The next step for the republic

Over on Public Address, Graeme Edgeler has some trenchent criticism of Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill, which was voted down last week. Graeme doesn't disagree with the aims of the bill, but rather argues that it was grossly legally flawed. And looking at his examples, he's right.

Most of those flaws stem from the bills ambition - it tried to do everything at once. In the process, it missed the enormous amount of finickity detail that needs to be changed if we are to move towards a republic. Some of the larger flaws may very well have been fixed by a select committee - but expecting them to do it all is a bit much (and, had the bill been voted to select committee, it would have been perfectly appropriate for them to say so).

So, what's the way forward then? Graeme suggests a select committee inquiry to do the groundwork, or perhaps a bill to establish a citizen's jury to discuss the issue and come up with a broad model. Another would be a bill for an indicative referendum, with a statutory inquiry to investigate any constitutional changes required to implement the result (and/or engage in further codification - something necessary even if the result is the status quo). Or bills to elect the head of state or codify the reserve powers, or remove the royal assent, allowing those issues to be worked out separately and giving us a more democratic New Zealand regardless.

What the issue really needs of course is a Royal Commission, similar to that used for electoral reform in the mid-80's. But irony aside, that would require positive action by the government, something which successive governments have shown no interest in (while all of course proclaiming that a republic is "inevitable").

New Zealand constitutional change has traditionally been progressed in a piecemeal, evolutionary fashion. And that's now probably the way to a republic. Not as satisfying as a "big bang", and hard work - but much more likely to be successful.

Voting down the republic

Tonight, the New Zealand Parliament debated a republic for the first time, in the form of Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill. The bill would have established a process by which the people of New Zealand could have their say on our constitutional future, through a two-stage referendum process. Unfortunately, Parliament voted it down, 68 - 53.

The debate is up on In the House. There are some good speeches there, on how a republic would better reflect our national identity as a diverse, egalitarian, democratic nation, on how the monarchy is discriminatory and does not accord with New Zealand values, and on how the people should be allowed to have their say. And then there are the speeches from National MPs, who were whipped into opposing the bill, and whose best argument against it was that a debate on the republic would be a distraction from the issues they wanted to talk about. But to put it bluntly, that is not their decision to make. The constitution belongs to the people, not to MPs, and they should be enabling us to discuss it. By standing in the way of such a discussion, the National party has marked itself as opposed to democracy. But then, we already knew that, didn't we?

While the bill was defeated tonight, the issue is not going to go away. Its an issue of identity, about who we are as a nation, and thus a generational issue. Pretty much every young MP who entered the House last election was a republican, and that trend is only going to get stronger. Its been a long time since New Zealanders were raised on imperialism, longer still since we thought of Britain as "home" or ourselves as British. The generations who believe those things are withering and dying by the day, and their toxic memes are dying with them. The only question is how long their dead hands will maintain a death grip on our future.

Inconsistent

The Attorney-General has just tabled a report in parliament declaring Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

I have not seen the report itself yet, but I have been told that the problem is with s32 of the bill, which requires that

The referendum roll used for the second referendum must be the same as that used for the first referendum, without any updating or modification.

This is clearly inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed in the BORA, and I'm surprised Locke put it in. At the same time, its also easily fixable - just delete the clause. And if the bill makes it to select committee, I'd expect them to do just that.

Update: The report is up here [PDF]. I was wrong - it doesn't focus on the right to vote (which, as I should have remembered, is narrowly focused on general elections), but instead on the right to be free of discrimination. By requiring that the rolls be identical, the bill discriminates against those who turn 18 between the two referenda on the basis of their age. Interestingly, the report highlights Article 25 of the ICCPR in stressing the disadvantage caused - which is odd given that the Attorney-General completely ignored it in the case of ECan.

Member's Day?

Today is a member's Day, assuming the government doesn't pull urgency to squash it. And thanks to the new sessional order expanding the ballot, it looks like there's some real business to debate.

First up is Paul Quinn's execrable Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, which would strip anyone in jail of the vote (currently only those serving a sentence of three or more years - i.e. those whose jail term means they will miss an election if it was served in full - are denied the vote). The Attorney-General has declared that this bill violates the Bill of Rights Act, so it will be interesting to see whether he, and the rest of National, vote for it or give it the shredding it deserves.

Second there is Tau Henare's bill on requiring a secret ballot for strikes. The unions all support this (since they do it anyway), and I expect it to go to committee without any controversy.

Thirdly, there is Roger Douglas' futile tilt at the windmill of restoring youth rates. National have already said they'll vote against this, so if they keep their word, it is going down. Meanwhile, I'm struck by the inconsistency between ACT's forceful "one law for all" rhetoric on the topic of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the House yesterday, and this bill. "One law for all - except for young people"? Just another example of ACT's deep hypocrisy on human rights, I think.

Finally, if all goes well, we might finally get to start debating the most important member's bill of the term: Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill. This will be the first time the New Zealand Parliament has formally debated republicanism, and it will not be the last. Now the discussion has been opened, the topic is not going to go away. The bill is highly unlikely to be voted on tonight, but Keith will probably get his opening speech in. Tune in around 9:45 to see.

Debating the republic

Next month, Parliament will debate the issue of a New Zealand republic for the first time, when Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill comes before the House. But the republican movement isn't just leaving it up to the politicians: they've organised a series of debates around the country to take the issue to the people:

Debates will be held in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, New Zealand's three main centres:

• 11 March - Canterbury University
• 15 March - Victoria University of Wellington
• 24 March - Auckland University

"A republic is a chance to improve our democratic traditions. We want to empower ordinary New Zealanders and remind our elected representatives that power comes from the people, not from Buckingham Palace. That's exactly why the Republican Movement encourages as many New Zealanders to engage in the debate as possible" concluded Mr Holden.

(Links added)

Show up, hear the issue, and then let your MP know about it.

National fights the future

John Key has announced that National will oppose Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill. This doesn't mean the bill will fail - National only has 58 votes out of 122 - but things just got a lot tougher. Now in order to get to select committee so the people can have their say, Locke will have to gain the backing of every other party in Parliament. That's not inconceivable (United Future already supports the bill) - but its a very big ask.

With this decision National has shown its true colours. The party of the past is attempting to strangle our future. But then, this is the party which restored feudal honours so its business backers could ape a foreign aristocracy and try and lord it over the rest of us. And I guess there's a few people in National still hoping to join that club before we close the doors on it forever.

The bill may very well be defeated. But if that happens, it will simply go back into the ballot next year. Like electoral reform in the early 90's, this issue is not going to go away. And it will keep being raised until Parliament finally allows us to discuss it properly.

The Dom-Post on the republic

In an editorial today, the Dominion-Post says that it is time to test the waters on the republic:

Green list MP Keith Locke has finally had his Head of State Referenda Bill, which he has waited seven years to have pulled from the members' ballot, selected for debate by Parliament. It is to be hoped MPs will allow it to reach a select committee, so that those who feel strongly about retaining links with the British monarchy or electing a president as head of state can have their say.

Mr Locke believes strong arguments exist for change, "not least that we are now a confident, independent nation in the South Pacific. Having a head of state in Britain does not match who we are in the 21st century". Monarchists disagree. They feel respect for Prince William's granny, a woman who has dedicated her entire life to duty, unlike some of her offspring, and great affection for Charles' and Diana's elder son. Ad Feedback

Though Parliament last considered our constitutional arrangements via a select committee inquiry only in 2005, it can do no harm to discuss it again.

Sending the bill to select committee will let Parliament have a good look at the prospects for a shift to a republic. More importantly, it will let the people have their say through the submissions process. On a serious constitutional issue such as this, Parliament should recognise that the constitution belongs to the people, and give us the opportunity to discuss it. If the government, which seems to be the main obstacle, thinks this bill is the wrong mechanism for doing so, then it should propose and provide an alternative. I'm sure republicans would be happy to have a Royal Commission investigate the issue, as was done for electoral reform. But even that is probably too much for National's anti-democratic monarchists.

Support for the republic

The Dominion-Post repots that Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill almost has the numbers to get to select committee:

A bill for a referendum on New Zealand becoming a republic will go close to passing its first reading in Parliament, with high profile Kiwis set to support it.

It is understood Green MP Keith Locke's bill, which is expected to reach Parliament in March, will have enough support that only two National or ACT Party MPs will have to add their backing for it to pass.

This is good news - this is an important bill which deserves a select committee hearing. But it would be better news if it actually had the numbers. So, I guess its time to start lobbying National and ACT MPs...

[Hat-tip: New Zealand Republic]

Drawn: the Republic

A ballot for member's bills was held today, and the following bill was drawn:

• Head of State Referenda Bill (Keith Locke)

So, we get to have the debate. It will be interesting to see which way people will jump.

There were only two new bills in the ballot this week: John Boscawen's KiwiSaver (Contribution Flexibility) Amendment Bill and Raymond Huo's Local Government (Auckland Council) (Asian Advisory Board) Amendment Bill. While the Greens and ACT are continuing to make full use of their ballot slots, National and Labour continued to underuse theirs, with only 5 and 13 bills (out of a possible 35 and 43) respectively.

The full list of bills is on Red Alert here.

Supporting the Head of State (Referenda) Bill

Keith Locke's Head of State (Referenda) Bill hasn't been drawn from the ballot yet - but its supporters are preparing just in case. They now have a website here with information on our current constitutional system and why we might want to change it. It's well worth a look.

The only question is why I'm hearing about this via OzPolitics, rather than a local source.

Electing the Governor-General?

In a Herald column last week, Colin James explored the possibility of electing the Governor-General. Like The Holden Republic, I am of two minds about this. My natural preference is for election, but generally you have elections when you want the holder of a position to be accountable to the public for their performance. Which implies that there is something they can be held accountable for. Given that the Governor-General is an almost entirely ceremonial position whose actions are almost completely dictated to it by our elected government, election seems constitutionally pointless, and may even result in a Governor-General trying to do things (such as, say, vetoing legislation - or worse, governments - which isn't really their job) on the grounds that they have an electoral mandate.

And OTOH, as Lewis points out, it works perfectly well for the Irish. They have an elected President who is essentially a "twink" Governor-General. So it essentially all comes down to political culture, and whether we would be able to establish one of Governors-General (or Presidents) who were neutral and impartial, as in Ireland.

Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill [PDF] includes an option for direct election of the Governor-General. I guess we just have to hope that it gets drawn from the ballot.

More on the republic debate

The Holden Republic has a detailed analysis of Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill [PDF], which is currently in the ballot. The bill sets out a process for moving to a republic, involving a series of referenda to decide between the status quo, a directly elected head of state, or one elected by Parliament. Its biggest flaw is that it does not propose enough change - it is effectively aimed at introducing a "twink" republic, where the monarchy and Governor-General are simply twinked out and replaced by the head of state. I think that there are probably better options than this, and that the move to a republic also allows other constitutional changes to be made (such as limiting the power of Parliament with a justicable Bill of Rights Act, and possibly a more general "written constitution").

If this bill was drawn from the ballot, I'd want to see entrenchment of both the clauses governing the head of state's election and the Treaty clause (which states simply that "the rights conferred and obligations imposed by the Treaty of Waitangi continue as if this Act had not been passed" - a good compromise which recognises that the Treaty means something, but also recognises that exactly what it means is outside the scope of the bill). I'd also want to see an option for a Swedish style republic, along with some sort of push to codify exactly what powers the head of state holds (which would require seperate legislation). But like Lewis, I think that the bill is a good start, and as a picture of the simplest option available is a valuable contribution to the debate.