This page looks at the arguments put forward in defence of New Zealand's monarchy.
- "Our system works - if it ain't broke don't fix it"
- "The monarchy costs us nothing"
- "The Queen is Queen of New Zealand - we have a New Zealand head of state"
- "The monarch is above politics - a republic means a politician as our head of state"
"Our system works - If it ain't broke don't fix it"
This is the weakest argument in defence of the monarchy, but the one which is repeated most often. It assumes everyone accepts that the current system actually isn't "broke", when supporters of a republic argue the system is indeed broken. Furthermore republicans argue that our system won't work well when faced with a constitutional crisis - and so the monarchy could get very "broke" in the future.
These two factors alone negate the "it ain't broke" part. As for the "don't fix it part", we only need to think of other major constitutional changes in New Zealand's history to see that we've "fixed" lots of things that arguably weren't "broken".
Our electoral system wasn't "broken" in denying women the vote: elections were still held, and the government kept on governing. But the system was unjust and unfair in denying women the right to vote. If we have the courage to make the simple but important changes, then we'll see the positive benefits of change. New Zealand's democracy hasn't worked for 150 years simply because we're a monarchy. It has worked because we have a democratic ethos - one of the most useful traditions we acquired from the British, a tradition a republic will expand upon.
"The monarchy costs us nothing"
This is a fairly common argument, but again it doesn't stand up to close analysis. Since the Governor-General represents the Queen in New Zealand, the cost of their office should be seen as part of the cost of the monarchy. The most recent Annual Report of the Department of Prime Minister and the Cabinet (2008) - who provide support to the Governor-General - puts the cost of the office of Governor-General (including the upkeep of the Government houses in Wellington and Auckland) at around $11 million a year. This compares with the cost (in New Zealand dollars) of the President of Ireland ($6.7m), a country of similar population size to New Zealand with four million citizens.
The other expense the New Zealand taxpayer picks up with the monarchy is the cost of Royal Tours, which are fairly infrequent (every five or so years). According to the Department of Internal Affairs 2001 - 2002 Annual Report (PDF - see Vote Ministerial Services), the last Royal tour in 2002 cost the New Zealand taxpayer around $1m.
In any case, the cost of the monarchy is hardly a good reason to keep it. There's no point keeping something because it's cheap, particularly if it doesn't provide New Zealand with a head of State of its own. Instead, the New Zealand taxpayer pays for the upkeep of an office that does everything the head of State is meant to do anway. So why not simply make the de facto head of state the actual head of state?
"The Queen is Queen of New Zealand - we have a New Zealand head of state"
While it may be true that legally speaking - under the Royal Titles Act 1974 - HM the Queen is Queen of New Zealand, that doesn't make the Queen a New Zealand Queen. This is the crucial difference - while the argument is legally correct, in reality the Queen's position as Queen of New Zealand exists in name only. For example, the Queen has never actually represented New Zealand overseas - Her Majesty only represents the United Kingdom.
The Queen does not meet the requirements of the Citizenship Act 1977, which every migrant to New Zealand must in order, for example, to be elected to the House of Representatives.
"The Monarchy represents a sentimental and historical link with England and the traditions of our ancestors."
This argument is mainly Anglo-centric, and isn't as popular as it used to be - but it is still repeated from time to tome.
A republic upholds the most important of the traditions of our ancestors - democracy, selection on merit and the rule of law. As for sentimental ties to the "mother country", we only need to look to New Zealanders of German, Dutch, Japanese or Irish decent to see they do not need the heads of state of those countries to vindicate their history, neither do New Zealanders of English, Scottish or Welsh descent. Nothing about republicanism will see the English language, Shakespeare, Kipling or cricket banned, nor will New Zealand's history be re-written.
"The monarch is above politics - a republic could mean a politician as our head of State - a 'President Helen' "
This claim is the most attractive defence for the monarchy, and appears to be the strongest argument against a New Zealand republic. But it's really a straw man. It is often alleged that republicanism is simply being driven by politicians to increase their own powers. In fact, the opposite is true - and many of the MPs who are defenders of the monarchy know it. We will look at these issues in more depth in the issues section, but to quickly go over them:
- The Queen has never intervened in the constitutional affairs of any Commonwealth country outside of the United Kingdom. Her Majesty specifically refused to intervene in Australia in 1975, Grenada in 1981, Fiji in 1987 and the Solomon Islands in 2000. Prince Charles has indicated to a former New Zealand politician and diplomat that he doesn't want to get involved in Commonwealth disputes either. The prospect.
- The Governor-General is already "politicised"; many Governors-Generals have political links and cause political controversies while in office. They are, however, also non-partisan. There is no good reason to suggest under a republic a New Zealand head of State wouldn't be non-partisan either, only empty speculation. There's plenty of precedent from overseas which shows ceremonial heads of state are almost always non-partisan, even when they have open links to one particular party;
- A republic doesn't put New Zealand's democracy at risk because, as we have seen above, the core of New Zealand's government is our democratic ethos, not whether we have an absentee head of state or not;
- A republican head of state would not be elected in the same way the Prime Minister currently is. The precedent from other Parliamentary republics shows elections of the head of state will be low-key, and often between candidates who have a profiles as outstanding New Zealanders;
- The "President Helen" argument is either meant to mean the President will have executive powers or that the President will be a politician - a Member of Parliament. Looking at the way electoral systems work for electing the President, we can see that this is not true (see our issue page on republican models). In fact, given the precedent set by the appointment of Sir Keith Holyoake, a former National Prime Minister, it's more likely that we could have a Governor-General Clark!
