Michael Laws, March 1995

The case for an independent republic of New Zealand is summed up in one word --nationhood. It is a statement to the world and ourselves that New Zealand is a mature nation, that we possess a constitutional framework that best suits New Zealanders.

Perhaps the most appropriate analogy is that of a child. As a child grows up, survives gawky adolescence and develops their own personal sense of identity they leave home to create a life of their own. At that point they possess the skills, the experience and the maturity to chart their own independent destiny. On a constitutional level New Zealand has reached that stage. We are ready for adulthood.

To retain our present adherence to the Crown is to admit insecurity and instability; that New Zealand is uncertain of itself and lacks the necessary fabric to chart its own future.

As this nation readies itself for the 21st Century, it is time to take stock of our institutions and our traditions. Do they readily equip us for the future? Do they recognise the unique economic, social and political environment that is New Zealand? Do they allow us to truly assert our independence on the world stage?

The rationale for creating a republic of New Zealand lies not just in a constitutional "coming of age". It is an admission that we need to design our own institutions and constitutional framework for this unique place called New Zealand. For New Zealand is no longer a "British" nation. We are no longer a colonial outpost of the British Empire. We are an independent nation with a multicultural heritage, and yet our present institutions do not reflect that diversity.

The cultural heritage of New Zealand is steadily evolving. Whereas this nation was very much the product of indigenous Maori and immigrant British, the new immigrants from the Pacific Islands, Europe, Asia and now South Africa possess a very different historical past. We are by no means as cosmopolitan as Australia, where the varying ethnicity of the population has fuelled the republican debate. But our cultural composition is no longer a curious mixture of Anglophiles and Maori.

Our constitutional framework should reflect our different heritage's and yet represent that unique outlook that is unashamedly Kiwi. The British Crown does neither.

We are not a "British" nation. Our cultural heritage has historical associations with the long dead British Empire but our future is overwhelmingly Pacific. Britain no longer even dominates our trading statistics; in fact, it lags behind Australia, the United States, Japan and the European Community as an export destination. Each year our exporters and entrepreneurs explore new markets on the Pacific and in Asia-that is our economic future. And economic ties prefigure political considerations.

Britain, too, has made her choice. Despite the rear-guard action of Margaret Thatcher, Britain is destined to become a middling European power with its first loyalty to the community. That makes perfect economic sense. But it's hardly an argument to continue our almost simian allegiance to another country.

Of course a great many of our institutions have been inherited from the British, but that is true of many nations. It is not a practical impediment to creating our own constitutional identity or national independence.

New Zealand has become increasingly restive over some of its inherited British traditions -- most notably, the Westminster system of Parliamentary government. In 1993 New Zealanders chose an electoral system that best suited us. We threw off the inherited electoral system from Great Britain after compelling proof that it failed to deliver either equity or good government. Already there are strong signs that some of the similarly outlandish parliamentary traditions should also be abolished. New Zealanders are effectively saying they want to design their own unique form of democratic structure.

It is still a sign of remarkable constitutional immaturity that New Zealand suffers a vice-regal representative as our head of state. What is worse, a representative of the British Crown who is politically appointed by the New Zealand Government of the day with ill-defined powers and commanding filial obedience from all New Zealand subjects.

The logic for allowing the representative of another country to be New Zealand's head of state escapes me. And the role of governor general has suddenly assumed major importance with the introduction of MMP. As Dame Catherine Tizard noted last year, the use of the "reserve" powers of the governor-general to form new governments under MMP was bound to excite some controversy, and even weaken the standing of the vice-regal representative. It is simply scandalous that a governor general has such reserve powers but no legislation or written rules to govern his or her conduct. Under MMP and the likely formation of coalition governments this reform takes on some immediacy.

Loyalty is the great cry of the monarchists. New Zealanders, they say, should be loyal to the Crown, because Queen Elizabeth is also the Queen of New Zealand. And yet this is not strictly true. The Queen is the undeniable product of the British State. Her succession was assured by the constitutional heritage of that country. With her heir Prince Charles beginning to accept a promotional role for British business we might reasonably argue that the Crown is not being loyal to its New Zealand subjects. British firms willingly compete on the international market against New Zealand firms. But only in one of those nations is the Crown a marketing agent.

One might even argue that the whole concept of a hereditary monarchy is alien to New Zealand culture. In this country we believe that people should earn respect and not simply receive it because of parentage. The British Crown represents entrenched class that is promulgated by birth. Such concepts are foreign to the New Zealand psyche.

Of course, the position is further complicated by the cynical practice of past governments to reward outstanding members of their particular parties with the highest position in the land. Both Sir Keith Holyoake and Dame Catherine Tizard were appointed because of their political connections.

Nothing restrains such a misuse of executive power from happening again and this time with far more serious consequences. It is quite clear that the constitutional head of state should owe first allegiance to New Zealand, be democratically elected by the adult population of this country and have a clearly defined role and set of rules to governing conduct.

The monarchy in New Zealand has no power that New Zealanders did not confer on it. The Crown, as the "fountainhead of justice" is a novel concept given the colonial past of Great Britain and the fact that "justice" is provided by more mundane institutions like parliaments and law courts in this country. The royalists' argument lies in a mythical concept of what people imagine the Crown should be -- but not what it actually is.

The British Crown is a symbol of our past, a nostalgic talisman of our childhood. It has no role in an independent and vibrant nation with a myriad of cultural influences. We are charting our own economic and social directions and we need an appropriate and modern constitutional framework.

New Zealand has grown up. Let us create then the constitutional arrangements that suit that adulthood.