Evolution of the New Zealand Monarchy
Noel Cox
originally published in (December 1999) Monarchy, the Journal of the International Monarchist League pp 6-7
New Zealand is a monarchy. This may be self-evident were it not for the fact that the sovereign herself is absent. Yet signs of the presence of the Crown, Sovereign, Monarch or Queen, whichever style is preferred, are everywhere. We speak of Ministers of the Crown, the Royal New Zealand Navy, and the Royal New Zealand Ballet. Acts of Parliament are assented to by the Queen or her representative. Crowns are used on official stationery.
Where the regime is represented by an individual who is separate from the political office-holders, whether a Sovereign, Governor-General, or non-executive President, the distinction is easier to understand. This was the basis of Bagehot's analysis of the British constitution. The Queen personifies the permanent part of government, that part which does not change every three years or so.
In New Zealand, our form of government is that of a constitutional- or limited- monarchy. This was inherited, along with our legal system, from the United Kingdom. New Zealand shares the same person as sovereign with over a dozen other countries. But the idea of the Crown has not been unchanging in the one hundred and fifty years since 1840. One principal change has been in the office of Governor-General- the Sovereign's representative in New Zealand, and the other in the concept of the Crown itself.
Once seen as an instrument of imperial will, the Governor-General is occasionally now seen as a constitutional safeguard against executive despotism. Sir David Beattie was in no doubt that the Governor-General has extensive and undefined powers to act in times of constitutional crises and that he can act in his own right as the Queen's representative, informing her of his actions thereafter.
However, arguments that the Governor-General can act as a guardian of the Constitution overstate the case. New Zealand's economic and social policies have been dramatically altered over the past decade, without intervention from the Governor-General, as the Governor-General can only intervene to preserve the constitutional order itself.
To be more active risks destroying the office, as nearly occurred in Australia in 1975. In forming governments and dissolving Parliament the Governor-General would have to follow the course of least resistance. Several instances have shown that the Crown retains a role in special circumstances, but any action risks destroying the institution. In part because he or she is a representative of the Crown, the Governor-General seeks to minimise the chances of conflict with Ministers.
A variety of commentators have suggested that the advent of Mixed-Member Proportional voting for the House of Representatives (MMP) in 1996 will result in a more activist Governor-General, faced with the need to oversee the formation of a coalition or minority government. The Crown's reserve powers, hitherto used extremely rarely if ever, may be used more often, giving the Governor-General more opportunities to exercise control over the incumbent government.
However, as Andrew Stockley has observed, it is flawed logic to assume that MMP will require a more interventionist Queen's representative. The Governor-General's role is essentially non-political, in that they do not involve themselves, nor should politicians seek to involve them, in party politics. Political power rests with Parliament and the responsible Ministers drawn from members of Parliament.
In 1994 the Right Hon James Bolger, the then Prime Minister, raised the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic by the turn of the century. A republic was presented as a necessary adjustment following the advent of MMP. It was associated with the termination of royal honours, and moves to end the right of appeal to the Privy Council. The reason given was because "the tide of history is moving in one direction".
The immediate origins of Bolger's call for a republic belong in the neo-liberalism adopted by successive governments since 1984. The wish to bury the colonial inheritance, to face towards multiculturalism, and to locate New Zealand firmly in Asia was a conscious, market-related choice forced by external developments.
The arguments raised by those advocating change are that New Zealand is a South Pacific nation, with a focus on Asia. National identity requires a New Zealand head of State. Especially political arguments revolve around nationhood, what New Zealand stands for, and its feeling of self-respect.
But Bolger underestimated the level of opposition to his proposal. His call caused considerable consternation among Ministers, three of whom immediately and publicly disavowed any desire to abolish the monarchy. Nor was the response from the left wing opposition as favourable as Bolger might have wished. Republican sentiment in New Zealand has never been as strong as in Australia.
Republican sentiment was not absent before 1994, but it was certainly given a greater impetus.
The most likely motivation for New Zealand becoming a republic is symbolic. Most important among the symbolic aspects, and that upon which Bolger relied, is that it is "inappropriate" for "the Queen of England" "to be Head of State and to have power to appoint a Governor-General to exercise her royal powers on her behalf in New Zealand".
Sir Geoffrey Palmer has observed that while no doubt the country's ties with the United Kingdom are not as strong as they once were, as the Queen is Queen of New Zealand, that is not relevant. But the New Zealand media have sometimes had difficulty in viewing the Queen other than the way most of the rest of the world view her- as the British Queen. Yet, according to Lange, this very focus on the British nature of the monarchy is actually part of its appeal. We are part of a wider heritage.
Indeed, in some respects the very absence of the Sovereign from New Zealand has done much to strengthen the institution of the monarchy. Largely entrusted to Governors-General, who serve limited terms of office, the Crown has gradually become entrenched as a useful synonym for the government. But is remains more than that.
One aspect of the Crown's symbolic presence in New Zealand is especially important. The Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are now exclusively the concern of the Crown in right of New Zealand. However, the personal involvement of the Sovereign as a party to the Treaty remains important to the Maori. This is illustrated by the strongly asserted Maori appeal to Her present Majesty Queen Elizabeth, in 1984.
There is no more unanimous support for the monarchy amongst Maori than amongst the general population- indeed the reverse appears to be the case. But symbolically, the position of the Crown as a party to the Treaty of Waitangi remains important.
Whilst abolition might not be on the political agenda in New Zealand in the short-to-medium term, reform may be. In recent years there has been some speculation regarding the possibility of changes to the laws governing succession to the Crown. The local news media has tended to regard this as a matter for the British authorities, or as one which can somehow be resolved by non-legal means. But it is a debate which does raise important issues for New Zealand. The succession laws are not merely rules invented to amuse constitutional lawyers. They are rules which are in certain respects central to the constitution, and are important aspects of New Zealand independence.