“We should be an independent republic”

A challenge to the new Parliament to “Seize the moment now, and begin the process of wider constitutional reform by committing to our next Head of State being the first President of the Republic of New Zealand.”

I strongly believe the time has well past for us to have severed the umbilical cord to Grandmother England.

We should be an independent republic within the Commonwealth – like India, or South Africa and the majority of other Commonwealth nations.

It is not just my Irish heritage, but more my sense of pride and confidence in our country and what it can be that is why I am so staunchly of the belief we can do so much better than continue to bend our knee to a hereditary monarch on the other side of the world.

We have consistently shown over the last thirty years or so, that we can produce many quality New Zealanders to serve as our Governor-General.

There is no reason why we could not do likewise with a non-executive President in that role, and frankly the time for change is long overdue.

So, let me conclude with a challenge to our new Parliament.

You are in the main the millenials whom will shape our future for the next generation and beyond.

Seize the moment now, and begin the process of wider constitutional reform by committing to our next Head of State being the first President of the Republic of New Zealand.

From Peter Dunne’s ‘valedictory’ address to the Victoria University of Wellington’s post-election seminar.

I agree with Dunne on this, but I’m not sure that the time is right for Parliament to address it. There seems to be a reluctance of parties to address important issues like this for fear of being unpopular with some voters.

The flag change process was, unfortunately, a political debacle. If parties couldn’t deal with that sensibly then I don’t like the chances of them properly progressing a discussion on becoming a republic in the Commonwealth.

It will take more than prompting from an outgoing old MP to get a republic discussion going, it will take a bold young leader unencumbered by an older old MP holding the balance of power.


Mess Clinton or Abyss Trump?

The republic of the United States of America faces a very uncertain future, whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump becomes president.

According to Trump if Clinton wins it will be more of the same, a virtual continuation of Barack Obama’s tenure. But he and some Republicans have also promised turmoil, to effectively make the country ungovernable.


But what if Trump wins? He is promising to ‘drain the swamp’, but I don’t know if he has ever explained what that will mean. He can’t sack all of Washington.

But he could change things substantially, for better or worse. Washington could certainly do with major reform, but a lot is riding on the continuing functioning of the country (and to an extent the world).

Andrew Sullivan looks at America and the Abyss.

This is what we now know. Donald Trump is the first candidate for president who seems to have little understanding of or reverence for constitutional democracy and presents himself as a future strongman. This begins with his character — if that word could possibly be ascribed to his disturbed, unstable, and uncontrollable psyche. He has revealed himself incapable of treating other people as anything but instruments to his will. He seems to have no close friends, because he can tolerate no equals.

His relationship to men — from his school days to the primary campaign — is rooted entirely in dominance and mastery, through bullying, intimidation, and, if necessary, humiliation. His relationship to women is entirely a function of his relationship to men: Women are solely a means to demonstrate his superiority in the alpha-male struggle. Women are to be pursued, captured, used, assaulted, or merely displayed to other men as an indication of his superiority.

His response to any difficult relationship is to end it, usually by firing or humiliating or ruining someone. His core, motivating idea is the punishment or mockery of the weak and reverence for the strong. He cannot apologize or accept responsibility for failure. He has long treated the truth as entirely instrumental to his momentary personal interests. Setbacks of any kind can only be assuaged by vindictive, manic revenge.

Through the course of Trumps campaigns there have been signs of all of these things.

He has no concept of a non-zero-sum engagement, in which a deal can be beneficial for both sides. A win-win scenario is intolerable to him, because mastery of others is the only moment when he is psychically at peace. (This is one reason why he cannot understand the entire idea of free trade or, indeed, NATO, or the separation of powers.)

He has trashed free trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

He has violated and eroded the core norms that make liberal democracy possible — because such norms were designed precisely to guard against the kind of tyrannical impulses and pathological narcissism he personifies.

He has bullied the Republican Party into backing him. A Trump presidency backed by Republican majorities in the Senate and in Congress are quite feasible outcomes of the election.

He sees the judicial system as entirely subordinate to his political and personal interests, and impugned a federal judge for his ethnicity. He has accused the Justice Department and FBI of a criminal conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton. He has refused to accept in advance the results of any election in which he loses. He has openly argued for government persecution of newspapers that oppose him — pledging to open up antitrust prosecution against the Washington Post, for example.

He is the first candidate in American history to subject the press pool to mob hatred — “disgusting, disgusting people” — and anti-Semitic poison from his foulest supporters. He is the first candidate in American history to pledge to imprison his election opponent if he wins power. He has mused about using nuclear weapons in regional wars. He has celebrated police powers that openly deploy racial profiling.

And those he has promised a right wing revolution to don’t care, as long as  they win at any cost.

The Establishments of both right and left have had many opportunities to stop him and have failed by spectacular displays of cowardice, narrow self-interest, and bewilderment. The right has been spectacularly craven. Trump has no loyalty to the party apparatus that has elevated him to a possible victory next Tuesday — declaring war on the Speaker of the House, attacking the RNC whenever it fails to toady to him, denigrating every single rival Republican candidate, even treating his own vice-presidential nominee as someone he can openly and contemptuously contradict with impunity. And yet that party, like the conservative parties in Weimar Germany, has never seen fit to anathematize him, only seeking to exploit his followers in the vain and foolish delusion that they can control him in the future in ways they have not been able to in the past.

I don’t think that the United States will become like Weimar Germany. Trump has been able to use legitimate (ish) democratic means to nearly make it to the top.

There is one marked difference – Weimar Germany didn’t have the destructive power of the nuclear weapons that Trump has suggested he could use.

The Republican media complex have enabled and promoted his lies and conspiracy theories and, above all, his hysteria. From the poisonous propaganda of most of Fox News to the internet madness of the alt-right, they have all made a fortune this past decade by describing the world as a hellhole of chaos and disorder and crime for which the only possible solution is a third-world strongman.

And they are close to succeeding (aided by the Democrats’ choice of Clinton as their alternative).

For their part, the feckless Democrats decided to nominate one of the most mediocre, compromised, and Establishment figures one can imagine in a deeply restless moment of anxiety and discontent. They knew full well that Hillary Clinton is incapable of inspiring, of providing reassurance, or of persuading anyone who isn’t already in her corner, and that her self-regard and privilege and money-grubbing have led her into the petty scandals that have been exploited by the tyrant’s massive lies.

They have gifted the Trump revolution a real chance.

The Republicans have thereby become a force bent less on governing than on destroying the very institutions that make democracy and the rule of law possible. They have not been conservative in any sane meaning of that term for many, many years. They are nihilist revolutionaries of the far right in search of a galvanizing revolutionary leader. And they have now found their man.

And their man found them.

Some — including many who will be voting for Trump — will argue that even if the unstable, sleepless, vindictive tyrant wins on Tuesday, he will be restrained by the system when he seizes power. Let’s game this out for a moment. Over the last year, which forces in the GOP have been able to stand up to him?

Even his closest aides have been unable to get him to concentrate before a debate. He set up a policy advisory apparatus and then completely ignored it until it was disbanded. His foreign-policy advisers can scarcely be found. He says he knows more than any general, any diplomat, and anyone with actual experience in government.

He has declared his chief adviser to be himself.

And some of his advice, especially on foreign issues, has been scary for the world.

More to the point, if Trump wins, he will almost certainly bring with him the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. A President Clinton will be checked and balanced. A President Trump will be pushing through wide-open doors.

Who can temper or stop him then?

A Speaker who reveals the slightest inclination to resist him will be swiftly dispatched — or subjected to a very credible threat of being primaried. If the military top brass resist his belief in unpredictable or unethical or unlawful warfare, they will surely be fired.

As for the administration of justice, he has openly declared his intent to use the power of the government to put his political opponent in jail.

As for a free society, he has threatened to do what he can to put his media opponents into receivership.

A bit less than a majority of Americans are encouraging him, and may give him unprecedented power.

A Hollywood movie of this scenario would have been a comedy, but this could easily turn into a tragedy.

What is so striking is that this requires no interpretation, no reading of the tea leaves. Trump has told Americans all of this — again and again — in plain English. His own temperamental instability has been displayed daily and in gory detail.

His bond with his supporters is absolute, total, and personal. It was months ago that he boasted that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still be with him. And he was right. This is not a mark of a democratic leader; it is a mark of an authoritarian cult.

A cult with a growing fan base.

It is also, critically, a function of his platform. Fascism has never been on the ballot in America before. No candidate this close to power has signaled more clearly than Trump that he is a white-nationalist candidate determined to fight back against the browning of America.

The world has major concerns.

The fire he has lit will not be easily doused. If his policies lead to an economic downswing, he will find others to blame and conspiracies to flush out. If there is Republican resistance to his pledges to roll back free trade, he will call on his base to pressure the leadership to surrender.

And if one of his first moves is to abandon the Iran nuclear deal, we will be hurtling rather quickly to a military confrontation, as Iran rushes to build a nuke before Trump can launch military attacks to thwart them. That rush to war would empower him still further.

He has talked about using US firepower – including the nuclear button.

Yes, he is an incompetent, a dilettante, a man who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. Many of his moves will probably lead to a nose-dive in support. But Trump cannot admit error and will need to deny it or scapegoat others or divert public attention.

Will those who have enable Trump be able to admit error? Will they want to do anything about rectifying the errors? Will they be able to do anything about it?

There will be an Islamist terror attack of some kind — and possibly a wave of such attacks in response to his very election. Trump will exploit it with the subtlety of a Giuliani and the brutality of a Putin.

McCarthyism would seem tame in comparison.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we live in a republic, if we can keep it. And yet, more than two centuries later, we are openly contemplating throwing it up in the air and seeing where it might land.

The US republic has already been thrashed and trashed and is falling to pieces. The landing may be all over the place.

The US is in a mess and could vote for more of the same – Mess Clinton – or go for the Abyss Trump option.



Dwindling support for Monarchy

A poll commissioned by New Zealand Republic suggests that support for a monarchy is falling significantly.


  • The next British Monarch becomes King of New Zealand 34%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State elected by a two thirds majority in Parliament 15%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State who is elected by the popular vote 44%


There was no poll option for no head of state above our current Prime Minister.

Support for a New Zealand head of State amongst younger people (aged 18-30) was 76%, and for those 61 and over it was 53%.

Newshub reported Monarchists not amused by poll backing republic

Monarchists are brushing off a new poll which suggests New Zealand is heading towards becoming a republic, instead saying it’s unlikely to happen in the next 500 years.

“I’m a little sceptical of these numbers,” Monarchy New Zealand’s Sean Palmer told Paul Henry on Monday.

“This was a poll that was paid for and conducted by Republicans – I’m a bit surprised they didn’t find 120 percent in support of a republic.”

The poll was carried out by David Farrar’s Curia Research – Farrar is a promoter of a New Zealand Republic – but that’s lame.

April 2014 – What is your preference for New Zealand’s next Head of State out of the following three options?

  • The next British Monarch becomes King of New Zealand 46%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State elected by a two thirds majority in Parliament 11%
  • New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State who is elected by the popular vote 33%

Support for a New Zealand head of State amongst younger people (aged 18-30) was 66%

Source: Scoop – Latest Poll: Support for NZ head of state is up

Andrew Little on flag and republic

One Breakfast this morning Andrew Little said he wants to revisit a new flag “sooner rather than later” and he would discuss a republic referendum “at the end of the reign of the current monarch”.

One News: Should New Zealand become a republic? Labour leader signals referendum plan

In the wake of the flag referendum, the opposition leader said he voted against the alternative as it “doesn’t reflect anything about New Zealand at all”.

Many people seem to think that the Southern Cross on blue reflects quite a bit about New Zealand. And many more think that the fern on black reflects quite a bit too.

43% voted for a combination  of both, which is quite a bit more than Labour’s 27% vote in the last election.

Does Little think that Labour doesn’t reflect anything about New Zealand at all?

Mr Little said the country should revisit the issue “sooner rather than later”, suggesting a flag that “genuinely represents who we are, the diversity that is New Zealand”.

If Labour revisits a change of flag sooner rather than later they risk being ridiculed for their hypocrisy.

Little opposed a flag that was supported by John Key, but somehow thinks he can come up with a flag that “genuinely represents who we are, the diversity that is New Zealand”.  The diversity of New Zealand pretty much guarantees Little’s preference won’t make all New Zealanders feel genuinely represented.

When asked if a republic referendum is something he would do in power, Mr Little said it is something he would discuss.

“I would do that at the end of the reign of the current monarch, have a good public debate,” he said.

Good luck with trying to have a good public debate. The country couldn’t even debate a flag change like adults.

“To me the big issue is… a sense of identity, standing on our own two feet.

“The way to do this is to have a Head of State who’s not living in London but in New Zealand.”

If he really thinks the big issue is “a sense of identity, standing on our own two feet” why wait until the current monarch has died?

Did he wait until his mother died before he left home, developed a sense of identity and stood on his own feet?


Republic referendum in 2020?

Should we begin a discussion and process leading to a referendum in 2020 on whether New Zealand should become a republic or not after Patsy Reddy’s term as Governor General ends in 2021?

That’s what Peter Dunne has suggested in his latest blog post.

  • A group of leading but informed New Zealanders should be gathered together to begin the process of public discussion about how a New Zealand republic could be structured, including issues such as how that relates to the Treaty of Waitangi.
  • That process should be long-term – running for about three years – and culminating in a binding referendum in mid 2020 on whether New Zealanders wished our country to become a republic.
  • In the event of a positive result, the establishment of the republic would then be timed to coincide with the end of Dame Patsy’s term in late 2021.

I think this idea has merit. I hope it isn’t dismissed by petty politicking.

Congratulations to Dame Patsy Reddy on her appointment as New Zealand’s next Governor-General. She is another outstanding selection in that now long line of impressive New Zealanders to hold the office, and I have no doubt she will do a superb job and quickly earn the respect of New Zealanders.

However, she should be the last person to occupy the role. It is high time for New Zealand to elect its own Head of State, and for our country to become a republic. We should take the opportunity of the appointment of a new Governor-General to commence the process of public debate, leading up to a public referendum, which if supportive of our becoming a republic, should lead to the installation of our first President, when Dame Patsy’s term comes to an end in September 2021.

The Irish Republic provides the model for New Zealand, with a parliamentary system of government and an elected President as Head of State. The President does not exercise any executive functions and is obliged to act on the advice of his or her Ministers, in pretty much the same way as our Governor-General does now. The difference is of course that Uachtaran na hEireann (President of Ireland) is the supreme Head of State, elected directly by the people, not the representative of a foreign hereditary monarch at the other end of the world, as is our Governor-General.

Opponents of New Zealand’s becoming a republic often erroneously argue that it would mean the end of our Commonwealth ties. That is utter nonsense. 32 of the Commonwealth’s 53 member states are already republics, including major Commonwealth players like India, South Africa and Singapore, amongst a host of others. So there would be no reason at all for New Zealand, upon becoming a republic, to have to reconsider its Commonwealth membership in any shape or form, and nor should it.

As a way forward, a group of leading but informed New Zealanders (often not the same thing!) should be gathered together to begin the process of public discussion about how a New Zealand republic could be structured, including issues such as how that relates to the Treaty of Waitangi. That process should be long-term – running for about three years – and culminating in a binding referendum in mid 2020 on whether New Zealanders wished our country to become a republic. In the event of a positive result, the establishment of the republic would then be timed to coincide with the end of Dame Patsy’s term in late 2021.

I make these comments with no disrespect to Dame Patsy, nor the current and past Governors-General, nor to the high office to which they have all been appointed. So long as the office of Governor-General remains, both it and the person holding the role deserve the respect and loyalty of all citizens. But the appointment of a new Governor-General does establish a finite period. That provides a chance to think afresh about our future constitutional structure. I have long believed New Zealanders are ready for that discussion and that we should therefore give them that opportunity. The appointment of a new Governor-General does just that.

This looks like a very sensible and timely approach to me.

Waiting for the queen of England to die is a poor reason for procrastination. We should discuss and decide under our own terms and with timing of our own choosing.

This doesn’t mean we will become a republic. It means we the people of New Zealand would get to decide what we want for our country.

All parties should make it clear what their stance is on this now and especially going in to next year’s election.


New Zealand as a republic?

Many Australian political leaders have signed up in support of Australia becoming a republic.

The BBC reported Australia republic move: Leaders begin push

Almost all of Australia’s state and territory leaders have signed a document in support of the country becoming a republic.

The only leader who declined to sign, Western Australia’s Colin Barnett, said he was supportive of a republic but believed now was not the right time.

Australians voted against becoming a republic in a 1999 referendum.

Current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was leader of the republican movement at that time.

The referendum:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

  • Yes 45.13%
  • No 54.87%

But since coming to power, Mr Turnbull has said no change should occur until the reign of Queen Elizabeth II ends.

The state premiers of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, and the chief ministers of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, signed the document in favour of replacing the Queen as head of state.

What about New Zealand? We are currently getting a choice on our flag but there’s no significant action on our constitution. After the way the alternative flag selection was politicised and argued I think a constitution would be too complex and contentious for us.

Newstalk ZB has asked What would a Republic of New Zealand look like?

Recently, a number of Australian politicians urged the transition away from the tradition of the British monarch and towards becoming a Republic. Here in New Zealand, different parties are taking various positions: National want a new flag but without a new constitution, while Labour want to keep the current flag but with discussion on the Republican question.

So how is the campaign for a New Zealand Republic faring? Andrew Dickens is joined by Savage, chair of the Head of State NZ group.

The interview is here.

New Zealand Republic website

From Wikipedia:

In 2001, Green Party MP Keith Locke drafted a member’s bill named the Head of State Referenda Bill,[16] which was drawn from the members’ ballot on 14 October 2009. It would have brought about a referendum on the question of a New Zealand republic. Three choices would be put to the public:

  • A republic with direct election of the head of state;
  • A republic with indirect election of the head of state by a three-quarters majority Parliament; and
  • The status quo.

If no model gained a majority, a second run-off referendum would be held. If one of the two republican options were supported by the public, New Zealand would become a Parliamentary republic (as opposed to a presidential republic), with a head of state with the same powers to the Governor-General of New Zealand and serving for one five-year term. In May 2007, the Republican Movement agreed to support the bill to Select Committee stage. The Bill was defeated on 21 April 2010 68 – 53.

Poll from March 2014 by Curia Research, commissioned by New Zealand Republic.:

The question asked was What is your preference for New Zealand’s next Head of State out of the following three options?
1. The next British Monarch becomes King of New Zealand.
2. New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State elected by a two thirds majority in Parliament.
3. New Zealand has a New Zealander as Head of State who is elected by the popular vote.

  • Next Head of State British Monarch 477 46%

  • Appointed HoS 118 11%

  • Elected HoS 338 33%

  • Total HoS 456 44%

  • Unsure/refuse 105 10%



Turnbull on Key

New Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull praised John Key in some of his post-coup comments.

From Stuff in Tony Abbott rolled as Australian Prime Minister by Malcolm Turnbull:

Turnbull reserved special praise for New Zealand’s Prime Minister John Key.

“My firm belief is that to be a successful leader … you have to be able to bring people with you by respecting their intelligence in the manner you explain things,” Turnbull said.

“We’ve got some great leaders in Australia at state level but let me just point to one internationally, John Key, for example.

“John Key has been able to achieve very significant economic reforms in New Zealand by doing just that, by taking on and explaining complex issues and then making the case for them. And I, that is certainly something that I believe we should do and Julie and I are very keen to do that again.”

It sounds like Australian/New Zealand political relations should not be damaged by the leadership change.

However there is one minor difference. From 1993 to 2000 Turnbull was chairman of the Australian Republican Movement and was active in an unsuccessful 1999 referendum campaign to establish an Australian republic.

Key likes the Monarchy…

“I don’t think New Zealand should rush to become a republic. It may happen one day, but I can’t for the life of me see the benefits of it other than you get to spend a lot of money electing heads of state as opposed to the government appointing one.”

…and in 2009 restored knighthoods and damehoods to the New Zealand Honours system.

But this shouldn’t cause any tension between Turnbull and Key as monarchy versus republic is a domestic issue.

Will the royal tour influence the election?

I don’t see why it would, but some see it as yet another thing stacked against their election chances. Some typical comments on this at The Standard:


The only comment I would like to make about the visit by the Windsors is this. I understood a constitutional monarch was not allowed to get involved in politics. Black Rod and all that medieval crap. Why is it then they are opening the controversial Velodrome in Cambridge hosted by Wardell (he will get a knighthood for playing at life) where 80% of the ratepayers were against having rate payers money used to fund it, but the regional council aided and abetted by Keys pack of shits ignored what the ratepayers said and went ahead with it.

I think this sets a precedent, the Royals are being used politically by Key during an election year.


We knew that from the day it was announced they were coming.

But there were challenges to these views:


How are they being used politically? There are no conventions in New Zealand about royal visits in election year. Visits in 1981 and 2002 were both within 6 months of the elections in those years.

In 2002, the Queen visited Team New Zealand. Many on the Left and the Right had opposed funding for the Americas Cup. Was that the “royals being used politically” by the then Labour Government? No, of course not.


Labour has never been averse to the royal effect. Although Clark did break protocol and wear slacks to a dinner with the queen…

Felix Marwick, Chief Political Reporter at Newstalk ZB, sums up my views well in The Soap Box: Royal tour a complete waste… 

 A colossal waste of time, energy, and money. 

I’m sorry, as a Republican, I just can’t develop any enthusiasm or regard for the Royal Visit that kicks off in Wellington today and will run until the middle next week. 

Their Royal Highnesses, better known to the tabloid savvy as Wills and Kate along with their son Prince George, will be dominating the news agenda for the next 10 days as their rather mundane trip around the country will be breathlessly reported on 24 seven. 

Forgive me if I’m not terribly enthusiastic about any of this. 

I’ve never been enthusiastic about about royal visits. I doubt I would have been regardless but my view wasn’t helped by a Queen Mother visit while I was at school. I was part of a small town turnout (Cromwell) where we lined the main street with planned meet, greet and speeches.

But the motorcade was running a couple of hours late and didn’t have time to stop. I can’t even remember if we waited long enough for the cars to whiz by, I don’t remember actually seeing anything so I may have had to go to catch the school bus home.

And when we went to the ‘pictures’ we were supposed to stand for “God Save the Queen” at the start – not being in to gods or queens I always thought that was weird. As I got older it became a chance to defy authority (custom) by remaining seated.

But the thought of having to follow the scions of aristocratic privilege around the country as they partake in such earth shattering events as riding in jet boats, visiting a police college, and yachting on Auckland harbour, bores me to tears. 

The only reason any of this has any consequence whatsoever is because of who they are. Descendants of a royal lineage whose relevance to New Zealand lessens with every passing year. 

What do we really get out of this trip other than a hefty expenses bill that’ll no doubt run into the millions of dollars? 

Not a lot. Rich people look at stuff. And by the way they have a baby. There’s your headline. 

Look, I’m sure the royal couple are lovely people. And I have a certain sympathy for their life in a gilded cage, always under the microscope, and never being able to say anything controversial. Thought the trappings of wealth and aristocracy probably aren’t a bad compensation. 

But what, in the quantum of human affairs do they contribute to New Zealand other than represent a vestigial tie to our colonial past. Bar symbolism this visit is an expensive waste of time, has limited news value, and does little, if anything, for the country. 

My ancestors, and I know I’m not alone in this, came to New Zealand to get away from Britain’s oppressive class system. To escape the poverty trap that constrained those who were not of the right social class. So why are we celebrating and endorsing the royals when they represent the very system our great great grand parents escaped from? 

I’ve got nothing personal against the royals but they’re an expensive irrelevance and we really should be looking forwards, not backwards. 

If they want to visit, that’s fine. But let them carry the tab. I’m almost positive they can afford it.   

I know it’s not a waste of time for a sizable number of people who enjoy celebrity visits. But I don’t care about it, apart from the saturation of media coverage I’ll have to try and avoid.

Back to the original question – I see no reason whatsoever how this tour will influence the election that’s four and a half months away, except that it might give us a short reprieve from politicians electioneering, they may want to avoid making fools of themselves in the international media spotlight.

The danger of becoming a republic!

There’s a guest post today on Kiwiblog by Lewis Holden, Chair of the Republican Movement, who is obviously promoting ditching the monarchy and changing New Zealand to a republic.

Whenever this is discussed a reason against becoming a republic almost always comes up, like this from ‘hj’…

I worry under republicanism Keth Locke or Dame Howsyourfather will be head of state.

…or more commonly this from ‘Urban Redneck’:

Trade the Queen for Helen Klark as President and a “constitution” written by leftists and Maori separatists ?

There has been no serious indication anything like this would happen but it inevitably gets some agreement that we shouldn’t allow any chance of that happening.

But if we keep the monarchy something much worse could happen, for example…

There’s an even worse possibility. Charles may murder his mother and become king, force all Catholics into exile, send the Prime Minister to the Tower of London, and make subject nations including New Zealand take all of England’s Scot, Welsh and Muslim population as immigrants. Smoko would be renamed elevenses. And we would all have to play or support polo or soccer!

Admittedly this is not likely to happen but neither is the usual scaremongering about what a Republic may result in.  And whoever any head of state who was selected might be they would probably be as powerless as the current queen.



Time to ditch Queenie State

Peter Dunne tweeted:


NZ ceased to be a colony this day in 1907 – now 105 years later it is surely time to take the next independent step and become a republic.

Dominion Day.

Surely it is time for us to be an independent nation. Queenie State is past it’s use-by date.