On this page, we look at some of the arguments put forward against a republic, and answer the claims made in support of the monarchy.
The Monarchist League of New Zealand has published a set of arguments titled 'Why New Zealand must NOT become a republic'. In the interests of a good debate, the Republican Movement presents our responses to their particular claims, including support in New Zealand for the monarchy, the Queen and the Treaty of Waitangi. We have not altered the text published by the Monarchist League in any way.
Contents
The claims made are:
- The Majority of New Zealanders support the monarchy
- It is the will of the people
- Partnership of Crown and Maori
- Coming together of Crown, Maori, and Pakeha
- The Queen is the Paramount Chief
- Monarchy part of our culture
- Natural form of government
- Immigrants and new New Zealander's choose to come to a monarchy
- Risks of changing the constitution arrangements needlessly
- Monarchy nutures democracy
- Protects the rights of the people from the abuses of politicians
- Protects against unelected elist who think they can speak for the nation
- Choosing to remain a monarchy is a sign of maturity
- Republicans are hopelessly divided over options
- Reinfoces links with the Commonwealth
- No reason for a republic
- Monarchies generally better off than republics
- The monarchy is not irrelevant
- A republic is more expensive
- We are not Australian pawns
- A republic is not inevitable
- Many republicans are motivated by envy...
Responses
THE MAJORITY OF NEW ZEALANDERS SUPPORT THE MONARCHY
A majority of New Zealander's support the monarchy, and oppose this country becoming a republic. Support for a republic has remained consistent over many years, despite persistent agitation by republicans. Mainstream public opinion favours the status quo - support for a republic remains marginal;
The first claim is correct - most polls show that support for the monarchy in New Zealand is still greater than support for a republic. However, the second claim - that support for a republic has remained consistent "over many years" is not true. In the late 1980s, support for a republic was in the low twenties. By the 1990s, support for a republic was in the low thirties. Several recent surveys show that support for a republic is now in the high thirties to low forties, while support for the monarchy has declined. A large number of New Zealanders are simply undecided.
> See our polling analysis page for more information.
The very term Republic implies the will of the people (res publica means literally of the people). The peoples' will is that New Zealand shall remain a monarchy. Not only is a monarchy compatible with democracy, but it is anti-democratic to try to force New Zealand to become a republic against the wishes of the majority;
One of the Republican Movement's principles is that a republic must come about because of a referendum, or multiple referendums. A republic that is not built on the will of the people and the consent of the governed would be hypocritical. However, the point being made here is that advocating a republic is "anti-democratic" and is "forcing" New Zealanders to support change.
In a democracy lobby groups are free to express their points of view to the public. It does not matter whether their views are supported by a majority of the public or not. Whether their views are in line with the public may depend on how they are articulated - you cannot simply dismiss an argument by saying a majority of people do not support it at one point in time.
For example, support for women's suffrage in New Zealand did not have a majority when it was first put to the New Zealand public. However, that does not mean that the suffragettes "forced" New Zealanders to support their cause - they did so over time by setting out a position.
This country is unique in being founded upon a partnership between the Crown and the Maori people. The Crown is one of the cornerstones of the nation; it represents and embodies both Pakeha and the people, and provides constitutional legitimacy through the Treaty of Waitangi. Its removal would fundamentally damage the body politic, and call into question the very basis of our constitution and nation;
The key claim here is that the Treaty of Waitangi requires the Crown to have legitimacy. This has no basis, just as the claim that Government in New Zealand requires "the Crown" for legitimacy has no basis. This is because the term "the Crown" simply means the state - New Zealand's government - which gains its legitimacy through the consent of the governed.
The monarchy has been of little use to Maori. There is perhaps a "spiritual connection" to the British Monarch for Maori, but this has no legal bearing on the Treaty's application in New Zealand today, or in the future.
A three-party alignment of Crown, Maori, and Pakeha, is the basis of our constitutional structure and social compact. The removal of one element would destabilise the entire system. The removal of the Crown would be symbolically as significant as the removal of either of the other elements;
"The Crown" is an embodiment of the Sovereign as the state; Pakeha and Maori are ethnicities. You cannot remove Pakeha or Maori, but you can remove the Crown. The claim that any change would "destabilise the entire system" is playing on the public's fear for the sake of it.
The implied argument is that New Zealanders need an arbitrator in our race relations, because we are too immature to govern ourselves. Such an argument is abhorrent.
Constitutionally, the Crown has already changed once before - when we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 - without the apple cart turning over. Creating a New Zealand republic would not change the status of the Treaty at all.
To many Maori the Queen is the paramount chief of all the tribes. The Queen is owed traditional allegiance. The loyalty of many Maori to the Crown is deep-seated, and fundamental to their view of the country. The Queen occupies a significant place within Maori culture, both for her position, and as the descendant and representative of Queen Victoria. Many Maori regard the Treaty of Waitangi as a compact directly between the Crown and Maori, and the Queen to be directly party to the treaty;
The Monarchist League knows that it needs to appeal to Maori in order to justify the monarchy, a monarchy that has done little for Maori in the past. Fortunately they no longer presume to speak for all Maori on the issue, hence the use of the words "many Maori". However, the claim that Maori support is "deep seated" is not true. There is no one single Maori view, just as there is no Pakeha or Asian or whatever view. We've all got a different opinion.
The monarchy is a fundamental element of the cultural and political inheritance of the people of New Zealand. It is as much as part of New Zealand's identity as Maoritanga, rugby, and the English language. All New Zealander's may regard the monarchy as a shared heritage, whatever their ethnic or cultural background. It would be culturally unsafe to attack the monarchy, or remove it from its central place in our culture;
The question here is what the Monarchist League means by "our" culture: what is "our" (New Zealand's) culture?
The above does prove that the monarchy is representative of New Zealanders of British descent. Support for the monarchy amongst almost all non-European ethnic groups in New Zealand much lower than their European counter-parts. This is exactly why the Monarchist League has come up with the "shared history" argument.
New Zealanders with family lineage to the British Isles may have a "shared heritage", but that does not account for those of us without any. In any case, it is not a good argument that our heritage is a good basis for a contemporary constitutional structure. 'Common heritage' arguments are meant to appeal to New Zealanders of British ancestry. The "culturally unsafe" implication is that those of us with British lineage will somehow be cut off from our heritage. That is not the case for New Zealanders of Irish, German or Dutch or whatever descent - we do not need token constitutional links to Britain to vindicate our history.
New Zealand has always had a monarchical form of Government, since traditional Maori tribal governance began. A republic is an alien, foreign concept. An attack on the monarchy can be seen as an attack on traditional concepts of authority, particularly those of Maori. The mana of the Crown is unsurpassed;
It is implied above that republicans are attempting to impose a form of government that is inherently alien to New Zealanders. They return to paternalistic thinking that Maori favours ISmonarchism because it is 'traditional' and 'natural'.
Perhaps in some sectors of Maoridom a belief in 'traditional' ways of governing is pervasive, but for many Maori this is not the case - the concept of "mana" implies to Maori something that is earned. The claim that the mana of the Crown is "unsurpassed" runs contrary to the continual angst Maori have shown (such as the petitions to the Queen to honour the Treaty) towards the Crown.
IMMIGRANTS AND NEW NEW ZEALANDER'S CHOSE TO COME TO A MONARCHY
Immigrants have chosen to live in New Zealand. They chose this country because of its unique lifestyle, culture, system of government, and environment. The monarchy is a part of the system which they have chosen to embrace. They join existing New Zealander's in feeling pride in our constitutional monarchy. They could have chosen to live in a republic. They did not, and we can embrace them for that;
The overriding emphasis on the 'system of government' in this claim is interesting. Do migrants come to New Zealand just because it is a constitutional monarchy? In truth lifestyle, language and economic opportunity matter the most to new immigrants.
With "new New Zealanders" opposed to a monarchy (even more so than their fellow New Zealanders) the argument that immigrants choose New Zealand because it is a monarchy is baseless. The argument that immigrants 'could have chosen' to live in a republic is that immigration levels will decrease if New Zealand becomes a republic. It should be noted, of course, that the largest grouping of immigrants to New Zealand comes for the United Kingdom.
RISKS OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS NEEDLESSLY
Because the constitution of the most politically stable and democratic country in the world shouldn't be tampered with without a very good reason. Our system of government works well. Too many countries have suffered from chronic political and economic instability after drastic changes to their constitution;
For this claim to be correct, our constitutional arrangements have to be based on "the Crown", without which we will be unable to have stable, democratic government. But a move towards a republic is not a "needless change".
Republicans argue New New Zealand has a need to improve the safeguards, the checks and balances within our constitution, and create a more inclusive and democratic head of state, a head of state of our own. None of these changes are "needless", and none of these changes will undermine New Zealand's democratic ethos - in fact, they enhance it.
A constitutional monarchy is not inconsistent with democracy. In fact it was the monarchy that created and sustained our democracy. With Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom we have the most democracy system of government in the world, largely due to the moderating influence of the shared monarchy;
The monarchy created and sustained our democracy? This claim is in the past tense. Certainly, the outside influence of democratic states has been of great use to the development of New Zealand's democracy. But that does not mean that we require the monarchy to sustain democracy. There is no evidence that the monarchy provides a "moderating influence" either.
PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE ABUSES OF POLITICIANS
The monarchy strengthens the democratic process by denying absolute power to politicians. Although neither the Quenn nor the Governor-General exercises political power, they do have a significant role in the constitution. The strength of their position derives from the power they deny to others, rather than the power they exercise directly. The lesson of most republics is that an rxecutive president would be more likely to be a cause of abuse than a safeguard against abuse by others;
This is a nonsense claim: politicians in New Zealand already have absolute power owing to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The claim that the Queen and Governor-General deny power to politicians is not true.
The Governor-General and the Queen are bound by constitutional convention to do whatever the Prime Minister or their Cabinet tells them to do. If they do not, then we no longer have a constitutional monarchy, we have arbitrary rule. Despite this, monarchists argue that the Monarch and Governor-General are "above" politics, and yet can intervene (that is, become involved in politics) to protect our freedoms.
They cannot have it both ways. The Governor-General's real powers are the reserve powers, and as the Whitlam dismissal shows, they can be used in a political way. The Sovereign is constitutionally useless, and will never get involved in New Zealand - or any other Commonwealth realms' - local politics. The Queen is first and foremost Queen of the United Kingdom. Because the Governor-General is appointed and dismissed de facto by the Prime Minister, the Governor-General always defers to the Prime Minister - unless, as was the case with the Whitlam dismissal, the Governor-General "strikes first" and fires the Prime Minister. That is hardly an effective way of resolving constitutional crises or protecting against abuses.
There is also the argument against a republic on the basis that Presidential republics, such as the United States, have faults in accountability. Even then, the abuses of power by many executive Presidents are better able to be rectified than our Prime Minister.
PROTECTS AGAINST UNELECTED ELITES WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN SPEAK FOR THE NATION
A military coup or social revolution is less likely in a monarchy where the military swear allegiance to the Crown, than in a republic where they swear allegiance to either the state or the governing party. There are many instances of military forces or political factions in republics seizing power on the pretence of acting to defend the "Constitution", or the "State", or to protect the "People". No such false claim to legitimacy can ever be raised in New Zealand. The Crown provides the constitutional continuity and authority. This is lacking in most republics.
This claim is simply laughable. Unelected elites? That would be members of the Royal family, the Queen, and the Governor-General, wouldn't it? Anytime they speak for us they're both unelected, and certainly elite. Most New Zealanders would recognise that an elected representative doesn't always "speak" for all of us, and the same is true for the Queen, or the Governor-General.
Swearing an Oath to the Queen has little or no bearing on armed forces loyalty. To claim the coups do not happen in New Zealand because 'the Crown' provides constitutional continuity and authority is misleading - remember Colonel Rabuka, who started the coups in Fiji? He swore allegiance to the Queen. So did all the other dictators who overthrew democratic governments in constitutional monarchies. The truth is that New Zealand's pervasive parliamentary democracy provides constitutional continuity, not our absentee head of state.
The monarchy is central to the Commonwealth grouping of nations. The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth, and has led and inspired its people for over 50 years. A decline to republican status denigrates the place of the Commonwealth, and the role of the Queen. It is a step towards isolationism and insularity. In a time of increasing internationalism we should be embracing cross-continental and cross-cultural links, not cutting them;
The first statement is incorrect. The monarchy is not central to the Commonwealth. This claim is based on the view that republics within the Commonwealth are regarded as being "lower" than the Commonwealth realms (states that retain the Queen as head of state). This does seem rather strange given the fact that South Africa (a republic since 1961) was welcomed with much fanfare back into the Commonwealth in 1995. If anything, our retaining the Queen as our head of state is a sign of insularity to our fellow Commonwealth members.
> See our Commonwealth membership issue page for more information.
The republicans have failed to give even one good reason for a republic. There are many reasons to retain the status quo; to be a monarchy; and not to become a republic. There are no good reasons for becoming a republic;
Well, of course they would say that. Instead of answering our reasons why we need a republic, the monarchists simply state that there is "no good reason" for becoming a republic. Perhaps they could tell us why the reasons for a republic aren't any good.
THE MONARCHY IS NOT IRRELEVANT
Those who suggest that the monarchy is irrelevent could not be more wrong. The Crown is symbolically of far greater significance than many people realise. Its cultural place in New Zealand life is profound, as is its influence on the way this country has evolved and continues to grow.
Again, there is a lack of actual evidence of the claims made by the monarchists. What is the profound place of the monarchy in the cultural life of New Zealand? Apart from what they assert, nothing. Polls have shown a majority of New Zealanders (58%) think the monarchy has little or no relevance to their lives.
A republic is likely to be much more expensive to operate than the monarchy. If a president was directly elected by the people the cost could be huge. The costs of advertising alone in the 2004 American elections amounted to a billion dollars. The process of creating a republic would be very costly.
The United States has a population of 300 million people, the world's largest economy, and directly elects a President with powers that are substantially different from most other republics. On the monarchists logic, this means a New Zealand republic will be expensive. New Zealand is a nation of only 4 million people, and we are unlikely to elect an executive President of the nature of the United States.
Monarchist claims that a republic will be more expensive are based on speculation (such as a Presidential Palace will need to be built, or that we'll have to pay for a "First Lady") - rather than hard fact: a future President will more than likely take over Government House (the residence of the Governor-General), and have to live within the Governor-Generals budget (some $11m per year). If we look at republics such as Austria, Ireland, Israel or Iceland - all of a similar size in terms of population to New Zealand, and who have non-executive Presidents - we find that their heads of state are comparatively cheaper than our Governor-General. The cost of elections is trivial, and of course, if we opt for a head of state elected by parliament, there is virtually no cost of elections.
>See the claim "Monarchy costs us nothing"
An OECD survey has established that monarchies are on average wealthier, and more stable, than republics. Futhermore, the disruption caused by a change from a monarchy to a republic could cause adverse effects on trade, currency values, and overseas investment. The indirect cost to New Zealand of a republic could be enormous.
The OECD survey mentioned above includes oil-rich Middle Eastern states, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE and Kuwait. Such comparisons are nonsense. The Freedom House survey of democracies in 2007 found that of the 28 functioning democracies, 16 were republics.
To claim that the move to a republic could have an adverse effect on trade, overseas investment and the value of the Kiwi dollar is just fear mongering at its worst. Having the monarchy in 1984 was no good for our currency or overseas investment either; it wasn't any good for Fiji in 1987 nor was it any good for Britain in 1995. The claim has no basis.
There is no simple choice between monarchy and republic. If put to the public in a referendum the questions asked would have to be - the monarchy; OR an executive presidency; OR parliamentary government. The 1999 referendum in Australia showed that the republicans cannot agree on a model, and could not get a majority for change, even if there were in a majority overall;
This is a a wholly inaccurate and obnoxious claim to make. The Republican Movement in New Zealand is not "hopelessly divided" over the options for a republic, and what form it may take.
Our official policy is that the model of the republic is for the New Zealand public to decide. The Monarchist League cannot state outright that a republican referendum in New Zealand would be limited in the same way that the Australian one was.
Keith Locke's Head of State Bill allows for a referendum on a republic combines the two issues with the possibility of two referendums - if the status quo and an directly-elected President are the two most favoured options, then there will be a second run-off referendum. If a indirectly elected President won outright (say over two-thirds of the vote) then there would be no second referendum on the issue. This is a simple, practical means of creating a New Zealand republic.
The major impetus for a republic appears to come from the largely Australian-controlled press. The Murdoch and Fairfax-owned newspapers have long lead a campaign for a republic in Australia, and theses conglomerates are now using their papers in this country to bolster republicanism. They are using the people of this country as unwitting pawns in their elitist campaign to force Australia to become a republic;
Certainly, Rupert Murdoch's republicanism has been a source of great antipathy in the Australian debate, but the impetus for the republic debate never came from Murdoch, Fairfax or the newspapers they own. To try and import anti-Murdoch sentiment into the New Zealand republic debate is strange. There is no evidence of some anti-monarchy conspiracy, and even if there was, there is no evidence that it has been instigated to move the republic debate here forward.
Many republicans argue that New Zealand must abandon its links to the Crown in order to show that we are mature. Becoming a republic is no more a sign of national maturity than was abolishing Area Health Boards. We are a democratic, independent state. How we govern ourselves is our own business. We do not make changes to our constitution just to demonstrate that we are independent.
We may very well be mature in keeping the monarchy, but that is not the point: it is the perception of our maturity that matters. By perception we do not simply mean the perception to other countries - we mean within the mindset of Joe Kiwi. Despite producing brilliant scientists, world-beating Yachtsmen, film producers, masters of literature and excellent artists, we still do not have our own head of State.
We use the head of State of our colonial ancestors, and the monarchists claim they are a New Zealander, because we have declared the Sovereign to be so. This is an immature position to be in - to name one thing which is really something else. That is where maturity matters.
A republic is not inevitable. Nor is the possibility that New Zealand may one day become a republic an argument for a republic. It is irrelevant. It is not an argument for ending the monarchy now, any more than the inevitability of death is a justification for suicide.
This is a fair claim, and one that the Republican Movement is willing to accept. But the fact a republic is not inevitable is one reason for our existence.
MANY REPUBLICANS ARE MOTIVATED BY ENVY, OLD-FASHIONED CLASS-HOSTILITY, OR ANTI-BRITISH SENTIMENT
Many republican activists are seemingly motivated by intolerance, class-envy, or anti-British prejudice. These are features of the failed republican campaign in Australia. Many republican diatribes were marked by their viciousness, crudeness, racism, and intolerance. There are already signs of this in New Zealand. It would be unfortunate if we were to be influenced by such elements.
Exactly where are the 'signs' that republicans - or members of the Republican Movement - are 'vicious' 'crude' or 'racist'?
There is no evidence that the Republican Movement is motivated by 'envy', class-hostility or anti-British sentiment. This claim is more of a reflection on those making it - they are culturally insecure and consider anyone who "attacks" their heritage as being anti-British. Some fringe elements clearly are. But there are fringe elements on both sides. But we recognise that such fringe elements do not speak for the wider supporters of the monarchy. To this end, these claims are fear mongering.
The republican campaign in Australia was never based on anti-British sentiment. The loss was due to the the model being put forward being rejected at a referendum.
