In this edition: President of Ireland a model for us all; Building Bridges the Irish way; Next Aussie PM a republican; Sedition submission draws praise; Discrimination "purely academic"; Quotes in the republic debate from Spoken, Poll question: What can we learn from the Irish model? The Way Forward by Lewis Holden; The Case For a Republic looks at the implications of the Statute of Westminster 1931.

President of Ireland a model for us all

THE STATE VISIT OF IRISH PRESIDENT MARY MCALEESE highlights both the model of the Irish republic and the Irish presidency as a workable alternative for New Zealand. During the President's visit, the Republican Movement is highlighting to New Zealanders the president's stature, and asks all New Zealanders to see how a parliamentary president can be a respected and unifying head of state as well as a true representative of the people.

Flag of the President of Ireland. Our office of Governor-General has a similar flag to the Irish one, just like the powers of the office itself are similar.

Supporters of the monarchy often argue there is no viable replacement for the status quo in New Zealand of the Sovereign and Governor-General. The Irish model is a precedent-setting formula that shows reform for the better is possible: Ireland used to have the British monarch as head of state, and reformed their Governor-General into a democratically selected presidency in 1936, retaining the King for a period, then making the President a full head of state in 1949. Meanwhile, they retained a prime minister as head of government. Since then, the Republic of Ireland has blossomed as a prosperous independent nation, respected throughout the world as an example of stability, pluralism and democracy.

Unlike the President of Ireland, New Zealand's head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, almost always represents Britain whenever Her Majesty travels abroad - although the role of New Zealand's Governor-General has taken on ceremonial presidential characteristics, constitutionally, he or she is still the representative of the Queen, not the people of New Zealand. The Republican Movement produced a fact sheet on the Republic of Ireland and the Irish Presidency for the media, to highlight the Irish model.

The fact sheet can be downloaded from our website here.

Bridge building the Irish way

The visit of the President of Ireland is also a chance to reflect on the implications a republic will have on Māori and Pakeha relations.

President McAleese has stressed "Building Bridges" between the peoples of Ireland as a theme of her tenure. As the first President from Northern Ireland, a lawyer and academic, President McAleese has along interest in justice, reconciliation, equality, and social inclusion. These values are the values New Zealanders will need if we are to solve our own social divisions.

While the future of the Treaty in a single constitutional framework is a separate issue to creating republic, a republic will not itself change the position of the Treaty of Waitangi. Legal academics – including Professor Jock Brookfield, Moana Jackson and the Chairman of the Monarchist League – are of the view that a republic will not affect the Treaty of Waitangi in any way. The President is leading the way in her country, showing that if New Zealand moves toward becoming a republic, it is an excellent chance to build bridges between Māori and Pakeha.

Australia's next PM a republican

WITH AUSTRALIA SET TO GO TO THE POLLS late in November, the chances of the next Aussie PM being a republican are very high. Whether Labor's Kevin Rudd or the Coalition's John Howard win the election, either way Australia will have a republican Prime Minister in the near future. Mr Howard has indicated that should he win, he will stand down. More than likely he will be replaced as Prime Minister by Peter Costello, his republican deputy who formed the group Conservatives for an Australian Head of State. If Rudd wins, it is likely a new process - probably the plebiscites proposed by John Howard in 1998 and the Australian senate in 2004 - will go ahead. This way the Australian public - 62% of whom support a republic, according to the Australian Electoral Study of 2004 - will get to choose what model of a republic they want.

However, the Australian Republican Movement sounded a word of warning in its September 2007 Republican Round Up by stating: "...even with a pair of republicans as leaders of both political parties, a republican referendum or plebiscite is not necessarily a certainty". The republicans across the Tasman will need to keep lobbying their government to acknowledge that the people of Australia want their country to become a republic.

Sedition submission draws praise

OUR SUBMISSION on legislation before parliament to repeal the offence of sedition - exciting disaffection towards Her Majesty - has drawn praised in Parliament. List MP Keith Locke, a tireless supporter of a New Zealand republic, made mention of our submission during the Second Reading of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill:

"The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand's submission to the select committee on 15 February 2005 - and they were a bit worried about being caught themselves - quotes the Monarchist League of New Zealand as stating that debating whether Prince Charles is to be King is possibly seditious. [Rodney Hide: Quite right!] They were getting a bit worried about that, and some people in this Chamber might think that, too. They might think some of my advocacy in that respect is a little bit beyond the pale, but there we are. If we pass this legislation I might be safe. The Republican Movement made the point in its submission that there are a lot of other provisions and sections of the Crimes Act that can handle actions that are injurious to the public good, without the need for the sedition sections ...It was a good submission by the Republican Movement, and it showed the importance of passing this legislation."

Reference: Hansard, 10 October 2007 – Parliament.nz

The bill passed its third and final reading 114-7, with only New Zealand First opposing the bill. The law of sedition, exciting disaffection towards Her Majesty's Government, is now repealed. New Zealanders may now debate whether Prince Charles should be their future King, without fear of prosecution.

Discrimination "purely academic"

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CATHOLICS by New Zealand's monarchy is "purely academic", according to the Monarchist League in their November edition of Monarchy New Zealand. Peter Phillips, son of HRH The Princess Royal and Captain Mark Phillips, has disqualified himself from the British (and hence New Zealand) throne by becoming engaged to a Canadian Catholic, Autumn Kelly. This is because the Act of Settlement 1701 - which is part of New Zealand law under the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 - bars Catholics from getting near to the Throne, in case they might raise a Jacobite army and subvert the British Monarchy. Of course the disqualification is academic, because it makes no real difference to the monarchy itself. But it does highlight that the head of state of New Zealand is based on an outdated, bigoted and discriminatory legal framework which is out of touch with the religious freedom and tolerance of New Zealand society. The monarchy is thus symbolically at odds with New Zealand and New Zealanders' values.

The Case for a Republic

This month, the Case for a Republic looks at the Statute of Westminster 1931 and its implications for the republic debate.

November 25 marks the 60th anniversary of New Zealand's adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931, which we adopted with the consent of Britain in 1947. Unlike the marking of the centenary of the Dominion declaration last month, the adoption of the Statute of Westminster was legally more significant, yet is more obscure. For the republic debate, two issues stand out: the length of time it took for New Zealand to adopt the Statute, and the constitutional implications of it.

The constitutional implications are important: the Statute legally separated a Crown in right of New Zealand from the British Crown, prompted the creation of New Zealand nationality, and removed the ability of Westminster to legislate for New Zealand without our consent - the ability of Westminster to legislate with our consent was not removed until the Constitution Act 1986 was passed.

The Statute of Westminster grew out of the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which itself came about because of the dismissal of Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King by the Canadian Governor General, who claimed to be acting on the British government's behalf. The Statute itself focussed on giving legal effect for the equality and legislative independence of the dominions of the embryonic British Commonwealth. One area of contention is the preamble to the Statute, which requires "...the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom" to changes to the succession to the throne. However, because this is the preamble of the Act, it is technically not binding, and the last instance when it was raised – with the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1937 – was before New Zealand had adopted the Statute.

The long-term constitutional implications of the Statute of Westminster were far greater, arguably, than the Dominion. A separate New Zealand Crown meant that today the New Zealand monarchy is legally separate from the British monarchy - for this reason monarchists argue that the Queen is a New Zealand head of state, because the Queen is legally Queen of New Zealand. This argument ignores the reality that while the Queen is Queen of New Zealand, the Queen undertakes all of her other constitutional and symbolic functions as the British Sovereign, and is resident in the United Kingdom almost exclusively, and when Her Majesty travels, she represents the United Kingdom. This argument is threadbare. A separate New Zealand Crown also means that responsibility for the Treaty of Waitangi has been transferred from the British Crown to the New Zealand Crown – which means that a republic will affect a similar transfer. This, of course, is the reality that endless delegations of Maori to Buckingham Palace found: the Treaty is the responsibility of the New Zealand Government, and the British Crown provides Maori with no special protection from the government.

Peter Fraser: dithered on the Statute of Westminster.

Dr Michael Basset's biography of war time Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser, Tomorrow Comes the Song, sheds some light as to why New Zealand did not adopt the Statute of Westminster for some time. The early run-ins between the first Labour Government and Britain - specifically on the issue of foreign affairs - New Zealand supported military action in Ethopia against Mussolini's Italy, Britain did not - and economic policy. The "Buy NZ Made Goods" campaign had been labeled "anti-Imperial" by the opposition, as it discouraged buying British goods. This experience had hardened Scottish-born Fraser into avoiding anything seen as "anti-British". He became preoccupied with avoiding the accusation of being seen as "anti-British", which like the modern accusation against republicans is of course more of a reflection on supporters of the status quo. Fraser's government had proposed to adopt the Statute of Westminster in 1944, following Australia which adopted the Statute in 1942, but the proposal was quietly buried due to an outcry by the opposition. Ironically, it was the opposition that was to force Frasers' hand - Sidney Holland, later National Prime Minister from 1949 - 1957, introduced a private members' Bill to abolish the Legislative Council (the old appointed upper house), which failed because New Zealand did not have the ability to amend the Constitution Act 1852 without the consent of the British Parliament. Fraser's government adopted the Statute in 1947, a year after instructing government departments to drop the name "Dominion" from official stationary. At the time, Fraser said the move was "catching up with realities".

The implications for the republic debate of the Statute are subtle, but important. First, the adoption of the Statute means that New Zealand is legally independent of Britain. New Zealand is today independent in almost every sense of the word - except when it comes to its head of state, who is symbolically the British head of state. This often creates a number of nonsense arguments about whether New Zealand already has a "New Zealand" head of state. Secondly, while the Statute does not bind the Commonwealth realms to consult each other on the succession to the Throne, the reality is that any changes would more than likely need to be agreed on by all 16 of the members of the Commonwealth who retain the Queen as head of state. This precludes any change to the succession without a debate on the monarchy. The Statute has implications for key issues in a republic, such as the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand's legal independence. It is important that as republicans we understand these implications, in order to have a sensible debate about the implications of becoming a republic.