by Keith Locke
Prime Minister Key said this morning he was “not uncomfortable” with a suggestion that he was leading Commonwealth discussions on ending discrimination in the laws of royal succession.
He implied he is more likely to get agreement to remove discrimination based on gender (that is, the current preference for male heirs) than discrimination based on religion (that is, the prohibition on Catholic heirs, or those who marry a Catholic).
The reason is that the British government is reluctant to allow Catholic heirs because the monarch is automatically head of the British Anglican Church.
Rather than give way on this, our government could draft legislation removing all discrimination in succession rules based on gender and religion. It would challenge the British government, but this would be a good thing. There’s no way a Bill that didn’t allow an heir to be a Catholic would be acceptable to the New Zealand people – or consistent with our Bill of Rights and Human Rights Act.
Published in Society & Culture by Keith Locke on Tue, May 10th, 2011
Tags: anglicans, catholics, commonwealth, head of church, Monarchy, royal succession, royals
More posts by Keith Locke | more about Keith Locke
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
But he or she will still be a Head of State living in the most distant part of the world from us, and with no connection to New Zealand society, and gaining the position by inheritance.
Surely we should just dump this whole colonial anachronism and democratically elect our own Head of State.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Toad, I agree completely…but wait… who would that be?
Anyone who wants the job should by definition be disqualified, certified and put away on a lonely island.
Nah I think I’d rather stick with the dotty Poms/Krauts than some other megalomaniac.
Queenie a-la blackadder gets my vote!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So maybe we should have random ballot of all citizens.
A P-dealer from Wainuimata might win. But equally likely is a booze baron from Remuera, a DPB mum from Glen Eden, a property developer from Naenae, or someone on the dole from Bexley (courtesy of the earthquake).
After all, if it is only a ceremonial position, who cares who holds it.
But, as the Australian experience suggests, it is not just a ceremonial position.
So why should someone who is not even a citizen of New Zealand be our Head of State.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Charles for Pope!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They really have to cut the direct link between the Church of England and Crown office.
That can be done most simply by making the senior Anglican in the royal family titular head of the church (after all the AB of Canterbury is in charge not the Queen).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The problem there is that an elected President would be from a political party, and they might be more inclined to support the party. For instance, I doubt that if John Key passed an act establishing a permanent National Party dictatorship that the current Governor-General would sign it, but a President with a National Party background would.
Of course, you would suggest that a Constitution would fix that, and whilst I agree, the most solid Constitutions have been written at the time of indepedence or after a major revolution when everyone is in agreement. If New Zealand were to try and devise a Constitution now, there would be fights between National and Labour as to what should be included, with each party trying to make political gain.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Excuse me mixing quotes.
I like the idea of head of state, an extremely powerful position that can block legislation, being selected unelected.
The role of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy is to protect the people from the government. It is very responsible and if you elect the head of state they are part of the government and owe there mandate to the same majoratarian forces that can so easily rip us apart.
Avoiding falling foul of Goodwin’s law I’ll suggest that if the Soviets had been given a chance in 1935 Stalin would have been elected in a landslide. Elected sherriffs in the USA aided and abetted the KKK. Democracies, as we implement them, are very dangerous things and we could do with a bit less of “majority takes all” elections and decision making.
I am happy to look for alternatives, but not, please not, and elected president.
That said if we could achieve true democracy I would be all for that. Then there would be no need for a state to be head of. Till then let’s not use majoriterian elections for every role.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sounds like ‘Sir John’ is in his element here.. hob-nobbing with the monachists & blue-bloods.
I for one say its time to move on & ditch this out-dated institution.. “Viva the REPUBLIC of Aotearoa !!”
Kia-ora
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Interesting Keith but “God ” forbid what if the heir was a Buddist Hindu Muslim etc??? That indeed would be very interesting and put the cat among the pigeons so to speak.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)