Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Referendum on the way?

edmundhillaryR_468x593
Her Majesty the Queen of New Zealand (and some other places)


Green MP Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill has been drawn from today's members ballot. If New Zealand's Parliament passes the bill into law, it would trigger a referendum on the monarchy, with three options:

1. The status quo, with Her Majesty continuing as Head of State

2. A directly elected President

3. A President appointed by a three quarters vote in Parliament.



If the majority voted for a change, then the two most popular options would have a run-off.

We are inspired to remark on a couple of things.

First, we hope that this Bill will spark some useful constitutional debate about our nationhood and constitutional arrangements.

But there is, that we can see, no appetite for change in our constitution, and there is no appetite for a republic.

There might be one among the elite and the politicians (some of whom have always resented the Monarchy as a colonial overhang), and there are republicans of conviction as well — Mr. Locke is from a well-known socialist family, and doubtless he is one such.

But where are the pressing reasons for change?

We are not opposed to debate on the constitution, and we think that if the monarchy was put to a vote, the status quo would win.

But we are suspicious of the idea that a republic is "inevitable" which is what our politicians and opinion-makers say. And we are opposed to the seeming Australian (and Irish) idea which is "ask until you get the answer you want, (and then, we're betting, never ask again)"

A republic is not the inevitable outcome of constitutional and national maturity (like our constitution needs an extra decade or two on top of the eight hundred we've had already). The march of Progress (dear, outdated, Victorian idea) does not necessarily lead to dreary Presidential democracy.

We think Constitutional reform should not come from a push by the snarkerati, however legitimate it is to put in a private member's Bill. It should come from a substantial public groundswell, leading to popular pressure, and backed by public support.

So here's the question:

Where is it?

Where are the mobs demanding a republic?

Where's the Republican Movement with a hundred thousand members? (In fact, like its Monarchist counterpart, the Movement is fairly small)

Where are the petitions calling for change?

The demands for a New Zealand Head of State?

What is it that necessitates Mr. Locke's referendum?

Where's the fire?

Of course, we would vote No. And, as we said, we think New Zealand would join us.

But why should Parliament indulge one Green MP's excercise in vanity, on his say-so alone?

Here's Hayley Westenra:



Hat Tip: Kiwiblog

9 comments:

  1. Keith Locke on Wikipedia:

    "His political enemies have referred to him during question period as "Pol Pot" or "the Honourable Member for Cambodia" due to supportive articles he wrote while editor of the New Zealand Socialist Action newspaper about the Khmer Rouge regime under the headline; Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is Hayley Westenra married? Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Swift- you're probably correct on current polling the Queen would win. I would say that for monarchists the best possible scenario would be for Locke's Bill to sail through parliament and force the referendum to be held by postal ballot, ensuring a low turnout skewed towards the 65+s (who still understand the art of letter writing) who generally support the monarchy overwhelmingly. However, I suspect there will be monarchist MPs who want to kill this Bill at all costs, not being able to see that bigger picture.

    Beaverbrook - yes, indeed he said some silly things when he was younger. He atoned for that statement shortly after becoming an MP.

    Anon - No she isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course, patriating the monarchy is not even an option, so lacking in imagination and deeply entrenched is the ruling class bias. They should by rights have two monarchist options and two republican options. It doesn't take much to imagine that monarchy could quickly establish itself as a living presence.

    Make no mistake, if this thing gets passed by Parliament, it will have a substantial influence on the other realms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, I suspect you're right. But I really don't see why something as serious and weighty as Constitutional Reform (which is pretty heavy) should be done because Keith Locke says so.

    I carefully didn't mention either Cambodia or the other famous epithet about Mr Locke, that he was "born in Red nappies...." I do not scruple to assert however that he is on the Left of the Green Party--the part that is so Left it ought to be left behind.

    Hayley Westenra is also an Anglican. For the record. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Beaverbrook, toss a coin for Prince Harry?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay, but if Hayley Westenra is anything like a national treasure, you might want to keep her out of the Wellington night clubs, or wherever it is that Prince Harry would be staying.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good point Beaverbrook. What these types always do is give one question, with three options, two are pro-republic and one is pro-monarchy. Then they add up the two republican votes and say a majority want a republic. The Sydney Morning Herald here in Australia does this sort of polling every time it has a poll on the issue. If you have three options but have two that are one way than the result is always inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. God save New Zealand's noble queen. May her majesty reign over us for many years to come.

    The New Zealander

    ReplyDelete