Knights and Dames and Head of State change

The debate over whether to have titular honours is ongoing but New Zealand first needs to change the way we select and appoint our Head of State. We need to decide what values and principles should guide our most important constitional office.   

New Zealand has an honours system that the majority of New Zealanders appreciate and value. Within that system there are numerous awards according to a person's contribution and work. The recipients are chosen by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and bestowed by the Governor-General. Occasionally they are bestowed by Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles. Knighthoods and Damehoods are seen as the most prestigious after membership of the Order of New Zealand which is limited to 20 people at any one time.      

The awards have their origins in the British class system which ranks people and bestows aristocratic titles on them.  They are imbued with all of the prejudices and biases of that system. They are inherently sexist.  Only married heterosexual men are entitled to bestow a title on their partner.  The wife of a 'Knight' receives the title of 'Lady'. The husband of a 'Dame' receives no corresponding title. If a man is married to a man then his husband receives no honour. Likewise the wife of a Dame. It is one of the last places in New Zealand where discrimination is condoned and institutionalised.

If New Zealand is to have titled honours what would they be? The current titles bestowed imply that the recipient has a higher social value than everyone else because they have affiliated themselves with the British monarchy. The awarding of the titles are subject to political bias and too often titles are given out to people with party affiliations without any proper public scrutiny. There is no properly independent process or criteria for awarding them. Some people are awarded them for a lifetime of public service. Others get them because they did their job well or won a major sporting event or raised a lot of money for whatever political party is in power.  

Australia now looks set to remove titular honours with both the Liberal Party and Labour Party leaders speaking in favour of it.  It is a clear rejection of Tony Abbott's decision to reinstate them and then award a knighthood to Prince Phillip. 

John Key reinstated titular honours after Labour removed them. Neither decision involved any real public consultation. The cabinet then gave Prince Phillip Additional Membership of the Order of New Zealand. 

The sexist nature of the honours system and the way in which the titles are decided are part of a larger conversation that we need to have as a country. That conversation, like the flag issue, is not dependent on having first changed the way we choose our Head of State but it makes sense to start with that primary issue.  

Sexist titles could be removed overnight if the government chose to prioritise equal rights but doing so would only raise larger questions about how we honour worthy New Zealanders when our Head of State is itself not chosen by merit.

Transitioning to a Kiwi head of state based on the Office of Governor-General is a straight-forward way to solve the problems inherent in having the British monarch as Head of State.

This new Head of State would still bestow national honours. Whether they would have a greater role in overseeing the awarding of the honours or whether a larger review of the entire honours system is needed would be something for the proposed Head of State Commission to decide or recommend.

We are first campaigning for that central and most important change. The establishment of a Head of State Commission and the overall transition to a merit based system of appointment.

The Queen's milestone: Time to look to the future

Queen Elizabeth has reached a milstone and is now the longest reigning British Head of State. Since 1952 she has also been New Zealand's Head of State.

Her reign is drawing to a close and will most likely end within the next ten years. King Charles will become our next head of state unless we are ready to make the transition to an independent New Zealand Head of State. Like his mother, Charles will be unable to do the job we need a head of state to do.

A head of state in a parliamentary democracy like New Zealand represents the continuity of the state and authority of constitutional law. The person in the role must act according to the constitutional conventions and powers given to them under New Zealand law. Theymust symbolise New Zealand both here and overseas.

The practical aspects of the role is carried out here by the Governor-General. It is not their role to participate in parliamentary politics or to assert their own view on matters to be decided by parliament or by voters. That is why it is very rare for any head of state to comment publically on any issue. They act as directed to by the government of the day. If they stray from this convention they are swiftly bought back into line.

Queen Elizabeth has veto powers in the UK and the extent to which she has used them or influenced policy behind the scenes is unknowable. The UK monarchy is shrouded in secrecy and resist attempts to make their roles more transparent.

Here in New Zealand we have had New Zealand appointed Governors-General since 1967. Sir Jerry Mateparae is our 10th. These New Zealanders have maintained the mana of the role and set the tone for all future office holders. That is why we are advocating changing to a head of state modelled on the role of Governor-General.

To make this happen will take time and it is important that we are ready to do so. New Zealand's head of state should be a New Zealander. They should be democratically selected and independent. They should act, as the Governor-General does, to safeguard our constitutional conventions but they should also be protected from any attemnpt by the Prime Minister to dismiss them. Only parliament, on behalf of the people, should have that power.

It is a straight-forward solution to the problems inherent in having a foreign head of state.

The Flag Panel's Final Four Flags

The final four flag designs to be voted on in the first referendum have been announced. Whether any of them will have enough support to become our new flag remains to be seen.

This week's Herald digi-poll showed the final result will be heavily dependent on what the alternative flag is. A quarter of voters will only tick change if they like the alternative on offer.

The flag debate so far has centred on six issues. Whether the current flag is appropriate, whether a new flag dishonours war dead, the reason for the change, the consultation process, the overall cost, and of course what counts as a good design.

The current flag is problematic. It has another country's flag on it and speaks of a time when there was no such thing as New Zealand citizenship. The fact that many New Zealanders have British heritage and that New Zealand was once a British colony is no reason to have their flag on ours. We will always have strong ties to the UK and we choosing a new flag will not diminish that.

The idea that changing the flag is disrespectful to our war dead is highly emotive but it is not a strong one. It is disappointing to see both sides of the debate using war graves to try and sway public opinion. It is an argument not worthy of the RSA.

The timing and reasons for the debate have been hotly debated. There was no full cross-party parliamentary support for the change process. It became caught up in party politics early on and there was a sense that, as a national identity issue, it was low on the list of priorities. Public support for change was not seen as high enough to warrant the cost. A smaller panel of flag and design experts was suggested instead of a 12 person 'cross-section' of New Zealanders. The use of two postal referendums was also criticised.

New Zealand Republic supports flag change if that is what Kiwi voters decide. The flag is about national identity and symbolism whereas we are focused far more on constitutional issues.  Our priority will always be achieving a New Zealand Head of State that works for all New Zealand. While this is, in part, an issue of national identity the role is primarily a constitutional and administrative office with specific powers and responsibilities.

It takes time to reform an important constiutional office like that of the Governor-General and we are advocating a calm, considered. and long-term process of change that will deliver successive worthy New Zealanders into the role.

The flag debate had to happen sooner or later and the National-led cabinet decided it was going to happen sooner.  It is important that New Zealand take the time to think about and discuss issues of national identity and constitutional reform. We are watching the debate with interest and drawing important lessons on how these types of changes unfold.

The debate now shifts toward the merits of each alternative design. We have no preference among the four designs. It is up to New Zealanders to decide whether any of them are enough of an improvement on our current flag.  

The long list of flags - from New Zealand

New Zealanders of all persuasions will be now be looking at the long list of potential flag designs to see if any designs catch their eye.  None of the flags feature the British flag although several feature either the Southern Cross or Matariki.  Several use the same red, white and blue colours of the current flag.

In an open letter to the public the flag consideration panel has stated "A potential new flag should unmistakably be from New Zealand and celebrate us as a progressive, inclusive nation that is connected to its environment, and has a sense of its past and a vision for its future".

If we apply this same ethos to the Head of State discussion it is expresses many of the central tenets of our campaign. We need a New Zealander in the role. Someone clearly from, and of, New Zealand. The role needs to be inclusive. It must carry on the traditions of the past but look to the future.

That is why we want to use the role and office Governor-General as the basis for change. That is why we want a New Zealander and only a New Zealander in the role. We want an effective and democratic Head of State. One that works for all of us.

The flag debate is part of a widening discussion around New Zealand's national identity and sense of nationhood that now includes the national anthem, the flag and New Zealand's Head of State.   For us the Head of State is the main prize but we also support a new flag if that is what New Zealanders decide. Time will tell if any of the 40 designs has what it takes to go the distance.

Momentum builds across Tasman

Bill Shorten, leader of the Australian Labor Party, has pledged his party's support for an Australian republic and an Australian Head of State within ten years. Speaking at the party's annual conference Mr Shorten said "Let us make this the first decade where our head of state is one of us". You can read more at the Sydney Morning Herald website.

The New Zealand Labour Party has already committed to holding a referendum on New Zealand's Head of State but have not committed to a timeline.

While this issue is important in both countries it is also important that it does not become associated with just one political party. Support for a New Zealand Head of State exists across the political spectrum and, as the current flag debate has demonstrated, it inhibits public debate if a constiutional or national identity issue becomes too closely associated with one party or one party's leader.

You can visit Australian Republic's website here.

The Captain and the General

Our Governor-General, His Excellency Lieutenant General the Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae was formerly the Head of the New Zealand Defence Force.  Prince Henry Mountbatten-Windsor (aka Prince Harry) is a Captain in the British Army.

The Governor-General is a New Zealander with a proud whakapapa who has served New Zealand for over 40 years. He was given the role of Governor-General in recognition of his long and meritorious service to New Zealand. Prince Harry is visiting New Zealand for the first time.

Our Governor-General does all the work of a Head of State but the British Monarch is still the symbolic Head of State. It is an arrangement of little practical, or symbolic, use to New Zealanders. Prince Harry is touted as 'fifth in line' to the throne but it is not a privilege he earned. He has never shown any particular interest in New Zealand until now.

Everyone who meets the Prince is impressed by his friendly and relaxed demeanor. He is, by all accounts, "a nice guy". Irrespective of his personal qualities and his work as a cultural leader in the UK, however, he is not a New Zealander. To talk of him as somehow being 'in line' for New Zealand's highest constitutional office exemplifies why we need to shift to a having a 100% New Zealand Head of State.

When he visits Linton as part of his seven-day visit and learns Tu Taua a Tumatauenga, the New Zealand Army Haka, Prince Harry will gain a small insight into what it means to be a New Zealander.  It is a haka that Sir Jerry Mateparae doesn't need to be taught.

In a few days time Prince Harry will leave New Zealand. No doubt he will have enjoyed his time here. Royal watchers will have enjoyed seeing him in person and Tourism New Zealand will be doing what they can to leverage as much publicity as they can from his visit. Meanwhile Sir Jerry will carry on being 'almost, but not quite' our Head of State.

It is time we recognised the reality of New Zealand in the 21st century. It is time for the Office of Governor-General to become the fully independent and democratically selected role that New Zealand needs it to be.