This is something for we, Hawaiian subjects, to ponder on and decide what form of governance we want in this century. Being aware of our typical progressive evolution, it is wise to think of the options most beneficial for us as an island nation to create once the U.S. de-occupies our nation. This is what was sent to me and made me think of our options:Are New Zealanders ready to cut royalty adrift ??????Posted by: "Piki Kotuku" pikikotuku@hotmail.com piki_kotukuTue Dec 29, 2009 12:48 pm (PST)Are New Zealanders ready to cut royalty adrift and opt for some sort ofrepublican option? Keith Locke explains why we should. Keith Locke is aGreen MPAfter a seven-year wait, my Head of State Referenda Bill, designed to letNew Zealanders decide who should be their head of state, has finally beenpulled from the members' ballot.I hope to win enough support in Parliament for my private member's bill tosend it through for select committee consideration.It is about time we made a choice. New Zealand governments (both Labour andNational) have dodged the issue, waiting for the Australian Government tomove first.There are strong arguments for change, not least that we are now aconfident, independent nation in the South Pacific. Having a head of statein Britain does not match who we are in the 21st century.If Parliament passes the bill, New Zealanders can choose whether they wantto keep the monarch as our head of state, or move to some form of republic.My bill provides a choice of three options - the status quo and tworepublican options. The most popular republican option is probably adirectly elected president (selected by single transferable vote), but Ihave also included as an option a president selected by 75 per cent ofParliament. I wanted all the options on the table for people to debatebefore a vote.If none of the three options gains 50 per cent support, the bill providesfor a runoff referendum between the two leading options.A legitimate fear is that moving to a president would disrupt our politicalsystem. For this reason, my two republican options envisage minimal change.In each case the president would have no more constitutional power than theQueen and governor-general currently have. The new president would not beable to override Parliament. They would be like the directly elected Irishpresident and the parliamentary-appointed German president, both of whomstand aside from day-to-day politics. They would not be like the Americanand French presidents, with their extensive executive powers.Another concern people have is how a change might affect the Treaty ofWaitangi, given that the Treaty was originally signed with the BritishCrown.It should be noted that New Zealand became constitutionally independent whenit implemented the Statute of Westminster in 1947, and since then ourgovernment has been responsible for all treaties, including the Treaty ofWaitangi.IN HER role as Queen of New Zealand (as distinct from her role as Queen ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland), the Queen must take advice exclusivelyfrom the New Zealand Government. The British Government has no role inproviding any advice.This separation of royal roles has produced an interesting constitutionaldilemma for British politicians trying to change the rules of royalsuccession, so that they don't give preference to male heirs. If the BritishParliament made such a change, and the New Zealand Parliament did not, theking or queen of New Zealand could end up being a different person from theking or queen of Britain.Just to reassure New Zealanders on the Treaty issue, my bill includes aclause reading: "The rights conferred and obligations imposed by the Treatyof Waitangi continue as if this act had not been passed."Some New Zealanders worry that we might end up with the wrong person if weelect our head of state: perhaps a celebrity who doesn't know much aboutpolitics or, at the other end of the scale, someone too politically aligned.My view is that we can trust the people to elect a head of state acceptableto the nation, as Ireland has in election after election. Former Irishpresident Mary Robinson went on to do well as the UN high commissioner onhuman rights.Under MMP, it is an advantage to have a more independent head of state,particularly during a political crisis such as when a government loses itsparliamentary majority.At present the governor-general lacks some independence, because he or sheis appointed by the Government, has to take advice from the Government, andcan be sacked by the Government. An elected head of state would not be soconstrained from acting in an impartial manner.How would New Zealanders vote if my bill passes and we have a referendum?Present polling shows the republican option getting less than 50 per cent.However, my observation is that many New Zealanders haven't yet fullyengaged with the issues. When they do, I believe, many would opt for change.Having a head of state on the other side of the world is now something of ananachronism. Of course we value our British heritage, but that is now onlyone component of our national identity.We are increasingly a multicultural nation linked closely to our neighboursin Australia, the South Pacific and Asia.Keith Locke is a Green MP
Comments