I WANT TO BREAK FREE

When is New Zealand going to get rid of this silly attachment to the British monarchy?

Sure, she's (theoretically) British, from which 80% of New Zealanders still claim their ancestry. Culturally, there is some merit in keeping ties to the monarchy by way of that heritage, but no-one can doubt that Her Majesty places her role as NZ head of state at a very low priority. A head of state is supposed to represent the country they oversee. Queen Liz barely represents Britain properly, let alone us. We need to get rid of this ridiculous institution now.

Many people have claimed that getting rid of the monarchy creates constitutional "issues", especially with the Treaty of Waitangi. This is bollocks. The Windsors (or Hannover-Mountbatten-Saxe-Coburg-Gothas) are not sovereign over New Zealand by way of their grip on the British throne, but by a simple act of the New Zealand Parliament. The title of King or Queen of New Zealand is a separate legal concept. Hence "the Crown" is fixed upon whoever Parliament determines to be the New Zealand head of state, not the British King or Queen.

So Parliament can simply replace the Queen anytime they want. What then should they put in the monarchy's place?

There are several models, none terribly satisfactory, and nearly all involving the dreaded title of President, which I loathe. A New Zealand President sounds about as silly as an American King. And neither the Irish model of election (too political, especially in a New Zealand context) nor the German model of appointment (not democratic enough) seem right for us. Ideally, the setup for our head of state should mimic our current setup. So here is my proposal:

- New Zealand should have a Sovereign. They would not be called King or Queen, however. If, for example, the Sovereign was the current Governor General, she would still be formally addressed as Her Excellency, Dame Sylvia Cartwright, Sovereign of New Zealand; or the New Zealand Sovereign, Dame Sylvia Cartwright; etc.

- The Sovereign would be appointed as follows: A single candidate should be nominated by a two-thirds vote of Parliament, following public Select Committee consideration of independent submissions. The People would then be asked to confirm the proposed Sovereign by ballot. If, however, more than 33.33% of the ballot blackballs the candidate, Parliament must propose someone else. The Sovereign needs to be someone whom most New Zealanders are able to rally around and identify with, hence the high thresholds. The Speaker of the House would be the acting Sovereign until a new Sovereign was confirmed.

- The Sovereign's term of office should be indefinite, ending upon either death or retirement. This not only adds gravitas to the office, but allows the Sovereign to establish themselves as an internationally recognised representative of the New Zealand People. It should, however, be possible to retest the Sovereign's mandate, calling a new ballot either through a significant petition (say 5% of the electorate), or a simple majority vote of Parliament. But this, ideally would only be a necessary measure if the Sovereign has disgraced themselves in some way (if only we could get rid of Prince Phillip like this!).

- The Sovereign should have formal and ultimate (if rarely used) powers concerning the New Zealand Constitution ie. dissolution of Parliament and the calling of elections, ultimate interventive control over the police and armed forces, power to call referenda, and possibly some powers to delay controversial and unpopular legislation, perhaps even by calling a referendum on it. Basically, they should have enough power to make sure that the government don't violate the constitution, and/or act like malevolent undemocratic fascist arseholes (y'know... like they normally do).

Hopefully you won't dismiss this as the complete pile of tosh it may initially seem, think about it a bit, and realise that it probably makes sense.

--Elder Bob