From colony
p. 57 · Read in the full issue
to republic
It seems a Republic of New Zealand will be inevitable. The question remaining is ... when?
While Fiji makes moves towards returning to a constitutional monarchy. New Zealand is embarked on the inexorable path towards ditching the Queen as head of state and becoming a republic.
As Prime Minister Jim Bolger says, “We are well advanced on the long journey from a dependent colony to the status of an independent republic within the Commonwealth.”
Now Mr Bolger is biased - his views no doubt coloured by his Irish ancestry, he is an avowed republican. But he has been joined in his belief that the creation of a Republic of New Zealand is inevitable by Helen Clark, leader of the main opposi tion Labour Party, indicating a bipartisan approach to the ques tion.
Thus it is only a matter of time before a president of New Zealand replaces the British monarch as head of state. The actu al timing is unclear.
Bolger once suggested the year 2000 as an appropriate time for such a sweeping change but found little favour for the idea within his National Party, which retains a strong conservative and loyalist constituency.
It is not on the party’s policy agenda and, given the govern ment’s narrow majority and opposition from Maori within New Zealand First (the junior coalition partner), Bolger is not likely to force the issue.
But he will keep raising it in a bid to stimulate debate, keep it in the public eye and, he hopes, eventually persuade his oppo nents. “This is an important debate,” he says, “which is not about being against the past or present but about being what is right for the future.”
There have already been moves in the republican direction.
The age-old British honours system has been dropped in favour of a New Zealand-based system.
Plans to abolish the Privy Council as New Zealand’s final court of appeal were well in train until early this year when they were spiked by the NZ First party, whose Maori members see it as an important and symbolic link to the sovereign.
But even those who oppose the change now acknowledge that, at some time in the future. New Zealand will have to bring its final appeal process within its own jurisdiction. It is all part of nationhood or, as Bolger puts it: “How do we want to see our selves? How do we want to identify ourselves in tomorrow’s world?”
The views of Maori are critical when answering that question.
This is a point Bolger seemed to have overlooked when he first flew the republican kite in a speech to parliament just over three years ago, saying, “The sweep of history is going in one direc tion.”
The point is: the Treaty of Waitangi was signed on behalf of Queen Victoria and her successors and the Maori tribes, and replacing the monarch with a president will have far-reaching consequences for the indigenous population.
If New Zealand becomes a republic, Maori leaders have said, there will need to be a written constitution and Maori will insist the treaty is written into it to protect their interests.
The treaty established civil government in this country, they say, and is a sacred compact.
It will be a complicated process but is not an insuperable problem. The government of New Zealand is, after all, the suc cessor of the British Crown as today’s Maori tribes are the descendants of their forebears.
There is no reason why they shouldn’t conclude an agreement on a constitution embodying the treaty and honouring the con cerns of both parties. As Bolger says, “New Zealand’s journey to nationhood began in 1840 and has been one of constant evolu tion since then.”
But it will be sensitive and will require a long period of con sultation and negotiation with Maori before the change can take place. It is sometimes overlooked that Pakeha and Maori alike have legally been New Zealand citizens for less than 50 years.
Until 1948, they were all British subjects.
It has taken New Zealand a long time to overcome this back ground, and nowhere is that more evident than in the United Nations. There, New Zealand still sits as a member of the so called Western European and Other Group of nations. It is an anachronism that is patently absured as Asian-Pacific economies now account for 70 per cent of the country’s trade, and New Zealand’s political interests have shifted accordingly.
It is even more absurd when you look at New Zealand’s changing population mix. On latest figures, there are 523,000 Maori (about 14.5 per cent), 180,000 Pacific Islanders (more than five per cent) and 82,3000 Chinese (2.3 per cent) - that’s getting on for a quarter of the population who have no tradition al allegiance to Europe. It’s time, Foreign Minister Don McKinnon said recently, that New Zealand looked at joining the Asian Group at the UN. Not just time, I would say, it’s well over due.
The problem is, it’s not just a matter of New Zealand electing to switch from one to the other. It will involve a radical restruc turing of the UN’s five geographical groups - and the world body (like New Zealand when it talks about becoming a republic) does nothing quickly. ■
David Barber