On this page, we look at some of the arguments put forward against a republic, and answer the claims made in support of the monarchy by the Monarchist League.

Contents

• Myths and Mistakes
• Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic 

Note: We've reproduced the statements and claims made by the Monarchist League exactly as they appear on their website.

"Myths and mistakes"

The Monarchist League has recently updated their website, adding a new section called "myths and mistakes" under "Our monarchy". We'll go through each of these myths:

• The Queen and Governor-General are Powerless
• Democracy has nothing to do with the monarchy in NZ
• "Minimal changes" are harmless

Myth: The Queen and Governor-General are Powerless

Perhaps the most common misconception regarding the monarchy is the idea of the monarch as a figurehead. This implies that the monarch, or the Governor-General, has no real power. For some presidents, such as the presidents of Ireland and of Israel, this is actually the case. They are truly figureheads. They have virtually no capacity to act on their own, and no emergency reserve powers.

The above statement is incorrect on the Presidents of Israel and Ireland. The President of Ireland does have "reserve" powers to act in an emergency - the Irish simply called them the "discretionary powers" under Article 13 of the Irish Constitution. The President of Israel, under the Section 12 of the Basic Law of Israel on the President of State is compelled to do certain things - such as sign Bills into law and appoint judges - however, that does not mean the President does not have reserve powers. Like New Zealand, Israel's constitution is "unwritten" in that not everything is written down - including the President's reserve powers. The relevant section on the President's powers - Section 12 - simply sets out what the President must usually do when there is a Prime Minister to advise them.

Both examples are roughly similar to the Governor-General, with one critical difference: neither the President of Ireland or the President of Israel can be removed from office by the Prime Minister. This gives them the security of tenure the Governor-General does not enjoy; it is reality that makes the Governor-General constitutionally useless, unless they fire the Prime Minister first. That doesn't mean the Governor-General is powerless per se, but it does mean they cannot act as the constitutional check and balance they claim to be.

Queen Elizabeth II and her Governors-General are not powerless. They have the capacity to act in emergencies when necessary. Fortunately, political emergencies have been rare in New Zealand history. This is not the case in most of the rest of the world. Our system of government encourages stability, which is a big part of why there have been very few political crises. If a crisis were to occur, the Queen, or the Governor-General, could act to ensure that the voters of New Zealand have the chance to resolve the situation through an election. The Queen's most important power, and that of the Governor-General, is the ability to call a new election and hear what the people of New Zealand want.

The above statement is incorrect, in fact and in precedent around the Commonwealth. The Sovereign might not be "powerless" in a strictly legal sense, but in a political sense they are. The Queen has never intervened in constitutional crisis in any of the Commonwealth realms during her 56 year reign - there have been five coups (in Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Grenada, Fiji and the Solomon Islands) during that time, none of which saw any intervention by the Queen. The Queen is powerless because of Her Majesty's own desire to remain politically neutral at all times, and her lack of physical presence in each country.

As for the Governor-General, as mentioned above, they too have wide constitutional powers, but little ability to use them. They lack security of tenure.

The above statement also ignores the constitutional reality that in a Westminster system such as New Zealand, under a constitutional monarchy, Parliament is supreme. The Governor-General and the Sovereign do exactly what Parliament tells them to do when they're instructed to, their ability to use their reserve powers is so small it's almost not there.

In contrast, there are plenty of examples from Parliamentary republics based on the Westminster system (either in the Commonwealth or outside of it) where the President has declined the Prime Minister's instructions and used their reserve powers to call fresh elections. This has happened in India, Ireland, Malta, Germany and Portugal. It is actually more common in Parliamentary republics than monarchies.

Top of the page - Myths and Mistakes

Myth: Democracy has nothing to do with the monarchy in NZ

Some people have tried to argue that the stability and security of our democracy in New Zealand is not related to the monarchy. However, there is actually quite a bit of evidence which indicates that a nation's system of government is very important. A number of political studies have been undertaken over the past few years that reveal some important facts. It is known that the length of time a nation has been a democracy is no indication of its future stability. Popular support for democracy in a nation is also not a factor. The belief that there is some "democratic ethos" which will protect our political system is naïve and is not based on solid evidence. The strength of democracy in New Zealand is based on a number of factors; the most important is its political structure. 

The Republican Movement's view - and that of many political scientists - is that the main reason why a country is democratic and stable is because of its democratic ethos, not its political structure. While the Monarchist League might state there is "actually quite a bit" of evidence to the contrary, they haven't produced any. There is plenty of evidence that the concept of democratic ethos matters more the political structure, as we'll show below.

As for the length of time a country has been a democracy, the correlation is undeniable. We only need to look at the Commonwealth of Nations to see that this is so. The stability of a government is reflected in the political and civil rights of its citizens. Governments which are able to maintain political and civil rights are almost always stable, and by definition democratic. The best measure of these two factors is the Freedom House report "Freedom in the World".

Based on the 2008 report, we've put together a table to show there is a direct link between the amount of time a Commonwealth member enjoyed a degree of independence as a Commonwealth realm and when it became a republic, and its Freedom House rating:

On average, the republics rated as "free" had 17 years of self-governance as a Commonwealth realm before becoming a republic, "partly free" had an average of 7 years, and "not free" had an average of 4 years.

The notable exceptions to this are Sri Lanka and Fiji, both of which suffer from entrenched ethnic tensions - between Indo-Fijians and Indigenous Fijians and Tamils and Sinhalese respectively. Both spent long periods as Commonwealth realms; both are rated as "Partly Free" by Freedom House.

Our political structure has been tested in more than 30 countries around the world, and for well over a century. Virtually no other system can claim the same experience. 

The above is a reference to New Zealand's status as a constitutional monarchy. While it is true that these other monarchies are structured like New Zealand's (that is, Parliament is supreme), there are many that aren't. There are also plenty of constitutional monarchies which do not have good records when it comes to civil and political rights - such as Nepal, Kuwait and Jordan.

The other constitutional reality the Monarchist League have overlooked is that New Zealand is already a de facto republic. In other words, while legally New Zealand might be structured as a monarchy, our modus operandi is that of a republic: the Governor-General acts as an appointed head of State, appointed by a democratically elected (albeit indirectly) Prime Minister.

*Technically, Rhodesia was independent since the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was made in 1965. However, the government of Ian Smith - which sought to make the Queen "Queen of Rhodesia" kept the former Governor under virtual house arrest for five years, before declaring Rhodesia a republic.

Top of the page -  Myths and Mistakes

Myth: "Minimal changes" are harmless

Minor constitutional change is an oxymoron. Whenever a structure of government is being modified it is very important to make sure the changes are safe and sensible. Removing a piece of our government is akin to removing a part from the engine of a car and expecting it to run properly.

This statement on minor changes is nonsense. "Minor change" is not an oxymoron - otherwise every constitutional change would have to be major. Of course, not every change is a major one, so there have to be some minor changes.

The engine metaphor is a nonsense too: the monarchy is more like an appendix in our system of government than an integral part of it. And like real-life appendix, the monarchy could turn septic - yet there's still some people who think it's a better idea to keep it in the body of state.

Our system of government was designed to operate as a monarchy. The crown is an important part of our government and works at the very centre of the structure. Removing it or swapping it for some untested idea is unwise. There is no reason to assume that the structure will continue to operate the same way it did before. In fact, there is lots of evidence to show that minor changes can have unforeseen repercussions and can destabilise the whole structure. 

The above statement ignores the facts again. Firstly, a republic is not an untested idea. There are plenty of good examples of republics that work, and some that don't. The above statement ignores this simple fact, instead implying that no other country has ever successfully moved from being a republic to a monarchy.

Secondly, the claim that our structure will not continue to operate in the same way should we become a republic ignores the simple fact that there are many good examples of Commonwealth countries that became republics and continued to operate more or less in the same way as they did before independence. As we have seen from the table above, these were generally those countries that had a long experience with democracy.

History is littered with failed constitutions and today many nations suffer from bad governments. There are many factors which have contributed to these problems, but the design of their constitutional engine is certainly one component. Ours is a reliable, efficient V8 that runs incredible well. We shouldn't trade it for a yet-to-be-designed two-stroke alternative!

The problem for defenders of the monarchy is that they are actually defending the two-stroke engine, trying to dress it up as a V8. It is true that there are many countries with failed constitutions - a number of these are monarchies (Nepal or the Solomon Islands for example) which became republics. That does not mean that the political structure of monarchy automatically leads to a failed state, nor does it follow that a republic leads to a failed state either.

Top of the page -  Myths and Mistakes

"Why New Zealand must NOT become a republic"

The Monarchist League of New Zealand has published a set of arguments titled 'Why New Zealand must NOT become a republic'. In the interests of a good debate, the Republican Movement presents our responses to their particular claims, including support in New Zealand for the monarchy, the Queen and the Treaty of Waitangi. We have not altered the text published by the Monarchist League in any way.

The claims made are:

• The Majority of New Zealanders support the monarchy
• It is the will of the people
• Partnership of Crown and Maori
• Coming together of Crown, Maori, and Pakeha
• The Queen is the Paramount Chief
• Monarchy part of our culture
• Natural form of government
• Immigrants and new New Zealander's choose to come to a monarchy
• Risks of changing the constitution arrangements needlessly
• Monarchy nutures democracy
• Protects the rights of the people from the abuses of politicians
• Protects against unelected elist who think they can speak for the nation
• Choosing to remain a monarchy is a sign of maturity
• Republicans are hopelessly divided over options
• Reinfoces links with the Commonwealth
• No reason for a republic
• Monarchies generally better off than republics
• The monarchy is not irrelevant
• A republic is more expensive
• We are not Australian pawns
• A republic is not inevitable
• Many republicans are motivated by envy...

Responses

THE MAJORITY OF NEW ZEALANDERS SUPPORT THE MONARCHY

A majority of New Zealander's support the monarchy, and oppose this country becoming a republic. Support for a republic has remained consistent over many years, despite persistent agitation by republicans. Mainstream public opinion favours the status quo - support for a republic remains marginal;

The first claim is correct - most polls show that support for the monarchy in New Zealand is still greater than support for a republic. However, the second claim - that support for a republic has remained consistent "over many years" is not true. In the late 1980s, support for a republic was in the low twenties. By the 1990s, support for a republic was in the low thirties. Several recent surveys show that support for a republic is now in the high thirties to low forties, while support for the monarchy has declined. A large number of New Zealanders are simply undecided.

> See our polling analysis page for more information.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

IT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

The very term Republic implies the will of the people (res publica means literally of the people). The peoples' will is that New Zealand shall remain a monarchy. Not only is a monarchy compatible with democracy, but it is anti-democratic to try to force New Zealand to become a republic against the wishes of the majority;

One of the Republican Movement's principles is that a republic must come about because of a referendum, or multiple referendums. A republic that is not built on the will of the people and the consent of the governed would be hypocritical. However, the point being made here is that advocating a republic is "anti-democratic" and is "forcing" New Zealanders to support change.

In a democracy lobby groups are free to express their points of view to the public. It does not matter whether their views are supported by a majority of the public or not. Whether their views are in line with the public may depend on how they are articulated - you cannot simply dismiss an argument by saying a majority of people do not support it at one point in time.

For example, support for women's suffrage in New Zealand did not have a majority when it was first put to the New Zealand public. However, that does not mean that the suffragettes "forced" New Zealanders to support their cause - they did so over time by setting out a position.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

PARTNERSHIP OF CROWN AND MAORI
This country is unique in being founded upon a partnership between the Crown and the Maori people. The Crown is one of the cornerstones of the nation; it represents and embodies both Pakeha and the people, and provides constitutional legitimacy through the Treaty of Waitangi. Its removal would fundamentally damage the body politic, and call into question the very basis of our constitution and nation;

The key claim here is that the Treaty of Waitangi requires the Crown to have legitimacy. This has no basis, just as the claim that Government in New Zealand requires "the Crown" for legitimacy has no basis. This is because the term "the Crown" simply means the state - New Zealand's government - which gains its legitimacy through the consent of the governed.

The monarchy has been of little use to Maori. There is perhaps a "spiritual connection" to the British Monarch for Maori, but this has no legal bearing on the Treaty's application in New Zealand today, or in the future.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

COMING TOGETHER OF CROWN, MAORI, AND PAKEHA

A three-party alignment of Crown, Maori, and Pakeha, is the basis of our constitutional structure and social compact. The removal of one element would destabilise the entire system. The removal of the Crown would be symbolically as significant as the removal of either of the other elements;

"The Crown" is an embodiment of the Sovereign as the state; Pakeha and Maori are ethnicities. You cannot remove Pakeha or Maori, but you can remove the Crown. The claim that any change would "destabilise the entire system" is playing on the public's fear for the sake of it.

The implied argument is that New Zealanders need an arbitrator in our race relations, because we are too immature to govern ourselves. Such an argument is abhorrent.

Constitutionally, the Crown has already changed once before - when we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 - without the apple cart turning over. Creating a New Zealand republic would not change the status of the Treaty at all.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

THE QUEEN IS THE PARAMOUNT CHIEF

To many Maori the Queen is the paramount chief of all the tribes. The Queen is owed traditional allegiance. The loyalty of many Maori to the Crown is deep-seated, and fundamental to their view of the country. The Queen occupies a significant place within Maori culture, both for her position, and as the descendant and representative of Queen Victoria. Many Maori regard the Treaty of Waitangi as a compact directly between the Crown and Maori, and the Queen to be directly party to the treaty;

The Monarchist League knows that it needs to appeal to Maori in order to justify the monarchy, a monarchy that has done little for Maori in the past. Fortunately they no longer presume to speak for all Maori on the issue, hence the use of the words "many Maori". However, the claim that Maori support is "deep seated" is not true. There is no one single Maori view, just as there is no Pakeha or Asian or whatever view. We've all got a different opinion.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

MONARCHY PART OF OUR CULTURE

The monarchy is a fundamental element of the cultural and political inheritance of the people of New Zealand. It is as much as part of New Zealand's identity as Maoritanga, rugby, and the English language. All New Zealander's may regard the monarchy as a shared heritage, whatever their ethnic or cultural background. It would be culturally unsafe to attack the monarchy, or remove it from its central place in our culture;

The question here is what the Monarchist League means by "our" culture: what is "our" (New Zealand's) culture?

The above does prove that the monarchy is representative of New Zealanders of British descent. Support for the monarchy amongst almost all non-European ethnic groups in New Zealand much lower than their European counter-parts. This is exactly why the Monarchist League has come up with the "shared history" argument.

New Zealanders with family lineage to the British Isles may have a "shared heritage", but that does not account for those of us without any. In any case, it is not a good argument that our heritage is a good basis for a contemporary constitutional structure. 'Common heritage' arguments are meant to appeal to New Zealanders of British ancestry. The "culturally unsafe" implication is that those of us with British lineage will somehow be cut off from our heritage. That is not the case for New Zealanders of Irish, German or Dutch or whatever descent - we do not need token constitutional links to Britain to vindicate our history.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

NATURAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT

New Zealand has always had a monarchical form of Government, since traditional Maori tribal governance began. A republic is an alien, foreign concept. An attack on the monarchy can be seen as an attack on traditional concepts of authority, particularly those of Maori. The mana of the Crown is unsurpassed;

It is implied above that republicans are attempting to impose a form of government that is inherently alien to New Zealanders. They return to paternalistic thinking that Maori favours ISmonarchism because it is 'traditional' and 'natural'.

Perhaps in some sectors of Maoridom a belief in 'traditional' ways of governing is pervasive, but for many Maori this is not the case - the concept of "mana" implies to Maori something that is earned. The claim that the mana of the Crown is "unsurpassed" runs contrary to the continual angst Maori have shown (such as the petitions to the Queen to honour the Treaty) towards the Crown.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

IMMIGRANTS AND NEW NEW ZEALANDER'S CHOSE TO COME TO A MONARCHY

Immigrants have chosen to live in New Zealand. They chose this country because of its unique lifestyle, culture, system of government, and environment. The monarchy is a part of the system which they have chosen to embrace. They join existing New Zealander's in feeling pride in our constitutional monarchy. They could have chosen to live in a republic. They did not, and we can embrace them for that;

The overriding emphasis on the 'system of government' in this claim is interesting. Do migrants come to New Zealand just because it is a constitutional monarchy? In truth lifestyle, language and economic opportunity matter the most to new immigrants.

With "new New Zealanders" opposed to a monarchy (even more so than their fellow New Zealanders) the argument that immigrants choose New Zealand because it is a monarchy is baseless. The argument that immigrants 'could have chosen' to live in a republic is that immigration levels will decrease if New Zealand becomes a republic. It should be noted, of course, that the largest grouping of immigrants to New Zealand comes for the United Kingdom.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

RISKS OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS NEEDLESSLY

Because the constitution of the most politically stable and democratic country in the world shouldn't be tampered with without a very good reason. Our system of government works well. Too many countries have suffered from chronic political and economic instability after drastic changes to their constitution;

For this claim to be correct, our constitutional arrangements have to be based on "the Crown", without which we will be unable to have stable, democratic government. But a move towards a republic is not a "needless change".

Republicans argue New New Zealand has a need to improve the safeguards, the checks and balances within our constitution, and create a more inclusive and democratic head of state, a head of state of our own. None of these changes are "needless", and none of these changes will undermine New Zealand's democratic ethos - in fact, they enhance it.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

MONARCHY NURTURES DEMOCRACY

A constitutional monarchy is not inconsistent with democracy. In fact it was the monarchy that created and sustained our democracy. With Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom we have the most democracy system of government in the world, largely due to the moderating influence of the shared monarchy;

The monarchy created and sustained our democracy? This claim is in the past tense. Certainly, the outside influence of democratic states has been of great use to the development of New Zealand's democracy. But that does not mean that we require the monarchy to sustain democracy. There is no evidence that the monarchy provides a "moderating influence" either.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE ABUSES OF POLITICIANS

The monarchy strengthens the democratic process by denying absolute power to politicians. Although neither the Quenn nor the Governor-General exercises political power, they do have a significant role in the constitution. The strength of their position derives from the power they deny to others, rather than the power they exercise directly. The lesson of most republics is that an rxecutive president would be more likely to be a cause of abuse than a safeguard against abuse by others;

This is a nonsense claim: politicians in New Zealand already have absolute power owing to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The claim that the Queen and Governor-General deny power to politicians is not true.

The Governor-General and the Queen are bound by constitutional convention to do whatever the Prime Minister or their Cabinet tells them to do. If they do not, then we no longer have a constitutional monarchy, we have arbitrary rule. Despite this, monarchists argue that the Monarch and Governor-General are "above" politics, and yet can intervene (that is, become involved in politics) to protect our freedoms.

They cannot have it both ways. The Governor-General's real powers are the reserve powers, and as the Whitlam dismissal shows, they can be used in a political way. The Sovereign is constitutionally useless, and will never get involved in New Zealand - or any other Commonwealth realms' - local politics. The Queen is first and foremost Queen of the United Kingdom. Because the Governor-General is appointed and dismissed de facto by the Prime Minister, the Governor-General always defers to the Prime Minister - unless, as was the case with the Whitlam dismissal, the Governor-General "strikes first" and fires the Prime Minister. That is hardly an effective way of resolving constitutional crises or protecting against abuses.

There is also the argument against a republic on the basis that Presidential republics, such as the United States, have faults in accountability. Even then, the abuses of power by many executive Presidents are better able to be rectified than our Prime Minister.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

PROTECTS AGAINST UNELECTED ELITES WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN SPEAK FOR THE NATION

A military coup or social revolution is less likely in a monarchy where the military swear allegiance to the Crown, than in a republic where they swear allegiance to either the state or the governing party. There are many instances of military forces or political factions in republics seizing power on the pretence of acting to defend the "Constitution", or the "State", or to protect the "People". No such false claim to legitimacy can ever be raised in New Zealand. The Crown provides the constitutional continuity and authority. This is lacking in most republics.

This claim is simply laughable. Unelected elites? That would be members of the Royal family, the Queen, and the Governor-General, wouldn't it? Anytime they speak for us they're both unelected, and certainly elite. Most New Zealanders would recognise that an elected representative doesn't always "speak" for all of us, and the same is true for the Queen, or the Governor-General.

Fiji's Colonel Rabuka in 1987. Despite swearing allegiance to the Queen, Rabuka overthrew Her Majesty's elected government in his first coup, then Her Majesty's representative, the Governor-General of Fiji, in his second coup.

Swearing an Oath to the Queen has little or no bearing on armed forces loyalty. To claim the coups do not happen in New Zealand because 'the Crown' provides constitutional continuity and authority is misleading - remember Colonel Rabuka, who started the coups in Fiji? He swore allegiance to the Queen. So did all the other dictators who overthrew democratic governments in constitutional monarchies. The truth is that New Zealand's pervasive parliamentary democracy provides constitutional continuity, not our absentee head of state.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

REINFORCES LINKS WITH THE COMMONWEALTH

The monarchy is central to the Commonwealth grouping of nations. The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, and has led and inspired its people for over 50 years. A decline to republican status denigrates the place of the Commonwealth, and the role of the Queen. It is a step towards isolationism and insularity. In a time of increasing internationalism we should be embracing cross-continental and cross-cultural links, not cutting them;

The first statement is incorrect. The monarchy is not central to the Commonwealth. This claim is based on the view that republics within the Commonwealth are regarded as being "lower" than the Commonwealth realms (states that retain the Queen as head of state). This does seem rather strange given the fact that South Africa (a republic since 1961) was welcomed with much fanfare back into the Commonwealth in 1995. If anything, our retaining the Queen as our head of state is a sign of insularity to our fellow Commonwealth members.

See our Commonwealth membership issue page for more information.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR A REPUBLIC

The republicans have failed to give even one good reason for a republic. There are many reasons to retain the status quo; to be a monarchy; and not to become a republic. There are no good reasons for becoming a republic;

Well, of course they would say that. Instead of answering our reasons why we need a republic, the monarchists simply state that there is "no good reason" for becoming a republic. Perhaps they could tell us why the reasons for a republic aren't any good.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

THE MONARCHY IS NOT IRRELEVANT

Those who suggest that the monarchy is irrelevent could not be more wrong. The Crown is symbolically of far greater significance than many people realise. Its cultural place in New Zealand life is profound, as is its influence on the way this country has evolved and continues to grow.

Again, there is a lack of actual evidence of the claims made by the monarchists. What is the profound place of the monarchy in the cultural life of New Zealand? Apart from what they assert, nothing. Polls have shown a majority of New Zealanders (58%) think the monarchy has little or no relevance to their lives.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

A REPUBLIC IS MORE EXPENSIVE

A republic is likely to be much more expensive to operate than the monarchy. If a president was directly elected by the people the cost could be huge. The costs of advertising alone in the 2004 American elections amounted to a billion dollars. The process of creating a republic would be very costly.

The United States has a population of 300 million people, the world's largest economy, and directly elects a President with powers that are substantially different from most other republics. On the monarchists logic, this means a New Zealand republic will be expensive. New Zealand is a nation of only 4 million people, and we are unlikely to elect an executive President of the nature of the United States.

Monarchist claims that a republic will be more expensive are based on speculation (such as a Presidential Palace will need to be built, or that we'll have to pay for a "First Lady") - rather than hard fact: a future President will more than likely take over Government House (the residence of the Governor-General), and have to live within the Governor-Generals budget (some $11m per year). If we look at republics such as Austria, Ireland, Israel or Iceland - all of a similar size in terms of population to New Zealand, and who have non-executive Presidents - we find that their heads of state are comparatively cheaper than our Governor-General. The cost of elections is trivial, and of course, if we opt for a head of state elected by parliament, there is virtually no cost of elections.

See our response to the claim that "Monarchy costs us nothing"

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

MONARCHIES ARE GENERALLY BETTER OFF THAN REPUBLICS

An OECD survey has established that monarchies are on average wealthier, and more stable, than republics. Futhermore, the disruption caused by a change from a monarchy to a republic could cause adverse effects on trade, currency values, and overseas investment. The indirect cost to New Zealand of a republic could be enormous.

The OECD survey mentioned above includes oil-rich Middle Eastern states, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE and Kuwait. Such comparisons are nonsense. The Freedom House survey of democracies in 2007 found that of the 28 functioning democracies, 16 were republics.

To claim that the move to a republic could have an adverse effect on trade, overseas investment and the value of the Kiwi dollar is just fear mongering at its worst. Having the monarchy in 1984 was no good for our currency or overseas investment either; it wasn't any good for Fiji in 1987 nor was it any good for Britain in 1995. The claim has no basis.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

REPUBLICANS HOPELESSLY DIVIDED OVER OPTIONS

There is no simple choice between monarchy and republic. If put to the public in a referendum the questions asked would have to be - the monarchy; OR an executive presidency; OR parliamentary government. The 1999 referendum in Australia showed that the republicans cannot agree on a model, and could not get a majority for change, even if there were in a majority overall;

This is a a wholly inaccurate and obnoxious claim to make. The Republican Movement in New Zealand is not "hopelessly divided" over the options for a republic, and what form it may take.

Our official policy is that the model of the republic is for the New Zealand public to decide. The Monarchist League cannot state outright that a republican referendum in New Zealand would be limited in the same way that the Australian one was.

Keith Locke's Head of State Bill allows for a referendum on a republic combines the two issues with the possibility of two referendums - if the status quo and an directly-elected President are the two most favoured options, then there will be a second run-off referendum. If a indirectly elected President won outright (say over two-thirds of the vote) then there would be no second referendum on the issue. This is a simple, practical means of creating a New Zealand republic.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

WE ARE NOT AUSTRALIAN PAWNS

The major impetus for a republic appears to come from the largely Australian-controlled press. The Murdoch and Fairfax-owned newspapers have long lead a campaign for a republic in Australia, and theses conglomerates are now using their papers in this country to bolster republicanism. They are using the people of this country as unwitting pawns in their elitist campaign to force Australia to become a republic;

Certainly, Rupert Murdoch's republicanism has been a source of great antipathy in the Australian debate, but the impetus for the republic debate never came from Murdoch, Fairfax or the newspapers they own. To try and import anti-Murdoch sentiment into the New Zealand republic debate is strange. There is no evidence of some anti-monarchy conspiracy, and even if there was, there is no evidence that it has been instigated to move the republic debate here forward.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

CHOSSING TO REMAIN A MONARCHY IS A SIGN OF MATURITY

Many republicans argue that New Zealand must abandon its links to the Crown in order to show that we are mature. Becoming a republic is no more a sign of national maturity than was abolishing Area Health Boards. We are a democratic, independent state. How we govern ourselves is our own business. We do not make changes to our constitution just to demonstrate that we are independent.

We may very well be mature in keeping the monarchy, but that is not the point: it is the perception of our maturity that matters. By perception we do not simply mean the perception to other countries - we mean within the mindset of Joe Kiwi. Despite producing brilliant scientists, world-beating Yachtsmen, film producers, masters of literature and excellent artists, we still do not have our own head of State.

We use the head of State of our colonial ancestors, and the monarchists claim they are a New Zealander, because we have declared the Sovereign to be so. This is an immature position to be in - to name one thing which is really something else. That is where maturity matters.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

A REPUBLIC IS NOT INEVITABLE

A republic is not inevitable. Nor is the possibility that New Zealand may one day become a republic an argument for a republic. It is irrelevant. It is not an argument for ending the monarchy now, any more than the inevitability of death is a justification for suicide.

This is a fair claim, and one that the Republican Movement is willing to accept. But the fact a republic is not inevitable is one reason for our existence.

Top of the page - Why New Zealand Must NOT Become A Republic

MANY REPUBLICANS ARE MOTIVATED BY ENVY, OLD-FASHIONED CLASS-HOSTILITY, OR ANTI-BRITISH SENTIMENT

Many republican activists are seemingly motivated by intolerance, class-envy, or anti-British prejudice. These are features of the failed republican campaign in Australia. Many republican diatribes were marked by their viciousness, crudeness, racism, and intolerance. There are already signs of this in New Zealand. It would be unfortunate if we were to be influenced by such elements.

Exactly where are the 'signs' that republicans - or members of the Republican Movement - are 'vicious' 'crude' or 'racist'?

There is no evidence that the Republican Movement is motivated by 'envy', class-hostility or anti-British sentiment. This claim is more of a reflection on those making it - they are culturally insecure and consider anyone who "attacks" their heritage as being anti-British. Some fringe elements clearly are. But there are fringe elements on both sides. But we recognise that such fringe elements do not speak for the wider supporters of the monarchy. To this end, these claims are fear mongering.

The republican campaign in Australia was never based on anti-British sentiment. The loss was due to the the model being put forward being rejected at a referendum.