In a way, I wonder if Jordan and Winston have painted themselves into a corner on the issue of the proposed changes being put to a referendum.
It was clear to me campaigning for MMP that the public doesn't like the horse-trading encouraged by the one-seat rule, or the patent unfairness of the results this creates, especially thanks to NZ First failing to make it back into Parliament in 2008 while the Act Party had fewer votes than them. Interestingly those most vehement in their view the threshold should be lowered tended to support minor parties such as NZ First...
I think it's most likely that if the Electoral Commissions proposals are put to a vote at the next general election (which I think is a good thing) they would succeed. Given the choice between the faults of MMP 1.0 and the thinking behind MMP 2.0 it's not hard to guess how the public will vote.
Really? I memorised the list too*, and I'm a republican.
Radio NZ's coverage this morning was revealing. Their journalist estimated only 1 in 8 commuters who'd heard of the engagement cared about it, although a couple were vehement in their support for the monarchy. Story of my life...
That pretty much sums up New Zealanders view on the monarchy, I think: ambivalent, with some staunch supporters making very loud public announcements of support.
*the one that excludes Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England, of course.
Luckily there's a sunset clause (s17). I'd be happier if there was a super-majority requirement to repeal that.
Lewis, you may be right legally, but I believe politically Mrs Skin is correct - the issues are inextricable.
Sure, I freely accept that there's a significant "symbolic" aspect to the monarchy. There will need to be some work done in ensuring the Treaty is untouched. But that's it.
Mike Moore may be on the right track about conducting the various changes as a long but integrated process.
But that's the problem. Each of these issues aren't "integrated", they can be dealt with separately.
How, exactly, can the Treaty be separated from the republic question? I would say they are inextricably bound.
But that's just the thing though Mrs Skin - they're not.
The Crown in 1840 that made the Treaty with Maori iwi was the British Crown. As part of New Zealand's constitutional evolution, the Crown became the Crown in Right of New Zealand with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947. In other words "the Crown" has actually morphed once before, the obligations that the British Crown had with respect to New Zealand transferred to the new entity.
The issue Graeme raises is that Keith's Bill appears to not actually enact the handover from the Crown in Right of New Zealand to the new head of state.
The Maori Party got a constitutional review as part of it's confidence and supply agreement
It's not started yet.
Why would you want a debate with the Monarchist League, or monarchists generally?
We try and avoid it - but they do represent a legitimate viewpoint nonetheless.
We are not going to have a republic when you convince the monarchists it's a good idea, we're going to have a republic when you convince everyone else it's a good idea.
Absolutely. The HoS Bill would've helped in that regard, irrespective of its flaws. That's why the monarchists campaigned to kill it - there was no analysis of the depth you've produced Graeme. Must be a Vic Law School thing eh :-)
Matthew - I never whinge!
When republicans are serious about having a real debate, they'll come up with a non-stupid process actually worth engaging in. If they're not going to take themselves seriously by pushing a bill that flawed, I don't see why anyone else should take them seriously.
We are serious about having a debate. The side avoiding the debate here are the monarchists.
But we've never had a proper discussion about the issues at any level, apart from a few speeches and an odd committee looking at unrelated matters.
That's the reason why the Republican Movement made the decision to support the Bill to Select Committee. Sure, the Bill was flawed. But even if it was voted down at its second reading because its flaws are highlighted, that is better than parliament simply dumping it at first reading, much like the 99 MP Bill NZ First put forward, which was totally unworkable and thanks to overhangs would've negated its original intent.
This blog demonstrates the importance of this Bill to the debate. It's clear that the issue requires more thought and a formal consideration by an independent body. That is now the direction we're moving in.
voter turnout in CA elections is crap, especially for off year ones (makes it even easier to play this game)
It is, but it's still better than most of the US - (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm).
Elections should be fought on ideas - not with voter suppression tricks
I still fail to see how this is a "suppression" trick. In 1999 a CIR on the number of seats in Parliament passed overwhelmingly, even though Labour said they were opposed to cutting the number of MPs. It hardly caused any suppression of the centre-left vote, even though the major parties of the left opposed it.
Sorry, missing "on" in "petition on the Employment Relations Act"