Keep our Governor General and the Crown he represents or scrap the Crown for an elected ceremonial politician?

Why do we have to have an "elected ceremonial politician"?

The crown WAS ok, but in recent years it has shown how politicised it has become. The British monarchy is just a rubber stamp for the ridiculous policies of the current prime minister.

I say it is time we got rid of our UNELECTED governor general, the British monarch as "head of state" AND any elected ceremonial politicians.

We should be looking at massively decreasing "the powers that be", not increasing them. NZ, going by its population, is top heavy with politicians and bureaucrats. We would save heaps of money if we got rid of 70% of them.

The difference between a social welfare beneficiary and a public trough feeding politician or government (central or local in both cases) bureaucrat is that the "snout in the public trough" politician or bureaucrat actually thinks that they are better than the social welfare beneficiary and demands 10 times the amount of public money.

I certainly agree that we need to scrap large amounts of bureaucracy and political bagage, but our monarchical government doesn't have to pay the price. There needs to be more accountability and veto in our system aided by our Crown government. If we are to maintain the monarchy I think we do need to consider an elected Governor General; the representative of the Crown (which acts on behalf of the people) should be appointed by exactly that; the people.

A Presidential republic would be ghastly. The President is always a fatcat puppet of the bureaucratic government. Semi-presidential, Parliamentary and non-executive political heads of state are always the same news.

What New Zealand needs is a representative of the Monarch (and thus the people) that isn't the honourary seat for an ex-Cabinet Minister etc
We need a professional, non-partisan, honourary citizen with a dedication to attacking unnecesary use of power and to Her Majesty the Queen and people of New Zealand.

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.

Interesting stuff Bruce. You'r right we need a constitution. Our parliment certainly need reigning in!

Also hi Noachian, please keep posting its always great to have someone new here. Good topic too.