NZ as a Republic?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › NZ as a Republic?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

28624 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971378 22-Sep-2022 07:09

gzt:
tdgeek: In a Republic the Constitution makes that decision.

Nope. A person or body always adjudicates in one way or another for difficult cases.

My point is the Constitution are the rules. Obviously being inanimate it cannot talk.... So the Supreme Court being one good example mentioned can interpret any issues

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18135 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971379 22-Sep-2022 07:13

Geektastic:
MikeB4: As a nation we need to discuss and debate this issue. It is not inconceivable that the UK could decide to abolish the monarchy. The remaining (from memory) 17 nations in the commonwealth still with the monarchy as head of state need to be prepared for that. It would be better if we made the decision as a nation before a decision is again forced upon us.

Personally I would say it is as inconceivable as almost anything can be.

Aside from a few leftist rabble rousers you would be hard pressed to find many supporters for abolishing the Monarchy.

Interesting. I have family living and working in London and tell me in their circles both corporate and social support the abolition of the Monarchy. These are not left wing rabble rousers.

Handle9

9648 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971380 22-Sep-2022 07:15

Nah, it’s a fact. Facts aren’t racist, or virtuous, they are just facts.

There wasn’t a single body that served the role of a state as it would be described today. The United Tribes who signed the treaty was far from comprehensive and there wasn’t a single governing body for New Zealand. It is what it is.

The treaty is the founding document of the country, its part of the role of the modern state to honour the intent of that document. If the state is called the crown or the republic or the legion of fools what does it matter if they are honouring the principles which were agreed?

Lias

5250 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971381 22-Sep-2022 07:20

gehenna:

Such is the road racism travels. Saying something racist, that one doesn't think is racist, is still racist. Perception is reality. One should consider those situations an opportunity to do better next time. Especially in such a small country as ours.

Perception isn't reality, because perception can be twisted to whatever view you want. If we accept your proposition that perception is reality there is no way for me to prevent anyone perceiving my statement as being whatever they want. By your logic I could perceive that the sky was green and get offended anytime someone said otherwise.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

MikeB4

18135 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971382 22-Sep-2022 07:20

Handle9: Nah, it’s a fact. Facts aren’t racist, or virtuous, they are just facts.

There wasn’t a single body that served the role of a state as it would be described today. The United Tribes who signed the treaty was far from comprehensive and there wasn’t a single governing body for New Zealand. It is what it is.

The treaty is the founding document of the country, its part of the role of the modern state to honour the intent of that document. If the state is called the crown or the republic or the legion of fools what does it matter if they are honouring the principles which were agreed?

You can’t see it can you. You believe state hood is only based on the European model. It is not.

tdgeek

28624 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971384 22-Sep-2022 07:21

GV27:

The GG doesn't ponder of the law but does retain the power to dismiss the government, which they have used in Australia. Putting absolute power in the hands of a PM without the oversight of a GG or upper legislature (not something NZ can really justify IMO). Also something I think is increasingly useful when you have governments who form after making rather expansive policies to the electorate, but then are impotent to implement or functionally govern the country, either due to incompetence or infighting.

My main objections are there are a bunch of difficult constitutional conversations NZ has to have one way or the other and to date we have shown extreme reluctance to be sensible or rational about them. I have precisely zero faith that the transition to a republic could be conducted with proper consultation, sensible debate and without official or political skullduggery.

I feel you are overthinking it. No one has inferred absolute power to the PM. The Constitution provides the rules for whoever is in power, not the PM. And I dont see why the conversations over the Constitution would be difficult

We already have a Constitution, although not written in one document. It's worked fine for NZ. Should we become a Republic next week, it will still work fine. King Charles III is currently Head of State but its only a symbolic Head. The Supreme Court can provide oversight and rulings if there are any matters of dispute, which to my knowledge hasn't been an issue for NZ

The makeup of our current Constitution, as linked below can remain as it is, subject to replacing the Royals, or it can be collated into one document

https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/regulatory-stewardship/regulatory-systems/constitutional/#:~:text=Because%20New%20Zealand's%20constitution%20is,as%20an%20'unwritten%20constitution'.

Handle9

9648 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971385 22-Sep-2022 07:27

MikeB4:
Handle9: Nah, it’s a fact. Facts aren’t racist, or virtuous, they are just facts.

There wasn’t a single body that served the role of a state as it would be described today. The United Tribes who signed the treaty was far from comprehensive and there wasn’t a single governing body for New Zealand. It is what it is.

The treaty is the founding document of the country, it’s part of the role of the modern state to honour the intent of that document. If the state is called the crown or the republic or the legion of fools what does it matter if they are honouring the principles which were agreed?

You can’t see it can you. You believe state hood is only based on the European model. It is not.

You don’t know what I believe. You have absolutely no idea because you aren’t inside my head.

It’d be nice to have a reasonable discussion about a complex topic but I guess that’s too much to ask.

tdgeek

28624 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971386 22-Sep-2022 07:29

I didnt really think this thread would go this way. I assumed some like the idea of the current powerless link to the home country (for those of us with UK roots) and others want to be fully seperate from the UK Royalty

Even though nothing would change how we govern, as we aren't controlled by the Royal Monarchy anyway. Pro's and Con's etc.

But it does seem quite emotive, and more so, that there would be difficult issues to address, which I cannot agree with. If the Royal Monarchy had power over us, we would need to work out how to break away. But we have already broken away as The British Empire is no more, its a Commonwealth of independent cousins

GV27

5429 posts

Uber Geek

#2971387 22-Sep-2022 07:31

tdgeek:

King Charles III is currently Head of State but its only a symbolic Head. The Supreme Court can provide oversight and rulings if there are any matters of dispute, which to my knowledge hasn't been an issue for NZ

The makeup of our current Constitution, as linked below can remain as it is, subject to replacing the Royals, or it can be collated into one document

https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/regulatory-stewardship/regulatory-systems/constitutional/#:~:text=Because%20New%20Zealand's%20constitution%20is,as%20an%20'unwritten%20constitution'.

You keep saying this, but it isn't true. The power to dismiss a government is not 'symbolic' - it is very real.

And also a critical consideration in the debate, considering that political parties here are starting to move away from the convention of bi-partisan electoral law reform and other such matters. Just because you haven't need a backstop yet doesn't mean you won't need it at some point.

Ironically the Supreme Court itself is an example of change being foisted upon a country. There was no referendum on ending appeals to the Privy Council and looking back on that, I think many would accept that was a mistake.

How about we get some basic accountability in our political classes as they stand before we go handing them even more unfettered power?

floydbloke

3176 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2971388 22-Sep-2022 07:32

My view on the monarchy is akin to how I feel about religion.

It serves no purpose for me, I don’t need it and I have little to no interest in it. But if it gives a large amount of people joy, hope, inspiration, whatever other positive sentiment, and it doesn’t do any harm (notwithstanding the odd extremist religious incident and imperial history) then leave it be.

After I was born, I didn't talk to my parents for two years.

MikeB4

18135 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971389 22-Sep-2022 07:38

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/history-of-the-governor-general/modern-duties

The GG acts on the direction of Parliament. Example Even if the GG refused royal assent on a law parliament can still pass it into law. Whilst the GG has so called reserve powers they are at the behest of Parliament. The GG cannot act unilaterally. Therefore to that extent the powers and role of the GG are ceremonial

tdgeek

28624 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971390 22-Sep-2022 07:45

GV27:

You keep saying this, but it isn't true. The power to dismiss a government is not 'symbolic' - it is very real.

And also a critical consideration in the debate, considering that political parties here are starting to move away from the convention of bi-partisan electoral law reform and other such matters. Just because you haven't need a backstop yet doesn't mean you won't need it at some point.

Ironically the Supreme Court itself is an example of change being foisted upon a country. There was no referendum on ending appeals to the Privy Council and looking back on that, I think many would accept that was a mistake.

How about we get some basic accountability in our political classes as they stand before we go handing them even more unfettered power?

What unfettered power? Do we need a Constitution? We have one. If your points are valid and are not just opinions, then those issues exist regardless of us having a King as head of State or not.

tdgeek

28624 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971391 22-Sep-2022 07:48

floydbloke:

My view on the monarchy is akin to how I feel about religion.

It serves no purpose for me, I don’t need it and I have little to no interest in it. But if it gives a large amount of people joy, hope, inspiration, whatever other positive sentiment, and it doesn’t do any harm (notwithstanding the odd extremist religious incident and imperial history) then leave it be.

That's also my feelings. The King has no power over us, but for some its a nice link to their past roots.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971392 22-Sep-2022 07:48

Rikkitic:
Just to chime in, I would vote to become a republic but I don't feel particularly oppressed by the monarchy. Mostly I just think it is a silly anachronism for a country like ours.

It would be hard to feel oppressed by something that does no oppressing!

MikeB4

18135 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971393 22-Sep-2022 07:50

@tdgeek As a nation we have muddled along for too long without a constitution. We do have a collection of constitutional documents but no constitution as such.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10