This page looks at the issues around the position of the Treaty of Waitangi in a future New Zealand republic. The Treaty is a key issue in the republic debate. There are two sub-issues - the constitutional position of the Treaty in a republic, and the standing or mana of the Treaty.

It is the policy of the Republican Movement that a move to a republic will not change the status of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is important for republicans to rebuke any suggestion that a move to a republic would nullify the Treaty of Waitangi. This is because the opponents of a republic, who often try to present the issue as a major potential fishhook, use the issue to spread misinformation.

The reality is that the issue is not complex - and in fact, a republic would offer benefits to the Treaty's position. As with the rest of the general public, there is no "Maori" view as to whether New Zealand should become a republic. Some Maori feel one way, and some the other - just like every one else. However, most polls show a greater tendency towards republicanism amongst Maori than non-Maori.

The constitutional position of the Treaty

The Treaty, as the founding document of New Zealand, is an agreement between Maori iwi and the British Crown. However, the use of "the Crown" in this sense is a legal fiction, in reality the Treaty was made by the ministers of the crown who directed it. When the New Zealand Crown was created with the division of the British Crown, when New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947, the other party to the Treaty changed. As Monarchist League Chairman Noel Cox has previously stated:

"In strict legal terms, if New Zealand became a republic tomorrow it would make no difference to the Treaty of Waitangi."

Both Professor Jock Brookfield and Professor Bruce Harris have supported this view. Crucially, there is support for this view within Maoridom also - notably Moana Jackson and Matiu Rata.

The myth of Crown protection

There is a myth that the monarchy provides Maori with protection against the interests of the majority. But the Crown - and specifically the British Monarch - never lifted a finger to address Maori concerns. Every time Maori have petitioned the Crown - most notably after the land wars of the 1870s - the delegations were referred back to the New Zealand Government by the Sovereign. As Maori Labour MP Shane Jones has stated recently, the belief that the Crown provides Maori with special protection is "more imagined than real".

There are two reasons for this - the Sovereign never really had to deal with Maori issues or the Treaty, as it was the New Zealand Government that was responsible, and also because had the Sovereign intervened, any intervention would have been resisted by the New Zealand Government, making the monarchy the subject of political controversy.

For example, there was some suggestion amongst circles of those opposed to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that they should petition the Governor-General, or even the Queen herself. However, many were quick to point out that the power to refuse assent to a Bill passed by Parliament has been atrophied, as it has not been exercised since 1708. By constitutional convention (unwritten rules) the Governor-General is bound just as the Queen is, they must follow the advice of their Prime Minister. That of course means that Royal Assent is merely a meaningless anachronism, not a constitutional bulwark.

A republic would bring the Treaty home

As we have seen, the monarchy perpetuates the myth that the Crown protects Maori (and Pakeha) interests with respect to the Treaty of Waitangi. The move to a republic wouldn't change the legal standing of the Treaty, and it would promote honesty in the Treaty debate. The responsibilities of the Crown would be transferred to the New Zealand head of state; responsibility for the Treaty would then rest where it always has rested - the New Zealand government. Symbolically however, the "other party" to the Treaty would always be in New Zealand - which would be a major difference to the status quo, and a great benefit of change.

References

• Factsheet on this page
• Dr Andrew Stockley: Becoming a Republic? Issues of Law; from Republicanism in New Zealand, edited by Luke Trainor, 1996.
• Professor Bruce Harris: The Constitutional Future of New Zealand [2004] NZLR 267