MONARCHY OR REPUBLIC?
The abolition of the Monarchy and the creation of a Republic is a matter for New Zealand as a whole to decide, not for politicians to attempt to impose upon us.
For over forty years the Queen has devoted her life to the service of her people. In her 1991 Christmas Broadcast she declared, "With your prayers, and your help .. I shall try to serve you in the years to come".
Recently, the future of the New Zealand monarchy has been called into question by a few individuals who have attracted considerable publicity for their ill thought out republican proposals. Criticism of the monarchy has been expressed through an unprecedented press campaign and through an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of individual members of the Royal Family.
The Queen of New Zealand is more democratic than a President of New Zealand could ever be, because she represents all New Zealanders. An elected president would owe his selection to a political faction, and this would publicly divide him from many of his countrymen, and would make his claim to represent "the people" less convincing.
Frequent selections of presidents would interrupt the continuity essential for an effective head of our country. The Queen and her heirs have been trained from birth for one vocation- that of discharging the duties of Sovereign of New Zealand. Therefore, they are the only New Zealanders fit to assume this important position.
No self-respecting country should abandon its history and institutions out of deference for the misunderstandings of its neighbours.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer has observed that while the country's ties with the United Kingdom may not as strong as they once were, as the Queen is Queen of New Zealand, that is not relevant. He could see no advantage in turning New Zealand into a republic, and some solid practical advantages in retaining the monarchy.
Republican Claim 1:
"New Zealand needs to become an independent nation, no longer tied to the apron strings of England".
Fact 1:
New Zealand has been completely independent of the United Kingdom since at least the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1947, and substantially independent since responsible self-government was granted last century. We no longer have any legal or constitutional ties with Britain or the British Government, apart from the retention of the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This right is shared by many other independent Commonwealth countries, a number of whom are republics.
Our formal links with Britain today are no different from those with any other country with whom we have friendly relations. There has been a distinctly anti-British flavour to some republican sentiments in Australia. This should be rejected by a tolerant multi-cultural society, and has no place in New Zealand. The Constitution Act 1986 effected a severing of the constitutional links between New Zealand and the United Kingdom of a more radical order than could occur in either Canada or Australia.
Republican Claim 2:
"It is not appropriate for New Zealand to have The Queen of England as our Head of State".
Fact 2:
We don't! Our Monarch is not a British one, it is a New Zealand one. The Queen has been styled Queen of New Zealand since 1953
Republican Claim 3:
"We should have a New Zealander carrying out the duties of a Head of State, and The Queen of the United Kingdom cannot represent New Zealand abroad".
Fact 3:
The Queen rarely represents any of her realms abroad. That has generally been the role of the Governor-General, who is accorded full recognition as Head of State when travelling overseas. New Zealand is adequately represented abroad by the Prime Minister and other Ministers.
Republican Claim 4:
"We must change New Zealand because our non-British migrants cannot comprehend our system of constitutional monarchy".
Fact 4:
Most New Zealanders are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Many immigrants support the present system of constitutional monarchy. Most of our immigrants have become loyal New Zealanders, adopting New Zealand customs, and making their own contribution to New Zealand.
Many of our immigrants chose to come here because life in their own country had become, or was likely to become, intolerable, and this country offered them something better. For one reason or another, the system of government from which they fled did not offer them the fundamental freedom and protection which our system of government offered them. The constitutional monarchy offers an easily understood system of democratic government, a system shared by many countries in the region.
Republican Claim 5:
"We are part of Asia (or the Pacific), and we should reject our monarchical form of government and identify with the culture of our Asian (or Pacific) neighbours. This will also make it easier for us to trade with the countries of Asia (or the Pacific)".
Fact 5:
New Zealanders alone must decide for themselves what is best for New Zealand. There are vast cultural differences between the different countries of Asia, so with which one could we identify? If we were to become a republic, what would be the reaction of the monarchies of the region- Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Brunei?
The Pacific region, with which we have more in common, include the Kingdom of Tonga, and the State of Samoa (which are indigenous monarchies, though the latter is constituted formally as a quasi-republican state rather than a kingdom), as well as Australia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, all the latter of whom recognise the Queen as their Head of State.
Republican Claim 6:
"We should have a Head of State who is elected either by the people, or by Parliament".
Fact 6:
If our Head of State were to be elected, the position would diminish in value, because the choice would simply reflect the transient political mood of the day, or the personal popularity of the candidate, regardless of suitability for the office.
Under the constitutional monarchy, the Governor-General is appointed by the non-political Monarch, on the advice of the Prime Minister. This system has produced Governors-General of outstanding calibre, drawn from all walks of life.
The Governor-General makes no laws, and does not direct government policy, but provides us with all the advantages of a fully independent Head of State, incorporating all the reserve powers and restraints of the Crown. By contrast, an elected president is often a political rival to the Prime Minister, and the dangers of an executive president, where all political power is vested in one individual, is readily apparent.
It is because New Zealand is a monarchy that the three elements of government, the legislature, the Judiciary, and the executive, are formally interrelated and interdependent. It is one of the protections of liberty. Constitutional monarchy alone is capable of integrating the executive, legislative and judicial functions of government. The Crown's authority lends a universal legitimacy to the many particular decisions made by and at different levels of government.
A republic could be established in New Zealand by the simple expedient of amending this provision to replace the Sovereign with a President, as the section is not entrenched. Although the New Zealand political system is a democratic and popular one, it is not based upon the concept of popular sovereignty.
Minimal change to the New Zealand constitution, by removing the office of the Sovereign, and substituting that of a President, would certainly make the country a republic, but one without any claim to be even partly based, in law, on popular sovereignty.
Republican Claim 7:
"A republic would improve our trade and economy, and reduce unemployment, poverty levels and the national deficit".
Fact 7:
Changing our system of government cannot improve economic performance. That can however be achieved by improving the operating of our existing institutions such as Parliament. The monarchy provides a stable political system and provides a sense of national identity which is not divisive. Introducing a republic would be more likely to discourage trade because political instability could follow.
Republican Claim 8:
"If we adopted a republican form of government we would be spared the expense of supporting the Queen and the royal family".
Fact 8:
The monarchy actually costs New Zealanders virtually nothing because even if we did not have a monarchy we would have to maintain a presidential establishment. Recent examples of republics indicate that they would probably cost much more.
The Monarchy involves a small outlay for royal engagements and tours, and the modest expenses of the Household of the Governor-General- a figure estimated at about one dollar per person per year. The New Zealand taxpayer contributes nothing to the personal expenses of our Queen, or any member of the Royal Family, nor towards the costs of the royal Household and residences overseas.
A president would require a range of advisers and support staff, and very likely a new Presidential Palace. There would also be a additional costs involved in renaming public bodies, such as the Royal New Zealand Navy, and the cost of stationery, flags, noticeboards, and all the range of symbols of the government and its departments. The royal honours system would, of course, need significant and costly revision.
© 2000 The Monarchist League of New Zealand, Inc.