From NZ Republic to NZ Head of State

On the anniversary of New Zealand citizenship, we are rebranding our campaign from New Zealand Republic to New Zealand Head of State.

It is the Governor-General who does all the actual work of Head of State and the simplest solution to having an unelected, foreign head of state is to transition the role of Governor-General and make our highest constitutional office what it actually is: The Office of Head of State.

We are doing this today because September 6 is the anniversary of the passing of the British Nationality and NZ Citizenship Act 1948. The constitutional milestone that created New Zealand citizenship.

We assert very simply that only a New Zealander should be eligible to be New Zealand’s Head of State. The office holder should change every five years, and the role should retain the same constitutional, ceremonial and community duties as our Governor-General has now.

Since 1967 we have had New Zealand-born and New Zealand-appointed Governors-General so for 60 years we have been trialling what it means to have our own head of state. Like our Governors-General before them, our Head of State needs to always be someone of outstanding merit and mana. A person with proven dedication to the public good who can represent New Zealand and all New Zealanders with dignity.

Voting rights for citizens and permanent residents are an election issue. While only New Zealand citizens can stand for parliament, NZ First are asserting that voters with Permanent Residence should lose their voting rights after 51 years of having them.

Yet at the same time, our current Head of State, King Charles, is not a citizen, does not live here and never has. The King wields little to no power and the Monarch has for decades been consigned to the role of symbolic figurehead. As a British Sovereign, he is a poor symbol for New Zealand and does no work of any substance or value to New Zealanders.

The Governors-General do not report to the King. As de facto head of state they discharge all functions of New Zealand head of state and act on the advice of ministers from the elected government of the day. The palace does little more than rubber-stamp what is sent from the Governor-General, or from the Beehive via the Governor-General.

The Governor-General’s relationship to the King is tenuous. It is not clear how much regular contact there is between Government House and Buckingham Palace. By convention, the King stays out of New Zealand’s business and has expressed no opposition to us having our own head of state.

The Governor-General who holds ‘the royal prerogative’ and has legal powers to act independently of Government ministers to dissolve parliament, dismiss or appoint a Prime Minister.

The change we propose is not a radical constitutional shift because New Zealand is already one of the world’s most stable, democratic, parliamentary democracies. In every respect except one we are already a parliamentary republic. It is the lack of our own Head of State that is letting us down.

The changes we propose are about taking what we know is working and making it better.

To make it all happen we propose two steps. First, introduce transparency to the selection process for Governor-General. Adopt a system of indirect election via a super-majority in Parliament to select the office-holder instead of the Prime Minister.

Second, define the role’s powers and responsibilities in law as New Zealand Head of State then put to a referendum. Voters choose between staying with a Governor-General selected by parliament or becoming constitutional independent with a democratic Head of State.

It is a simple, elegant, and pragmatic proposal. If the vote is no, we stay with an indirectly elected Governor-General. If it is yes, the incumbent Governor-General becomes Head of State. There would be periodic assessments to check whether the office of our Head of State needed further adjustment or improvement.

Any proposal to change our constitutional laws or conventions deserves scrutiny so before they support change, New Zealanders rightfully want to know more about the reforms we are advocating. In principle, it is a simple solution but in practice voters are wary of potential pitfalls. There is hesitation to make the change or to make it a priority.

We are not advocating for wider change to the parliamentary electoral system, to the way Cabinet or Parliament operate. Having our own Head of State is not about changing the process of Treaty reconciliation or how our laws become laws.

We see no need to change other aspects of our constitution to achieve our own Head of State, and we do not believe in conflating constitutional issues. Safe and steady incremental constitutional change is a better way to do things. New Zealand is stable because we take practical steps to solve real-world problems. We do not grab for ideology and search for upheaval.

The Treaty of Waitangi is not dependent on retaining a British Head of State. It is a treaty between and for New Zealanders and having our own Head of State will help make that clear.

The concept of “the Crown” is not the simplest concept to explain and it is not surprising when people think it refers solely to the King. Few New Zealanders have read the Cabinet manual, which explains that in essence “the Crown” means the permanent authority of the state, enacted in the name of the Head of State, but embodied by the executive government, by ministers and their departments.

We are now focusing far more on the Head of State instead of talking about becoming a republic because the categories of republic are so broad they get in the way of talking specifics. Pointing at the US or at various false and failing republics as an argument against having our own Head of State is a distraction from how New Zealand works in practice.

Every republic is different and each country’s democracy reflects its unique circumstances.

Austria, Iceland and Ireland, are all parliamentary republics where the Head of State has limited constitutional and ceremonial powers, but we are not proposing to copy any other countries. We are proposing a New Zealand Head of State and a distinctly New Zealand-style parliamentary republic.

Despite what objectors say, our stability is not dependent on having a foreign or an aristocratic or an Anglican Head of State. It is because New Zealanders have a well-developed, long-held and widespread commitment to good governance.

From today onwards our website, campaign literature and all our lobbying, advertising and messaging will be about moving towards a NZ Head of State. Our focus is still on principles not personalities and our commitment to involving all New Zealanders in the debate continues. Our commitment to achieving what is fair and pragmatic and in the interests of all New Zealanders remains.

We are looking forward to Waitangi Day 2040 when New Zealand’s Head of State and Britain’s Head of State meet at the Treaty grounds as equals. Representatives of two sovereign countries bound together by our shared historical and our ongoing political, cultural and economic bonds.

Savage is a union director in Auckland and the current chair of NZ Republic / Kia Mana Motuhake a Aotearoa. He was one of the co-founders of the campaign and has been involved since its inception in 1994.

Belize drops British monarchs from its money

The central bank of Belize has announced new bank notes, removing the British monarchy from the country’s money. Belize is one of the remaining "realms” where the British monarch reigns.

New banknotes for Belize, prominently displaying national heroes of Belize.

It’s time that New Zealand did the same. Sign the Actionstation petition here.

New Zealand Republic's submission on the Treaty Principles Bill

New Zealand Republc’s submission on the Treaty Principles Bill is below.  This was a collective effort of the executive of the incorporated society:

1. This is the submission of New Zealand Republic Inc - Kia Mana Motuhake a Aotearoa - on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.

2.     This proposed legislation is relevant to our goals as an incorporated society because the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi is central to New Zealand’s ability to become achieve republic status.

3.     New Zealand Republic’s policy regarding the Treaty is:

The Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti o Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document. A New Zealand citizen as head of state will not change this or the relationship between Māori and the Government.

Our campaign for a republic supports:

·         Recognising the Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti of Waitangi as New Zealand’s founding document; and

·         In legislation establishing the republic, a specific Treaty clause re-stating the Māori-Kawangatanga (i.e. the New Zealand Government) relationship and preserving that relationship;

4.     The Treaty is often described as being between “Her late Majesty Queen Victoria and the Maori people of New Zealand”. However, while it is in the name of Queen Victoria it was in reality between the government of Great Britain and Iwi.

5.     It should be noted that Queen Victoria was 20 years old in 1840. She was not responsible for the Treaty and was acting under the direction of Whig Party Cabinet Ministers, Prime Minister William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne and the Secretary for War and the Colonies, Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Commonly known as Lord Melbourne and Lord Palmerston. 

6.     In 1840, the Monarch was a figurehead whose name was affixed to the Treaty as standard legal language.

7.     We do not need any links to the British Monarchy and British Crown to make sense of the Treaty. The British Monarchy stood by and did nothing to protect Māori during the very worst excesses of the colonial era.

8.     Efforts to build a constructive and lasting relationship between successive governments and Māori have been carried out here in New Zealand by New Zealanders and that work should be recognised and respected. 

9.     The passing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was an important step in this work. It was specifically created “to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty”

10.Our submission to the select committee is that we oppose the Bill. It is unnecessary, it defines the principles of the Treaty in an ahistoric way and seeks to make constitutional changes without proper process.

11.The Bill is unnecessary - it is ostensibly about guaranteeing equality between ethnic groups. The Human Rights Act 1993 already guarantees equality and non-discrimination. If that Act is not effective, then parliament’s attention should be directed that way.

12.The Bill is ahistoric. It seeks to redefine the principles of the Treaty without consultation, aside from the required select committee process. While the Bill’s proponents state that they want a debate on the Treaty and its principles, they are pre-determining that debate by stating what those principles are in the Bill itself.

13.The Bill is seeking to make constitutional changes and to elevate its definitions of the principles of the Treaty to the status of superior constitutional law through a referendum. The honest position would be to have a debate on a written Constitution (if that is what the Bill’s proponents want) and to have a conversation on that issue.

14.We recognise the work of the Waitangi Tribunal who are already doing the necessary work to address Treaty concerns and define Treaty Principles. That work has taken place since 1975 and should continue. It has been carried out carefully in a methodical and considered way. The tribunal’s work has been fully transparent, in conjunction with Māori and any New Zealander can participate. 

15.We strongly request that the committee rejects the Bill entirely and instead recommends that more resources are committed to the work of the Waitangi Tribunal to report on the outstanding Treaty Claims. There are currently 2501 registered claims and the tribunal has only fully or partly reported on 1028 of those claims.

16. Thank you for your consideration of this submission. New Zealand Republic does not wish to appear before the select committee.