Letters to the editor

"Undermining faith in the monarchy"

Chair — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:55:23 +1300

Letters have flooded in to The Guardian on the proposed repeal of the Act of Settlement. One which caught a readers' eye deals with the issue of the Commonwealth realm's approval of such changes to the succession:

In your report on government plans to amend legislation governing the succession to the throne (End of the Anglican crown - 300 year bar to be lifted, September 25) you suggest that this would require "the consent of member nations of the Commonwealth". This is slightly misleading. There is general agreement that it would only be necessary to obtain the consent of the 15 other "Commonwealth realms" - members that retain the Queen as their head of state. Nevertheless, the requirements for unanimity across the Commonwealth realms, and for any changes to be legislated for in each of these states, are significant obstacles to reform.

No governor general

Chair — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:06:34 +1200

From yesterday's Ottawa Citizen:

Stephen Harper made a law that would set election dates and then said that it didn't apply to him. The Governor General should have sent him back to Parliament with his tail between his legs, making him stick to the letter of the law he wrote. His government is obviously working if all the money he announced so far was approved by the government as it is said.

But the Governor General didn't. So, why do we need a Governor General? We don't need to pay huge amounts of money on salaries, housing and more to have someone open Parliament and to say OK to everything the the prime minister says. We have been independent of Britain for many years, so why do we need that position?

Letter to the editor - Southland Times

Chair — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:52:34 +1200

As promised in the previous post, here's my letter to the editor of the Southland Times:

Dear Sir,

Basil Walker is wasting his time writing to the Governor-General, asking him to refuse assent to the Emissions Trading Scheme (Southland Times, 20 August 2008). As Professor Phillip Joseph notes in his book Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, if the Governor-General were ever to refuse assent, it would most likely only be in extreme cases where democracy was threatened. The ETS does not threaten democracy.

"We already have too many costly bureaucrats and politicians"

Chair — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:49:15 +1200

Iain Gillies at The Gisborne Herald argues against a republic in today's edition, making not of the Republican Movement's President of New Zealand website. The questions asked deserve a response - and who better to give it than the Republican Movement:

"An Absolute Republican"

Chair — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:00:03 +1200

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.

Former Governor-General responds

Chair — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:15:26 +1200

Dame Cath Tizard, former Governor-General, responds to the Monarchist League's Treasurer Chris Barradale in this week's edition of The Listener:

Letter to the editor: Re "Absolutely Fascinated"

Chair — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:18:03 +1200

As promised, here's my response to Matt Showering's letter to the editor of Investigate Magazine:

Dear Ian,

RE: ABSOLUTELY FASCINATED
Matt Showering (Vox populi, July 2008) demonstrates a good understanding of New Zealand's constitutional development, yet makes a number of assertions in favour of the monarchy which belie constitutional reality. Mr Showering is correct insofar as his analysis of your argument in Absolute Power (that the government is illegal) goes; however his defence of the monarchy against your second claim, that the Governor-General is not an effective check on the Prime Minister, is weak.

More on Aussie G-G's republic comments

Chair — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:40:24 +1200

The Australian Governor-General's official secretary writes to The Sydney Morning Herald, complaining the newspaper (and its letter writers) have got it all wrong:

Contrary to the claims of some letter-writers, the Governor-General did not say Australia should never have a directly elected president. As he has done on a number of occasions, he said it was appropriate that we consider better ways of governing ourselves; however, it would be beneficial in such debates if there were a wider understanding of how our current system operates.
The Governor-General said there could be the potential for conflict if a popularly elected president held a firm view on an issue that was contrary to that held by the prime minister.

Letter to the editor: "US democracy"

Chair — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:44:27 +1200

A reader of The New Zealand Herald writes in today's letters to the editor:

"Some are agitating for our system to be changed to a similar system [to the US] because they consider it is out of date. It would appear ours is far more advanced than that particular republican system.
So shouldn't they [the US] be learning from us, not we learning from them?
R. Hood, Auckland Central"

Swearing allegiance to New Zealand?

Chair — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:57:23 +1200

The Marlborough Express has one of those "human interest" stories on a citizenship ceremony for new Kiwis. 21 new New Zealanders swore allegiance not to their new country, but to the "Queen of New Zealand", an office which exists in name only. It is the Republican Movement's view that New Zealanders should swear allegiance to their country. The article neatly shows why our oath of allegiance - and the monarchy itself - is absurd: