April 22, 2008...6:09 am
Royal commission on the constitution best hope to ensure that Tampon Man does not become our king
New Zealanders seem almost evenly divided on whether we should become a republic when the Queen’s reign ends, according to an opinion poll taken for Lewis Holden’s Republican Movement.
While a hopeful sign that the public may yet tire of living under a distant monarch, the poll is certainly not a sign of strong public support for a republic, either.
The poll, conducted by blogger David Farrar’s Curia Market Research Ltd for the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand, asked: “When the Queen dies, which option would you prefer: Prince Charles becoming King of New Zealand or New Zealand becoming a republic?”
And 41 per cent stated they wanted New Zealand to become a republic, 43 per cent supported Charles becoming king (the status quo) and 15 per cent did not know.
I believe that once New Zealand is a republic, most people will wonder why we remained for so long a monarchy. It really seems an absurdity to have as our head of state a queen who lives in London. It is an absurdity highlighted in January, when we witnessed the spectacle of our legal head of state being so remote that when the greatest living New Zealander died, she could not even find a relative to come here for his funeral, despite the huge importance of him to her own coronation. It would be even more absurd to have as our head of state a king in London whose sole apparent ambition in life is to be reincarnated as a tampon.
The division shown up by this poll is not impossible to overcome, though I am not sure I agree with Lewis’s comment that “these results show the importance of addressing the growing public mood for change [my emphasis].”
Lewis says his poll comes after a March Colmar-Brunton poll found 66 per cent of New Zealanders supported “the Queen as head of state.” Presumably he is saying the numbers in support of the monarchy have since fallen to the 43 per cent in his poll. But they were completely different questions.
I think the two polls show that a lot of people like having the present Queen as head of state, but fewer would be happy with Charles. Republicans need to build on this to start a genuine, popular push for a republic. We don’t have anything like that at present, and there is certainly no political leadership being given.
Lewis alludes to this when he says: “After lunching with the Queen earlier this month, Helen Clark said she was not going to lead the change to a republic… The Prime Minister must show vision and leadership in that regard.” But she won’t, and nor will anyone else with her mana, because they are far too worried about alienating voters over an issue that has no urgent public support.
I think what is needed is a royal commission on our constitutional structure that can look at issues like this and suggest a way forward, the way the 1986 royal commission on the electoral system successfully did with MMP. It could examine and recommend a written constitution as well as the style of republic we should become.
While it would be rather ironic to have a royal commission look at doing away with the royals, a royal commission is our highest form of commission of inquiry, used for matters of great importance, and would thus be essential.
The biggest risk of a politician leading the republican cause is voter cynicism. We basically got MMP because most of our political leaders opposed it. The surest way to ensure we stay a monarchy is for our political leaders to promote a republic.
The public needs to see that becoming a republic does not mean that Helen Clark or John Key will become our president. Many republics retain a Westminster-style system with a prime minister who, like ours, is the leader of the party with the most backing in parliament. Their presidents are merely constitutional figureheads with a role similar to that of our governor general.
India, with its quasi-elected, non-executive president who fills the role our governor-general does, is the largest and most successful example, but there are many, many more. Ireland has a directly elected president who nonetheless is still a non-executive figurehead, with its government led by the prime minister, who, as with India, New Zealand and elsewhere, is normally the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament.
I don’t think New Zealand voters will wear an American-style or even French-style presidential system any decade soon, but if a royal commission makes a good case for a republic with a president and prime minister on the Irish or Indian models, it would have a good chance of winning public support in the referendum that would be needed to adopt it, especially as the prospect of Tampon Man becoming our head of state draws ever closer.
Footnote: The phone poll of 964 voting-age New Zealanders was conducted between March 31 and April 14 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 per cent.
34 Comments
April 22, 2008 at 6:42 am
I think the two polls show that a lot of people like having the present Queen as head of state, but fewer would be happy with Charles. Republicans need to build on this to start a genuine, popular push for a republic.
Nope - got to totally disagree with you there, Poneke. I’ve no particular affection for the current Deputy Prime Minister, but that’s not a sound or even intellectually honest basis on which to argue for major constitutional change. (Peter Jackson president-for-life, anyone?)
April 22, 2008 at 7:29 am
Well said Poneke. Could I borrow this for our newsletter?
Craig - This poll in itself is not not an argument for change. It does show that support for the monarchy is based largely on the personality of the individual at its apex - after all, the core of a monarchy is the monarch.
The poll is, however, an argument for politicians to take the issue more seriously. Clark dismisses a republic as ‘inevitable’ but does nothing about it.
April 22, 2008 at 8:27 am
I think it’s still largely a non issue at the moment for most people. Helen Clark is playing it right. While there is a significant divided opinion there is little point in politicians making a stand - it will unnecessarily alienate a section of the population.
I’d like to see the poll results categorised by age. I suspect that younger people are less attached to the monarchy, which will mean that Clark is right in suggesting a change is inevitable.
April 22, 2008 at 8:31 am
I have no problem with moving to a republic.
A Royal Commission on the constitution is an essential pre-requisite.
We need a formal constitution with proper checks and balances including a second chamber or upper house.
Personally I prefer the Irish/Indian models to the French.
One might be able to take the US model, but only if there is a strong Congress/Senate, coupled with a competent and independent judiciary.
Term limits for the Upper House should be put in place as well.
April 22, 2008 at 8:35 am
I don’t see any need for an upper house. I’d rather see a proper written constitution than that.
We used to have an upper house. It was abolished many years before I was born. It has not been missed.
April 22, 2008 at 8:38 am
I’ve got those stats… you’re right Brian. The strongest support for a republic comes from 18 - 25 year olds, then 25 - 45 year olds. Lowest 65+, no surprises.
Interestingly, support by party is split. Perhaps it’s a legacy of Bolger, but National supporters are about the average for support, while Labour supporters are slightly higher. Greens are a majority of support for a republic, while NZ First is a majority for the monarchy (that probably reflects the demographics statistics…
April 22, 2008 at 8:51 am
Referring to Prince Charles as “tampon man” is a really low blow and totally uncalled for. Irrelevant of where people stand on the issue of republicanism there is no need to resort to slimy, nasty taunts. All of us have spoken private words that if published globally would be embarrassing.
Bad form Poneke. Very bad form.
April 22, 2008 at 9:16 am
Upper Houses tend to be either useless or in place to keep a federal government in check. New Zealand had a useless Upper House, appointed by the government of the day.
[Poneke says: Yes, and as we don't have a federal structure, there are no states that need to keep a central government in check. A constitution would, or should, keep the government in check. Our semi-written one (found in many places) works fairly well, but is haphazard, hence my feeling we could do with a proper one in one document.]
April 22, 2008 at 9:25 am
I am not suggesting an appointed upper house, but an elected one, to provide strong check upon the currently essentially unfettered power of the government of the day.
Upper Houses are not necessarily only in place in federal states.
[Poneke says: I am simply saying we don't need an upper house. We are a small democracy that works well. An entrenched written constitution would provide ample checks and balances, without employing still more politicians and all their hangers-on.]
April 22, 2008 at 9:26 am
Back in the days of the lead-up to MMP, Jim Bolger expressed his preference for retaining the then status quo with the addition of an upper house. As someone observed, he already effectively had an unelected one in the form of the Business Round Table.
April 22, 2008 at 9:33 am
If Charles does not want to be referred to as Tampon Man, then maybe he should not have told Camilla how he wants to be reincarnated as her tampon!
Yes many people think being a Republic will mean President Helen or some other politician. One can very easily have the law state no current of former MP is eligible. Also if the President is elected by say 75% of Parliament, that would also effectively guarantee non political appointments.
April 22, 2008 at 9:55 am
Direct election doesn’t necessarily lead to a political President either. The current President of Ireland is a former Vice-Chancellor and law professor, the former president was a diplomat.
adamsmith1922 - I think if you want a proper check and balance on parliament, a head of state with certain reserve powers *they are actually able to use* is a better way to keep the government accountable. The President of Iceland can, for example, send Bills of Parliament to referendums if they so desire.
April 22, 2008 at 9:57 am
Re: having an Upper House.
A question for those who argue for one: what are you trying to achieve here? I used to be in favour of an Upper House, back when we had the first past the post system, as a way of getting more considered law-making. MMP has actually produced that. Now, I’m not a huge fan of MMP, but what it has meant is that select committees are no longer stacked in favour of the government of the day, and they often (no, not always, by any means) take a more thoughtful approach than they used to. (I say this as someone who spends quite a bit of time covering select committees).
On the republic: I’d be more convinced by the poll if it were of “what issues do you think are important?” variety. I suspect moving to a republic would feature pretty low on any such list.
I agree the current system is absurd.
But life is full of absurdities which work. The current system seems to be to be working. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
[Poneke says: It "works" solely because we have a governor-general who performs the role of the legal head of state on her behalf. It's time to make the governor-general's position the de jure head of state rather than the de facto one. ]
April 22, 2008 at 10:21 am
Regarding the written constitution.
Such a constitition would only be effective if most New Zealanders supported the principles it contained, Given a truely representative democratic process, most of our politicans would also support such principles.
If the politicans supported such principles they wouldn’t vote in laws against those principles whether or not there was a formal written constitution.
Put another way, It’s the process of selecting our leaders that counts and the beliefs we hold as Kiwis that will determine where we go as a country, a constitution only states what is already agreed.
On the other hand, a simple statement of principles that can be used to indoctrinate youngsters could improve the transfer of said principles from one generation to the next.
April 22, 2008 at 10:25 am
The “importance” question is a misnomer. Voters are perpetually going to pick things like tax, health, education, the economy, etc. Republicanism - and any other constitutional issue for that matter - is never going to feature in a voters’ priority list.
As for the “it ain’t broke” argument, this too is a misnomer. As Poneke points out, the monarch basically has nothing to do with New Zealand, except for agreeing to the Prime Minister’s appointee to the office of Governor-General. Precedent from around the Commonwealth shows that the Queen doesn’t intervene in times of constitutional crises, and leaves it all up to the G-G. In that sense, the system is broken; we should have a democratic, accountable head of state rather than a de facto appointee of the Prime Minister.
April 22, 2008 at 11:02 am
“The “importance” question is a misnomer. Voters are perpetually going to pick things like tax, health, education, the economy, etc. Republicanism - and any other constitutional issue for that matter - is never going to feature in a voters’ priority list.”
Which seems to suggest the current system is working.
April 22, 2008 at 11:23 am
Actually poneke I’d say the de facto head of state is the PM. S/he’s really the one that makes all the decisions and fronts them.
[Poneke says: You confuse the prime minister with the head of state. The prime minister is the prime minister, and carries out her duties as such. These include chairing the cabinet, and announcing its decisions. Prime ministers perform these functions in many countries.]
April 22, 2008 at 11:33 am
No, it suggests that people’s attention span on political issues is based in contemporary rather than long-term issues. You don’t see concern over the number of seats in Parliament as an issue of voter’s priority, but the public clearly has strong views about it.
April 22, 2008 at 11:59 am
I would like a Constitution that starts with “Parliament shall make no laws…”
That’s it, finish.
JC
[Poneke says: That's truly witty! You have made my lunchtime, sir.]
April 22, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The easiest shift would be to simply make our existing governor general the head of state and change nothing else except the statute which declares the GG to be the Queen’s representative.
I quite like the idea of making the GG alternatively a Pakeha and Maori in return for getting rid of all other race based legislation.
The costs of rewriting all out statutes to accommodate any other shift in constitution would be massive for such a tiny economy as ours.
So keep it simple.
April 22, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I’m with Muerk - the remark about Prince Charles is unncessary - it was an intercepted cell phone conversation and you Republicans should be above that level of bad taste - but then perhaps that goes with the territory? Another argument for retaining the Monarchy? And a written constitution would be a real can of worms. Government by Supreme Court, anyone? it really works quite well as is Finally, no member of the Royal Family came to Sir Ed’s funeral on the advice of Helen Clark, presumably because it would have eased her out of the front row.
April 22, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Errr, no. I think the way Helen Clark ran around defending them when Buckingham Palace announced that no Royal was coming shows that HC wouldn’t have advised them not to come. The real problem lay with the spin doctors at the base level in Buckingham Palace, who indicated that a member of the Royal family would come. Then they announced no-one was coming - hence we all felt a bit gipped.
As for the comments re: tampon, Poneke’s view is his, you can’t tar all republicans with the same brush, just as it would be unfair if I claimed all monarchists are into the sorts of things a former King of Nepal was into…
April 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I don’t think Poneke’s nasty comment reflects badly on republicans at all. It reflects badly on Poneke though.
[Poneke says: Doubtless it does. It says a lot about the man who 43pc would have as our king, too. What he says and does is considerably more important than my inconsequential opinions.]
April 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Fair enough - I withdraw and apologise. It was meant to be light-hearted. And dpf carried the idea on, so it was not just Poneke. Some of my best friends are Republicans.
April 22, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Well, there are lots of us about…
April 22, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Lewis,
In what way are issues of tax or health (for example) less long term than the number of seats or the monarchy?
April 22, 2008 at 3:19 pm
They’re immediate issues that could affect you tomorrow. Tax is an obvious one - you get a tax cut / increase and it immediately hits your pocket. Health is much the same. Go down to your local A&E about now and tell me there’s no immediate issue…
April 22, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I would support a written constitution plus an elected President based on the Irish model. A President with the ability to send controversial legislation back to parliament or the supreme court if there are constitutional issues would be a useful check. The only problem is getting a constitution that is non-political, I fear that every interest group in the country would want to put their two cents into it. I think a NZ constitution should codify the powers of the President, PM and cabinet, the House, supreme court, and include the Bill of Rights.
The argument that this is not a bread and butter issue is on the face of it correct. However restrictions on politicians power changes the way they behave. If a cabinet knows that an unpopular bill may be sent back to the House by a President they may not risk the embarrassment and political backlash from the opposition. This would make sure politicians spell out clearly their program before elections and would keep them focused on core issues like the economy, education, health, infrastructure etc. Rather than frivolous legislation that no one asked for. Improved governance makes a difference to the important issues.
As for the ‘President Helen’ issue I think no MP becoming Pres is a bit harsh, but if you’ve been Prime Minister I don’t think you should be able to then become President later, or vice versa.
April 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm
We actually do need a constitution and probably a President to pull the country together.
When the Labour leader can say for her biography ‘The one thing I hate is the National Party. I think they’re loathsome people. I do.” you have a solid reason for something or someone above politics.
We are simply too small to be able to afford this crap and we have to be able to agree on at least a basic principle of retaining and enhancing our standards of living in a competitive world.
And we don’t necessarily have to have a President who’s a NZer either. We’ve done well enough with English GGs in the past to know that.
We need someone to stand up and say.. “The Parliament has agreed that the following goals are appropriate for the next 20 years and it will be my responsibility to help make them come about… ” or somesuch… and have the average person nod his head and agree.
JC
April 22, 2008 at 8:58 pm
In 1911 my great grandfather Boer War veteran and later MP, Colonel Allen Bell, stood (Raglan) for Reform Party in the 1911 general election. During the campaign he created a sensation when he advocated the abolution of the monarchy. So much so he was forced in 1912 to reluctantly resign his commission, as the military authorities considered he had broken his oath of allegiance. One step short of treason.
97 years later I’m in full support of his call.
I appreciate your humour in the illogical and inverse causal link between governmental support and constitutional changes but feel the title of the post rather more suited to a British tabloid, don’t you think?
April 22, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Thanks for that Richard - I’m adding that to the Republicanism in New Zealand history page…
April 22, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Lewis,
For that you’ll need proper citation, see The Dictionary of NZ Biography, Vol 3, 1901-1920 P45. Auckland Uni Press/Dept Internal Affairs, 1996.
April 22, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If Charles does not want to be referred to as Tampon Man, then maybe he should not have told Camilla how he wants to be reincarnated as her tampon!
Indeed, DPF: I don’t want some dumb mofo who has any expectation of privacy being my head of state.
Just an FYI, if any argument for a Republic turns on ‘Tampon Man’ and his horse-face, home-wrecking whore of a second wife I’m going to become a monarchist on principle. Want to be taken seriously, be serious.
April 23, 2008 at 7:16 am
Richard - thanks for that.
Craig - that’s why we’re not making that argument.
Leave a Reply