This House agrees that New Zealand should become a repucblic

As he didn't have a lot to say, I don't have a lot to say in response. This debate can be put down to three main issues: 1. Are we in a constitutional crisis? I maintain that the governor-general is as explicit a safeguard as you could want, within the bounds of parliamentary sovereignty. What you had to show, to win this debate, is that the governor general is not effective. I pointed to two examples of a governor-general being effective. For the first (1975), you claim it could have gone differently. This is true, but it does not mean that the system is ineffective. For the second (1984) you claim a president is needed to resolve crises like that. First, the Constitution Act 1986 already contains such safeguards. Second, you will note that the governor-general did resolve that crisis, although Muldoon, being the walking constitutional disaster that he was, unfortunately took hours to convince. My opponent continues to attack the choice of governors-general, yet as I remarked last round, this has nothing to do with the system. 2. Does the Queen represent us? My opponent tries to show that for reasons of national maturity and political power, having a queen who is not very "kiwi" (and thus not unique? ) and being a "great deal of variety" (how the hell does one be a great deal of variety? ) - yet fails to respond to my analysis that imposing a test on a potential overseer of government should be based on experience, not ethnicity or even living arrangements. Again - what makes a New Zealander? The answer is subjective, meaning we can't all agree. What good is a criterion if we cannot agree on it? He says monarchy is a leash holding our nationhood back somehow. His causal link is the US example. While it is wrong to say the US never has a constitutional crisis (in fact, their constitution is debated almost every week because it is so ambiguous and contradictory), it is also true that the US model is very far from perfect, because it allows special interests to dominate the system. There is no safeguard. In New Zealand we do have a safeguard - the governor-general. He also rebutted my African counter-examples, but acknowledged they are all republics. Republics are by nature volatile, and that is what my opponent fails to understand. There was no response to my excellent analysis that a queen is harder to ignore than a document. I mean, who doesn't watch her say a cheery "Merry Christmas" every year? 3. Does the Queen have anything to offer us? There has been a distinct lack of engagement on this very important point. While my opponent has failed to show any tangible benefits of a republic, other than resolving potential constitutional crises (which I have already dealt with at length). I submitted that the Queen is an inexpensive, impartial and wise old lady, with decades of experience in international politics. My opponent ignores all of this analysis, and overlooks all of the benefits of the status quo. I think he is taking our present government for granted and not appreciating what it is he actually wants to do away with. In conclusion, for all of these reasons I have won this debate. Again I would like to thank my opponent, and urge voters to vote CON. Be a hero. Save our constitution. Save the queen. [starts patriotically singing both national anthems]