Governor General may not support the Monarchy. The Governor General is chosen as a personal representative of the Queen, I know I am repeating myself here but doesn't it seem silly that the Queen's personal representative could be a republican? They are chosen specifically for the sole purpose of representing the Queen in a country where she is unable to be present, in confidence that they will uphold the full purpose of the job. If the Governor General is then also campaigning to have the Queen's role as Head of State removed from our constitutional system then are they forfulling their purpose? no they are not. It is infact very comparible to the idea of a Labour MP representing a National MP in parliament. I do assume that the Governor General must support the monarchy because of the very purpose of the job.
Can you give me a justifiable reason why a republican would be suitable for the role of Governor General? And why also would a republican want to be representing the queen in the first place? why would they want to represent something on an international scale of which they don't actually believe in?
I don't need to explain why I don't want a Sovereign as Head of State. It's pretty obvious to anyone reading this website.
The question is whether I or any other republican thinks the Queen is the "rightful" head of state. You make it sound as though we don't believe the Queen is our legitimate head of state. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the Queen isn't legitimately head of state.
As for the Governor-General, I say simply that the role is barely about actually representing the Queen. As with most facets of the monarchy, what is written about the office of Governor-General is hardly reflected in reality. The Governor-General is now New Zealand's de facto head of state. Their role is more about representing New Zealand than the Queen.
The GG is a personal representative of the Queen of NZ. So perhaps they represent the position as opposed to the individual person? As that position is the Head of State of NZ then it is only fitting the representative, the GG, should represent NZ as opposed to Elizabeth Windsor.
There's a direct conflict between the two roles. The Queen as Commander-in-Chief of the British military sent her armed forces to Iraq, our GG as Commander-in-Chief of the New Zealand armed forces did not... and that's just one of many examples. Armistice Day is tomorrow...
Prince William
It's always good to know monarchists don't think New Zealanders are able to represent the Queen. Makes sense I guess, from the crowd that says 'It's embarrassing to have to bow to someone from down the road'