New Zealand Republic commissions opinion polls to understand the issues behind support for and against a republic. Sometimes these polls look at particular policies, and whether they increase or decrease support for change.

A couple of years ago, we asked a follow-up question about whether having a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the legislation establishing a republic would result in respondents being more or less likely to support change. We wanted to know whether including such a clause increases or decreases support among those who support and oppose a republic, and by how much.

The question was asked as a follow-up to the primary question (i.e. “Do you support a republic or keeping the monarchy?”). The result of that question was 27% republic, 38% monarchy, 36% undecided.

The Treaty clause question was phrased:

Would you be more or less likely to support a republic if legislation establishing a republic included a clause explicitly stating that any obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are transferred from the Crown to the NZ Government?

The overall results were:

More likely 18%
The same 34%
Less likely 21%
Unsure 27%

What’s interesting about the result is that among those who are decided on this issue, a Treaty clause galvanizes support and opposition:

40% of those who say “republic” in the first question say they’re more likely to support change with the rest saying their support remains unchanged and a very small percentage stating they’re less likely to support change
27% who say “monarchy” to the first question are less likely to support change, with a very small percentage becoming undecided or supporting a republic.
The change in republic versus monarchy support comes mainly from those who were undecided in the first question, although only marginally. Essentially, a net 3% of those who were undecided in the first question moved their support to the status quo because of the Treaty clause.