The case for a
New Zealand republic
New Zealand republic
The case for a New Zealand republic sets out
the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall
into three categories:
 |
| Parliament Buildings, Wellington |
New Zealand will not be fully independent until we have a
New Zealander as head of state. New Zealand likes to think of itself as an
independent country. However, it cannot objectively be argued New Zealand's
current head of state represents this.
A
republic means a New Zealander as head of state
"Is New Zealand to continue to have an appointed Governor-General...
or should we move to an elected president? This will not happen because of any
lack of affection or love for our Queen in London, but because the tide of
history is moving in one direction." - former Prime Minster Jim Bolger.
Our current head of state is not a New Zealander and does
not represent New Zealand. When the Queen travels overseas, she does so in
order to represent Great Britain.
The Queen works to strengthen British economic and
political ties, and does whatever the British Government asks of her. In fact,
whenever "our" head of state visits New Zealand, the Queen has to ask
for permission from the British Government to leave Britain.
If the Queen wanted to be a citizen of New Zealand, she
would not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. The Citizenship Act
1977 requires an applicant for New Zealand citizenship to have been resident in
New Zealand for five years before citizenship is granted. The Queen has spent a
total of no more than six months in New Zealand.
The Governor-General is not a proper head of state. While
the Governor-General may increasingly act in ways that befit a head of state,
the reality is that New Zealand is still not regarded as being fully
independent of Great Britain. Appointing the Queen's representative in New
Zealand is inadequate. A New Zealand head of state will make it clear that New
Zealand is an independent country. It will signal New Zealand's independence
and maturity to the world.
Deciding
the rules for ourselves
In recent years, the British Parliament has attempted to
amend the succession law. The problem is the Statute of Westminster 1931, the
law which granted legislative independence to Canada, Australia and New
Zealand.
The Statute requires "consultation" on changes
to the succession before any changes to the succession law. While this
provision is not binding, it is still an important constitutional convention.
The most recent attempt in 2008 failed for this reason: the British Government
did not want to have to consult with all the parliaments of the Commonwealth
realms. New Zealand's Parliament could change the law of succession
unilaterally, but that would go against the convention established by the
Statute of Westminster. Change can only be enacted if the governments of all the
15 Commonwealth realms are consulted, probably by Britain. In a republic, the
rules governing New Zealand's head of state will be made solely by the New
Zealand Parliament. They will change as New Zealanders decide they need to, not
because of events in Great Britain.
"The case for an independent republic of New Zealand
is summed up in one word — nationhood. It is a statement to the world and
ourselves that New Zealand is a mature nation, that we possess a constitutional
framework that best suits New Zealanders." — Michael Laws, Mayor of
Wanganui.
New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. New
Zealand's constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state
should reflect this.
A
republic affirms New Zealand's sense of nationhood
"We exhibit symptoms of retarded nationhood: a
widespread insecurity about what others think, a search for applause and
endorsement by visitors; and, conversely, a begrudging willingness to extend
applause here at home." — Simon Upton former minister and National MP.
Becoming a republic and electing New Zealand's head of
state will foster a deeper and more sophisticated sense of nationhood. It will
clarify to New Zealanders, and to the world, what New Zealand stands for.
How New Zealanders understand their place in the world is
crucial to New Zealand's success in an increasingly globalized world. New
Zealand excels in sport, in its human rights record, in business and in the
arts. New Zealand's constitution lags behind these achievements. Our current
constitutional arrangement causes confusion overseas as to whether New Zealand
is linked to Britain, or whether it is part of Australia. We send conflicting
messages about who we are and what we stand for.
The debate and discussion around becoming a republic affirms
the values that are important to New Zealanders. It will promote discussion
about New Zealand's history and future. It will clarify the values we all see
as important. Becoming a republic will be a celebration of New Zealand's unique
culture and heritage. It will demonstrate New Zealand's confidence and
independence and it will symbolize a shared sense of nationhood.
A republic will make New Zealand more democratic.
A republic will ensure we have a head of state that is
democratically elected and accountable to voters. As a result the head of state
will be a more effective constitutional safeguard. This will decrease the risk
of political instability.
Electing the head of state is a basic democratic right.
Republicanism is based on the principle that government authority is reliant on
the consent of citizens. The Monarchy is based on the principle that hereditary
privilege alone should decide the head of state. It represents a belief that
government authority is embodied in a single individual (the Monarch). In a
republic the head of state would be elected — either directly by voters, or
indirectly by parliament.
Replacing
the Governor-General
At present, the Prime Minister chooses the
Governor-General and advises the Monarch of their choice. They usually choose
someone who will not challenge them, and someone who has something to do with
their own party.
In the past, this has meant a number of openly political
appointments. National Prime Minister Jack Marshall gave his friend Sir Denis
Blundell the job in 1972.
In 1977, Robert Muldoon appointed former Prime Minister
Sir Keith Holyoake to the job. This was primarily because the next best
candidate, Sir Edmund Hillary, had signed a petition in 1975 supporting Labour
Prime Minister Bill Rowling. Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a known constitutional
conservative with National Party leanings.
In 1985, Labour Prime Minister David Lange appointed the
Reverend Sir Paul Reeves. Sir Paul was known for his activism for the
anti-apartheid and anti-nuclear movements. Dame Catherine Tizard was appointed
to the office in 1990 by the outgoing Labour Government. She was the former
wife of Labour Deputy Prime Minister Bob Tizard.
While individually there have been good appointments
made, there have also been a number of openly political appointments. Many of
those, particularly the appointment of Sir Keith Holyoake, were very
controversial. Creating a transparent democratic process will ensure that the
replacement of the Governor-General will not be as controversial.
A
republic means an effective constitutional safeguard
A republic will create a head of state in New Zealand
that could act in times of constitutional crises. The Monarch and the
Governor-General do not have the political power to do this. The Governor-General
is unable to resolve constitutional crises because the Prime Minister holds the
power to dismiss and replace the Governor-General at any time. The Monarch will
never get involved in New Zealand politics, because they are
"non-political". Having a head of state able to act effectively in
times of crises will be a better restraint on the power of the executive — the
Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The Monarch is an absentee and ineffectual head of state.
The position is unaccountable to New Zealanders. In a republic, the head of
state will be chosen by New Zealanders. They will work on behalf of all New Zealanders
regardless of their political beliefs.
Peter’s
Piece
The New Zealand Republic debate does not need to be centered
on whether or not New Zealanders should support the Queen and her successors.
As a republic the country could still support the
monarchy as head of the Commonwealth and there can be no disputing that the
Queen has been an exceptionally good leader of the Commonwealth. But it is no
longer appropriate for her, or her successors, to be the New Zealand Head of
State also.
Some New Zealanders fail to appreciate that most members
of the Commonwealth are republics, and several are even kingdoms, and that does
not affect their Commonwealth membership. A suggestion that becoming a republic
would oblige New Zealand to leave the Commonwealth is pure scaremongering.
The debate should be about full independence, democracy
and effective government with a New Zealand based democratically elected,
executive head of state.
I believe New Zealand’s time has come.
No comments:
Post a Comment