That's fine. But the British monarch has NEVER represented the people.

Prior to the English civil war of 1642 (might not have the exact date, but it was definitely 1640 something) Charles I had the "absolute power of kings", after his defeat a "constitutional monarchy" (which is rather strange wording as England - despite what they will claim - does not have a constitution)) was declared and then after his second defeat the monarchy was actually abolished (in, I think, around 1649 or 50) then for some strange reason the monarchy was restored in 1660 with the "understanding" that the monarch would play a ceremonial role and the country would be "run" by the parliament.

Now this is where the people were cheated, badly, I think. The "absolute power of kings" that did exist prior to this was believed to be transferred to be "the absolute power of parliament".

So where does this leave the people? They went from the dictatorship of the monarch to the dictatorship of parliament.

There are only three countries in the world that do not have a constitution. They are UK, Israel and New Zealand. What does that tell you? I think it says that we do not "need" a constitution because we are not truly a democracy, we are ruled by our parliament.

I remember reading something about this when Helen Clark first became PM and started forcing her agenda despite what the people wanted. Apparently she was able to do this because the "absolute power of kings" had been transferred to the English parliament, and the "ruling" of this country was originally by the English parliament and their "absolute power of parliament" which is now the "absolute power of the NZ parliament". This is why Helen Clark was jokingly referred to as "queen Helen".

This is how any PM is able to totally ignore overwhelming public statements and "rule" that "parliament's view" is supreme. I do remember some years ago questioning a decision that Margaret Wilson (when she was attorney general) had made and her answer was "of course I have the power to over-rule the human rights act". That's very much like a king delegating authority to one of his courtiers to burn a village in medieval times. Nothing has changed.

So why should the people of NZ elect a "governor general" who would have supreme powers - powers to ignore what the people wanted and do what they thought was best?

What NZ needs above all else is a constitution (one written by the people, not by parliament or a group of greedy bureaucrats). Then if we had a president the people must retain the power to "reign him in" if he goes against the people. No "executive orders" rubbish, like in America.

I don't think we need a representative of a foreign queen. Particularly one who slavishly goes around "rubber stamping" government policy and making the most obsequious, idiotic, politically correct "queen's speeches" imaginable.

At best the British royal family is a tool for bringing in tourist dollars to Britain and fodder for providing material for tabloid gossip colums. Britain should keep hold of their monarchy for those reasons alone (it must be worth a fortune in tourist dollars) but I can think of no good reason for us to retain the queen as head of state.