A spoilt, petty, self-pitying, meddling plonker for a king.

Prince Charles wants to be an activist king, claims a new book, Charles: The Heart of a King by Catherine Mayer. The book describes an intemperate fool whose court is so dysfunctional and riven with petty rivalries that the author compares it to Henry VIII's as described in the Hilary Mantel book Wolf Hall. 

Charles is strongly partisan in his political views and has meddled in public issues as broad as British architecture and climate change. The fact that he knows little about the topics he pronounces on does not seem to deter him. It is obvious that he has little understanding of the modern constitutional role of the monarch, which his mother has defined and so ably maintained for six decades. That role is primarily one of political neutrality. The monarch is meant to sit above the hurly-burly of political debate and only act on the advice of her ministers in whom Parliament has confidence.

I've made no secret in previous posts that I am a republican. It galls me that the role of New Zealand's head of state is handed down as an inheritance in a family that lives on the other side of the world. However, I do appreciate the superb job that Queen Elizabeth II has done in the role. She is a constant in an ever-changing world and undoubtedly a factor in maintaining the peaceful, stable, relatively prosperous, democratic nation that is New Zealand. You get the impression that she never says or does anything that is not carefully considered. 

Charles could not be more different in style to his mother and just as Queen Elizabeth has been a force for stability in her realm, Charles's ill-considered, confrontational meddling will be very destabilising. The only positive thing that is likely to come out of his reign is the end of the monarchy itself. Kevin Maguire, associate editor of the Daily Mirror summed him up beautifully as "Spoilt, petty, self-pitying, meddling and a plonker – Prince Charles is a gift … for republicans.”

Charles is an idiot, but for a republican like me, he might prove to be a useful idiot.

Secret process is no way to select a head of state

Jerry Mateparae has been chosen as New Zealand's next governor general to replace Anand Satyanand. He is a former chief of NZ defence staff and is the current head of the NZ Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), our electronic spying agency.

By all accounts, Jerry Mateparae is an enormously capable man with a proven track record of good leadership. Not only that, he appears to be a thoroughly decent fellow. Everything a country would want in a head of state (actually, a proxy head of state because the person who actually holds that role doesn't even live in New Zealand - more on that later).

The first issue I have with his appointment is the appointment process itself. The process is secret, carried out by a small cabal of senior public servants under the direction of the Prime Minister. While in recent years under MMP, the PM has consulted leaders of other political parties, there is no requirement to do this. I find it incredible that in the 21st Century the people of New Zealand have no say directly in the selection of their head of state.

The second issue I have is Jerry Mateparae's current role. In his role as head of GCSB he is answerable to the Prime Minister as minister in charge of the security services. In a few months time, the Prime Minister technically will be answerable to Mataparae. The Queen's representative in New Zealand may be called upon to sack the PM at some point (as the person in this role in Australia did in respect of their PM in 1975 - and let's leave aside the issue of whether it was justified or not for the sack of the argument). What prospect is there of Mateparae sacking the man who appointed him and to whom he previously reported as a public servant? Also, the governor general fulfils another important constitutional role as the final signatory on all legislation. By convention this is seen as a rubber stamp to Parliament but there is always the prospect that the governor general might strike down a particularly odious piece of legislation. Such as the Search and Surveillance Bill currently before Parliament. Again, what prospect is there of the governor general taking the side of the people of New Zealand against the Prime Minister who appointed him. And bear in mind that Mateparae would have contributed to the Search and Surveillance Bill as head of GCSB.

All of this brings me to the real problem. New Zealand is still a monarchy with the actual role of head of state being a hereditary position held by a family living on the other side of the world. The current incumbent, Elizabeth Windsor, has done a pretty reasonable job as our head of state. Her son, Charles Windsor, who will be our next head of state, is a bumbling idiot who I am sure wouldn't be in any position of leadership if he was selected on his own merits. Under our current system, no New Zealander can serve as the actual head of state, no matter what the selection criteria.

In America, every child is taught that they could grow up to be President. In New Zealand, our own children are not deemed worthy to ever aspire to our highest office. As a New Zealander, I find that situation highly offensive.

It is high time we fixed this antiquated, feudal system of determining who the head of state of New Zealand should be. We must abolish the monarchy, become a republic, and allow ourselves to elect our head of state.

New Years Honours and the Republic

The Government has seen fit to give Helen Clark the Order of New Zealand, supposedly our highest honour, replacing Edmund Hillary on the list. I suppose on the basis of her tenure she deserves an honour as much as any other politician but I think there is something very unsavoury about giving such a polarising politician our highest award.

Actually, I find the whole honours system very unsavoury. The idea that you receive an award from the Government - who are, after all, meant to be serving us not the other way around - seems very feudal to me.

They also chose to give Peter Jackson a knighthood. Again, I guess he deserves it as much as any New Zealander. But it doesn't add anything to his accomplishments, which I think stand on their own merits. He doesn't need the 'Sir' to tell the world how successful he has been.

The honours systems brings the republican debate into focus. Keith Locke, with whom I wouldn't normally agree on anything, wrote a piece in The Bin Liner (otherwise known as The Dominion Post) the other day, in support of New Zealand becoming a republic. While I have my doubts about what sort of republic the likes of Keith Locke would turn New Zealand into, I whole-hearted support his sentiment.

The one thing that makes me a republican is the idea that my children cannot grow up to be head of state of New Zealand because that role is inherited by the eldest son in a family twenty thousand kilometres away. In America, every child is taught at school that they can aspire to be the President. In New Zealand, we cannot teach our children that. We believe our own children are not good enough to be our head of state. The only ones who are, under our constitutional conventions, are the descendants of a corrupt, despotic, incestuous family in Britain. I find this situation offensive.