This House agrees that New Zealand should become a repucblic

First, I'd like to welcome my opponent to this debate. It's good to see more New Zealanders on DDO. What I've heard from the affirmative team is really a very elaborate and intellectual elaboration on only two arguments. The first is that the queen does nothing for New Zealand. The second is that republics are constitutionally safer. My opponent also makes a third argument, about the value of certain appointments to the post of governor-general. I refuse to deal with this in detail, because the argument is a logical fallacy. This debate is on the value of a monarchical governmental structure. Even if I was to accept some appointments to the post of governor-general have been bad, that would not break my case or buffer yours. It is therefore a red herring ... irrelevant to the debate. Aside from this, my opponent commits one further non-argumental logical fallacy that I will largely ignore. This is several emotional appeals, for instance, that the queen would not gain citizenship here, or that the queen does not represent "us". Again, this has no bearing on the topic, besides which, it is not an argument at all. Regardless of who the queen is, she is still the queen. What we are debating is whether we should have a queen or not, not whether this particular queen or governor-general is a good one. So allow me to present two short rebuttals against each of my opponent's real contentions. First, does the queen do anything for New Zealand? My opponent's claims are that she doesn't "represent" New Zealand, as evidence citing the fact that she needs the British government's permission to fly, and the fact that she doesn't represent our uniqueness, dynamics and diversity. Let me deal with them in reverse order. You cannot have a person who is diverse and unique. The two contradict one another. You cannot have a person who is unique and dynamic. They are also mutually exclusive. Even if it were possible, a single person who represents diversity is pretty hard to come by. What exactly qualifies a "diverse" person? How is any given person not unique? How can dynamics be measured or quantified? Even if we were to become a republic, I think it is dangerous to impose a "test" on potential elected candidates for governor-general-replacements to check their personal qualities according to subjective values such as these. Therefore I don't mind if she doesn't represent our uniqueness or diversity, because we don't really understand what those words mean. They are just buzzwords we use to give ourselves a sense of national pride. Second, while it is true the queen requires the British parliament's permission to fly, that is because she is using the British parliament's money. Under the Bill of Rights Act 1688, which is in force here as well (see Fitzgerald v Muldoon) she CAN instead ask New Zealand's parliament for the money, but she graciously snubs the Brits instead. That's doing something for New Zealand. Allow me to make a counter-claim. I submit that by virtue of the fact she is a monarch who has dedicated her whole life to giving impartial advice to rulers of dozens of countries. The countries she has advised have been stable, successful democracies. Just look at the ongoing middle eastern conflicts and Libya and Yemen, as well as the prior conflicts in such places as Egypt and Bahrain, to see what I mean when I say the alternative of a republic is not necessarily better. Indeed, monarchies have a proven track record of being more inclusive, gender-balanced, multi-cultural and open than republics. My opponent extols the virtues of an apolitical elected head of state based on popularity, wealth and political pandering that is so common in republics. Well, I stand for an apolitical head of state based on a fair, neutral, certain criteria. The queen ticks all those boxes. Transitioning to a republic will only give us less-experienced, constantly changing and even more politically charged nitwits. And incidentally, they'd be taking a salary out of your pocket. All in all, monarchy costs us about a quarter of a cent per day. As such, we are pretty close to having the world's cheapest political system. Thus I conclude that having the queen as our monarch does best suit New Zealanders. Cool. Now let me deal with your second contention. You claim that the head of state could help in times of constitutional crisis, and that the queen is unaccountable to New Zealanders. First, the governor general does have the power to resolve constitutional crises. Look at what happened at the end of Muldoon's tenure. Better still, look to Australia. In 1975 the Governor General dissolved parliament and dismissed the prime minister. Under the Statute of Westminster, and reaffirmed in the Constitution Act 1986, our governor-general has the same powers. So your argument is based on a factual inaccuracy. Secondly, I contend that the queen, acting through her agent the governor-general, is just as accountable to us as any judge or member of parliament. They are very difficult to remove from their roles. The exception is at elections, when a new parliament is voted in. New parliaments have the option to appoint new judges or change the governor-general. So while the queen may not be accountable to you personally, when you get to vote she is accountable to your representative. If you have a problem with the governor-general, there are constitutional steps your MP can take. I further answer your claim by submitting that accountability is not the be-all and end-all of government. Chief justice Elias answers to nobody, yet she is near-universally loved. Why don't you propose removing her? Because she's a good governor. Good government can indeed arise from non-accountable positions ... and as over 150 years of experience tells us, it does! But again, I want to make a counter claim. Democracies protected by monarchy are constitutionally safer. I have already shown that they are internally safer. I also claim that in a republic, what protects the constitution is a document entitled "the constitution." In a monarchy, what protects the constitution is an old woman wearing a silly hat and long robe on a big chair, and a whole bunch of her cronies. Documents are a lot easier to ignore than scary old ladies wearing silly hats. Face it - you and I break the law every day. Today, for instance, I crossed a street at an unmarked point. That's an offense. Does anyone care? No. That's just a stupid rule. But what if the street in question was a motorway off-ramp? I'd be putting other people (and myself!) at risk. Do people care? Yes. Suddenly it becomes more than a stupid rule. Rules are only important so long as there is a higher-up individual who cares about the rule and has the power to enforce it. This is the case in a monarchy but not in a republic. So what I do believe? Status quo. Show me a problem, even a potential problem, to fix, and I'll be glad to fix it. You have provided no adequate problem, your solution is vague. I have advanced two counter-claims against your substantial arguments, which fail for the reasons I have described. The motion falls. I look forward to your closing statement.