Speech to Penrose Rotary, 5 July 2011

Republican Movement chair Lewis Holden's speech to the Penrose Rotary, 5 July 2011.
Tena koutou and thank you Mr President for the invitation to present to you this morning on the Republican Movement and the republic debate. I realise its cold, dark and early, but what better way to start the day than discussing our constitutional arrangements! Most of the detailed issues I refer to can be found in the New Zealand Republic Handbook, or on our website.

I’m Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement. I’m passionate about our country and its future, especially the constitutional issues we face. The malaise of our national identity is also one of my interests. I don’t have throne envy. Like all of the other members of the Republican Movement, I’m passionate about our country.

Today I’ll focus on three main questions:

• What is the New Zealand republic debate all about?
• Should New Zealand become a republic? What are the benefits?
• Where’s the New Zealand republic debate heading?

What is the New Zealand republic debate all about?
As with any issue, it’s important to define what a New Zealand republic is not about. It’s not about:

• The British Royal family – while discussing their position is impossible with respect to the monarchy, the Royals just aren’t relevant to New Zealand. This debate is not about whether William is like his mother, or Charles’ views on climate change or homeopathy.
• New Zealand’s flag or anthems – while most republicans support changing the flag, we accept the two issues must be treated separately. Other symbols such as coins and the coat of arms will probably change with time, as they would anyway.
• Commonwealth membership – the majority of members of the Commonwealth are republics. They all recognise the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. There is no risk to New Zealand’s membership of the Commonwealth when we transition to a republic.
• The Treaty of Waitangi; perhaps the most common argument against a New Zealand republic is that it would nullify the Treaty. There is a lot of misinformation about the Treaty, but suffice to say the transition to a republic doesn’t change the status of the Treaty.

There is also a perception that for New Zealand, republicanism means adopting a US-style political system – a powerful executive presidency, a supreme court able to nullify any law, a congressional legislature and an entrenched, codified constitution. Often this perception is accompanied by the view that any one of these things is undesirable. We know from our own research that few New Zealanders support a US-style republic. In fact most of the opposition to a republic is based on fear of such a system.

There is also a perception that creating a republic requires incredibly complex and unnecessary changes. Usually the focus is on the creation of a “written” constitution. What is actually meant by this is a codified constitution – that is, a single probably entrenched document as supreme law. This is not required for a New Zealand republic (there are republics elsewhere in the world without codified constitutions) and not part of the issue.

That’s what a New Zealand republic is not about. What is the New Zealand republic debate actually about?


The reality is that creating a New Zealand republic is a legally simple proposition. The weight of academic literature supports this position. Victoria University law academic Dean Knight, speaking at the Reconstituting the Constitution Conference in October last year, put forward a republic achieved through making the necessary changes to our constitutional framework. Dean’s proposition is straightforward: reform the office of Governor-General into a full head of state.

Our constitutional development of incremental changes points that way. The head of state (who we would have to think of a name for) would have the same constitutional powers the Governor-General currently has, similar to many other parliamentary republics around the world, such as India, Austria, Germany, Italy, Finland, Ireland, Iceland, etc. Those powers would probably be much more clearly defined, however.

The Prime Minister would continue as the head of Government, undertaking the day-to-day running of the government. They would lose the ability to appoint whomever they want to that position, and dismiss them when it suits. This is an important benefit over the status quo, and something I’ll return to later.

Every nation adopts its institutions to its unique needs, and New Zealand is no different. Since the creation of our democratically representative form of government, New Zealand has adopted it to suit our own needs – votes for Maori, votes for women, universal suffrage, a secret ballot, the abolition of an unelected upper house, and more recently electoral reform in the form of proportional representation. Almost all of these things happened in New Zealand well before anywhere else, including the UK itself.

The office of Governor-General has also been radically changed. The office used to merely be an extension of the British aristocracy in New Zealand. But members of the British aristocracy haven’t been appointed to the office since 1967, when New Zealand Prime Ministers gained the right to advise the Queen on whom to appoint. The appointment of the Governor-General is the only constitutional activity the Sovereign undertakes in relation to New Zealand, once every 5 years. It is the Governor-General, who some academics describe as our “de facto” head of state who does all of the work of head of state for New Zealand.

Despite calls from time to time for a Royal to hold the job, a range of New Zealanders have held the office, sometimes controversially. Other changes have been made along the way. The Governor-General doesn’t have to ask for the permission of Buckingham Palace to leave New Zealand, as they did until 2006. Foreign diplomats present their credentials to the Governor-General, not the Queen.

The greatest difference would be that every 5 years, a new head of state would need to be elected. The Australian experience in 1999 suggests that how the office is nominated and elected is best left up to the public to decide at a referendum. However, also speaking at the constitutional conference last year was former Deputy Prime Minister Dr Michael Cullen. Dr Cullen suggested that one way to transition to a republic would be for the Governor-General first to be elected by a super-majority of parliament, or 75%. This is another idea the Republican Movement has championed. It emphasises the legal simplicity of the transition to a republic.

Should New Zealand become a republic? What are the benefits?

The transition to a republic is a relatively straightforward legal and political process. Before New Zealanders make that decision, however, a national discussion needs to take place. It is essential that people are well informed and are aware of the reasons why becoming a republic is the best option for New Zealand. The Republican Movement argues that the issue of a New Zealand republic can be pared down into three main areas:

• Independence — New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state;
• Nationhood — the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand's national identity, culture and heritage;
• Democracy — New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.

Most of these issues relate to New Zealand’s head of state.

Independence

New Zealand will not be fully independent until we have a head of state of our own, chosen by New Zealanders. Our head of state is the British monarch, who is also head of state of 15 other Commonwealth members. True, the Queen has the title “Queen of New Zealand”. But that doesn’t make Her Majesty a New Zealand Queen. The President of France is also co-Prince of Andorra, but no one sees him as Andorran. This is not to begrudge the Queen (or Andorra). The fact is the Queen is first and foremost Britain’s head of state. The Queen never represents New Zealand overseas.

This leaves New Zealand in a ridiculous situation. Outwardly we have all the other tenets of independence; the only exception is our head of state. Added to this, as I’ve mentioned previously, is the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative. Since the 1980s he or she has represented New Zealand overseas in place of the Queen.

So we have a situation where our head of state doesn’t represent New Zealand, but the representative of our head of state does. The only practical outcome of this is that our head of state makes New Zealand look as if we’re not independent, so it’s no wonder we’re often confused for a country that isn’t independent.
The monarchy also impacts New Zealand’s independence in another way: the rules of who gets to be Sovereign. As the recent debate over the succession law in the United Kingdom shows us, we cannot independently change the rules around who gets to be our Sovereign.

Transitioning to a republic will be the time for that debate, and a time to assert the values that New Zealand stands for as an independent country of the 21st century in the Asia-Pacific region.

Nationhood

New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state should reflect this.

Underlying the issue of nationhood is how New Zealanders understand their place in the world. This is crucial to New Zealand's success in an increasingly globalised 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. I suspect in part this is because we don’t exactly know, because we’ve never had a proper debate about it.

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.

Some people worry that by declaring a republic we are rejecting New Zealand’s heritage as a British colony. A New Zealand republic is not an about rejection, but recognition.

Democracy

A New Zealand 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. In a republic the head of state would be elected — either directly by voters, or indirectly by parliament.

As I mentioned before, at the moment the Prime Minister chooses the Governor-General and advises the Monarch of their choice, sometimes with minimal consultation in cabinet and of the leader of the opposition. 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. While individually there has 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.

More importantly, the Prime Minister also has the ability to sack the Governor-General. While no Governor or Governor-General has been dismissed in New Zealand since the 1870s, there is plenty of precedent from around the Commonwealth of dismissals. Gough Whitlam’s sacking as Prime Minister of Australia in 1975 was largely due to a threat he made to the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr – allegedly in jest – that the Prime Minster could sack the Governor-General.
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, New Zealanders will choose the head of state. They will work on behalf of all New Zealanders regardless of their political beliefs.

Where’s the republic debate heading?

At the moment, the New Zealand republic debate is analogous to a frozen conflict. Like those former Soviet republics with tiny enclaves that flare up from time to time, the republic debate comes and goes, briefly engaging the public before fading into the background. In absence of any concerted effort to resolve the head of state issue, New Zealand has plodded along, focusing only in recent years on reforming the Governor-General’s office.

There are multiple triggers that could at any moment set the debate off – sadly, most of them are external to New Zealand. Developments with the monarchy in Britain often sparks the debate off. The recent debate about the succession rules following William and Kate’s wedding is a good example.

The attempt to remove the sexist and discriminatory rules banning women and Catholics faltered. This wasn’t due to opposition to changing the rules, but because the prime ministers of Canada and Australia didn’t want to kick off the republic debate in either country.

The longevity of the Queen is another issue, one that the Australian Prime Minister has set her republic timetable to. The prospect of the Australian debate being re-ignited is another trigger – it will certainly be interesting now that the pro-republic Greens hold the balance of power in the Australian Senate.

There don’t seem to be as many internal triggers in New Zealand, which probably in itself says something about the lack of debate. There’s a constitutional review, but that only has a New Zealand republic as a footnote to its terms of reference. Including the head of state issue would inevitably lead to more New Zealanders discussing the issue, and as we saw in Australia during the 1990s – and leading monarchists themselves admit – the more people discuss and understand republicanism, the more likely they are to support it.

There could be another members Bill for a referendum, as Green MP Keith Locke put up. Or another party could adopt republicanism as an official policy – currently only one, United Future, has such a policy.

While there has undoubtedly been a dip in support following the wedding of William and Kate, support for a New Zealand republic has grown strongly over the last 30 years. In the late 1980s, support was about 16%. Depending on the question, support is now somewhere in the range of 30 – 40%. Most polls show support for the monarchy is still in the majority, although a number – most notably the New Zealand electoral study – show support just under the golden 50% mark.

Of course, opinion polls are only so reliable. But they do illuminate the debate. While a majority of New Zealanders apparently support the monarchy, there are some contradictions to this:

• During the Queen’s last visit to New Zealand, in 2002, TVNZ asked if the monarchy still had relevance to New Zealanders. 58% responded that it didn’t.
• In a National Business Review poll asking whether New Zealanders thought we would become a republic in future, 57% said yes.

As you would expect, the young tend to support a republic in greater numbers than older New Zealanders.


...as does the political left.


And, despite claims otherwise, Maori support a republic in far greater numbers than non-Maori.


Then there’s the issue of the succession. We know that support for the monarchy climbs automatically whenever the Queen is mentioned. Her Majesty is the monarchy’s greatest asset. As I said earlier, the Royals themselves have nothing to do with the New Zealand republic debate – except when it comes to the triggers for the debate.


It seems there’s a strategy for the Queen’s popularity to pass on to Prince William and his wife Catherine. This is a difficult strategy to understand. It’s like a software vendor telling you their next product is no good, but don’t worry – the version after it will be great! The problem, as I pointed out to countless journalists, is that William won’t be on the throne for another twenty or thirty years, at which time he’ll be about his father’s age. Remember, his mother and father were even more popular than he is; I’ve got a cutting of a New Zealand Herald article from the 1960s of crowds swooning to see Prince Charles at the newly-opened Auckland International Airport!

As we have see, the changes required for a New Zealand republic are not complex, or anywhere near as scary as some have made out.
A New Zealand republic is not about rejecting our British heritage.


So there you have it — the arguments for a New Zealand republic, what benefits a republic would have to New Zealand, and what is wrong with the monarchy. Now all we have to do is act on it.


This is where the Republican Movement comes in. We exist to promote the debate on whether New Zealand should become a republic, and to promote a New Zealand republic.

You may be surprised that there is little mention of the Royal family or scandals regarding the Royals. That is because the Royals do not really matter to republicans, because constitutionally they do not really matter to New Zealand. We are not anti-British. We want New Zealand to have a mature relationship with Great Britain, and to keep a lot of the great traditions New Zealand has inherited from New Zealand’s past as a British colony. It is always worth repeating that New Zealand is already an independent, democratic and sovereign nation in its own right. The issue is that New Zealand has never recognised this, by having the confidence and courage to have a head of state of our own.

And so republicanism is part of the wider question of what New Zealand’s national identity is. It is about articulating our sense of self, and moving forward as a confident South Pacific nation into the 21st century. It is time New Zealanders found the confidence in themselves to make these simple, yet symbolically important changes.