In this edition: Dominion centenary sparks republic debate: Widespread support for a republic at dominion symposium; Dominion centenary debate success; quotes in the republic debate from Spoken, Poll question: Should New Zealand celebrate the passing of the Statute of Westminster? The Way Forward by Barrie Cook, and The Case For a Republic: Centenary time for republican vision, by Lewis Holden.

Dominion centenary sparks republic debate

Parliament's library lit up on 26th September. Photograph courtesy of Kyle Lockwood.

THE REPUBLIC DEBATE was given a boost on the anniversary of New Zealand's dominion declaration - September 26th - with the issue being raised by The Dominion Post, several commentators and at the official Dominion Day celebrations in Wellington. Meanwhile, the Republican Movement, along with the Auckland University Debating Society, hosted a successful debate on the republic issue in Auckland.

Widespread support for a republic at dominion symposium

Evan Roberts' reports that the symposium held at parliament on 26th revealed widespread support amongst New Zealand's leaders for a republic.

A SYMPOSIUM AT PARLIAMENT to mark the 100th anniversary of New Zealand becoming a Dominion, showed New Zealand's political and intellectual elite support a republic broadly but not intensely. The "Concepts of Nationhood" symposium was organized by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. Academics, journalists and politicians spoke on New Zealand's evolving national identity. The day began and ended with speeches from the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who said that New Zealand would inevitably become a republic but did nothing to advance the republican movement.

Former Prime Minister Jim Bolger, though not on the program until the closing reception, contributed to discussion throughout the day, and was vigorous in his long-standing support for a New Zealand republic. In the day's closing remarks he challenged the audience with the observation that time was an ally of those opposed to change, and that change only happened when people organized to make it happen.

A persistent theme of the speakers was that New Zealand's constitutional independence has come through succeeding small changes, not revolution. Dominion status was a small step towards independence. In 1907 independence was independence within the Empire, and associated with Britain. The bounds of independence were pushed out a little further with separate diplomatic representation in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1947 New Zealand ratified the Statute of Westminster, so the United Kingdom parliament could no longer pass laws for New Zealand, and in 1974 the Queen was declared to be the Queen of New Zealand and her other realms (including the United Kingdom).

The positive news for republicans from the symposium was a widespread view that becoming a republic is continuous with New Zealand's constitutional heritage of incremental change. The question for the country and the Republican Movement is how to keep the incremental change coming.

Jamie Belich (Auckland University) opened proceedings with a passionate speech about New Zealand's twin heritage of nationalism and globalization, and supported a republic as a way of being an independent nation in the world. Ngatata Love (Te Atiawa, Victoria University) also advocated strongly for a republic with a written constitution. Love was passionate that the change must come from the people, and not be led by politicians. If the change was led by ordinary New Zealanders talking about the issues Love was confident that we would get it right. Love called for a vote of the people present on his ideas, but the chair of his session, former Governor General, Sir Paul Reeves brought the session to a close without a vote.

Republicans can be pleased that there is widespread support for a republic amongst the country's leaders. A republic is also increasingly seen as a change integral to, not opposed to, New Zealand's other outstanding political issues including the relationship between Maori and Pakeha. The republic, it seems, is expected and just waiting for its founders.

Dominion centenary debate a success

Savage introduces the debate.

Brett Cunningham speaks for the monarchists.

Lewis Holden puts the case for the republic.

The debate organised by Auckland members to celebrate Dominion Day last Wednesday was a successful start to our programme of public meetings and events. The debate was well attended, received wide coverage in the news media and ended with a victory for the republican team. It was a chance for new members of the movement to meet and get to know one another.

It was organised in conjunction with Auckland University Debating Society and the Monarchist League, who were challenged to debate whether it was now time for New Zealand to become a republic. The setting was Pioneer Women's Hall, a community hall on High Street, an ideal location for future functions and events. Around 70 people attended the event including Green MP Keith Locke, members of Young Labour and the Young Nats.

The size of the audience was a good turn out given we had only two weeks to promote the event and it showed there is a keen interest among the public to hear more from both sides in the debate. The symposium held at Parliament in Wellington together with the publicised debate in Auckland focused media attention on when the formal transition to republicanism will take place.

The Monarchist League had agreed to provide a speaker for the negative or monarchist team two weeks ago, but could not agree among themselves as to who would actually speak on their behalf. Their reserve speaker Brett Cunningham attended the debate but declined to participate at short notice. He was invited to speak alongside Savage before the debate in order to ensure fairness. Addressing the audience as "my fellow subjects" Mr Cunningham discussed the Dominion Day celebrations held one hundred years ago at parliament.

95bFM radio Tuesday Wire host Kim Choe chaired the debate and the monarchists speaker was replaced by a last minute call-in from the debating society. The affirmative or republican team provided three strong arguments in favour of republicanism concentrating on issues of parliamentary control, democracy and national identity while the monarchist team pointed to the dangers of change, particularly with respect to the Treaty of Waitangi, lack of majority support for a republic, and argued there was no climate for change. The affirmative team lead by Lewis Holden all spoke clearly and strongly and won with a split decision of 2 to 1.

The Republican Movement donated three bottles of quality New Zealand champagne to the winning team so it was a relief to see it go to the worthiest speakers. Lewis gave his bottle to Desley Horton of the debating society for her efforts in organising the debate.

The event gave us valuable insights into what makes a successful public event and we will be building from the debate to ensure republicanism remains firmly on the political agenda. Monarchist arguments against reform were highlighted and Keith Locke commented afterward that the debate had given him some thoughts on how to fine tune his Head of State Bill.

The whole event was a lively and enjoyable focus for debate and discussion and was a boost to the movement in Auckland.

More pictures of the debate are at the Auckland University debaters' website.

This month, the Case for a Republic re-prints Lewis Holden's Dominion Day column from The Dominion Post.

Centenary time for republican vision

Visionary leadership is a rare quality in New Zealand. In 1907 Joseph Ward's Liberal government gave us such leadership in declaring New Zealand a dominion within the British Empire. New Zealanders followed this lead enthusiastically - expressing a new confident identity in everything from the names of major roads to businesses and sporting trophies. The creation of The Dominion newspaper was born from that spirit and for five years after the declaration Dominion Day was widely celebrated. However, the election of the unashamedly imperialist Prime Minister, Bill Massey - a strident opponent of dominion status - resulted in Dominion Day being steadily downgraded. The initial sense of national celebration and vitality was lost.

Like the republic debate today, the dominion issue was one of national identity. Dominion status was a largely symbolic change but Ward understood that for a nation symbols matter. In 1901 Australia’s federation left New Zealand a colony within the empire. Australian-born Ward sought to use dominion status to raise New Zealand’s profile, arguing that a greater sense of nationhood would – and indeed did - arise from becoming a dominion. Ward argued that the changes required would be overcome by creating uniquely New Zealand symbols. It was during this flowering of New Zealand identity that symbols such as the Kiwi began to emerge as a way of expressing a sense of our unique nationhood.

Throughout the dominion debate, Massey's conservatives sought to downplay and dismiss the whole issue as being not even worth considering. When this failed, they undermined the debate with fallacies and distortions. Massey argued that the sky would fall in should constitutional changes be made. They spread anxiety and fear by arguing that it would cost New Zealand greatly to become a Dominion; they argued it would lead to an all-powerful Prime Minister; they made deliberately erroneous comparisons between New Zealand and the Dominion of Canada; they insisted proponents were trying to sever ties with the Empire.

Yet, for all their attempts to deny the debate, Massey was shown to be wrong. New Zealand's democracy remained resilient, and warnings of a slippery slope to national ruin proved false. These same fallacies and anxieties have now reappeared in the republic debate. All that divides the opponents of a republic from the opponents of a dominion is one hundred years. At present around 40% of New Zealanders want New Zealand to become a republic. Yet monarchists insist there is no issue to debate. They resort to repeating the same fallacies: that we will have an all powerful President; that we will have to leave the Commonwealth; that becoming a republic means adopting a US style republic.

There is also a disappointing lack of visionary leadership from our politicians. With such large numbers for and against a republic, they sit on the fence trying avoid offending the middle ground. The move to a republic is a bigger and arguably more important change than the move to dominion was, but it is also about improving our democracy and our standards of political debate. It is about our ability to choose our own head of state and our ability to control and develop our own democracy. While we maybe appear to be an independent, sovereign nation, we still have a head of state that is at odds with that sense of independence. For this reason, republicans argue that we need to assert our nationhood, maturity and independence by having a head of state of our own.

We have the benefit of the last hundred years of history to see that many parliamentary republics, with ceremonial heads of state, are democratically successful and stable. We have a strong democracy because the people of New Zealand have a strong democratic ethos – not because we have a Sovereign who pays us visits now and again. Issues such as whether our head of state is elected directly or indirectly by the people of New Zealand can be decided easily by referendum. There are plenty of precedents for successful republics of this nature, where the head of state plays a positive role in political and social leadership. Such heads of state are an effective but subtle check on the Prime Minister, more so than our Governor-General, because they are not appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister.

Opponents of a republic insist on making fallacious arguments in an effort to derail any debate. The cost of maintaining a New Zealand president is one of them. Yet the President of Ireland costs about the same as our Governor-General, and there is no reason to suggest a New Zealand equivalent would cost more. The status of the Treaty is another common target. Legal academics are virtually unanimous in carefully stating that a republic does not downgrade the status of the Treaty. In fact, a republic would become a milestone in race relations -- because a New Zealand president would acquire the Crown's duties, a republic would bring the Treaty home, the president would have the mana to be a guiding hand in race relations.

In an increasingly competitive globalised world, New Zealanders are grasping the need to assert our nationhood, articulated as a national identity that is our own. A national identity implies symbols that accord with our values. The monarchy simply does not stand up to any analysis in this regard. It is an institution of exclusivity and privilege that discriminates on the grounds of religion, gender and birth. These are not and have never been values that New Zealand stands for or aspires to.

Ward understood the power of symbolism in 1907. He understood that bold statements are about who we are, where we are going, and what we stand for. A republic would be such a statement. The opponents of the dominion like opponents of a republic lack any alternative vision for New Zealand and consistently deny the cracks and contradictions inherent in our constitution. Who among our contemporary politicians is ready to show Ward's visionary leadership and see them off? A republic would be a statement of confidence in New Zealand, a signal to the world of our independence. It will take time - but like the dominion, the constitutional issues are a challenge to embrace, not a bogeyman to be feared. To move forward we need visionary leadership: a vision of a confident, outgoing New Zealand with national symbols that are inclusive and inspiring. A republic is the way forward - we look forward to the day when September 26th as Republic Day, celebrating our national identity and independence, and inspiring a new generation of New Zealanders.