Talk:Noel Cox talks to Wikinews about New Zealand's constitutional monarchy

Exclusive interview

The email text is below. --Nzgabriel | Talk 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please give us a brief introduction of yourself and to The Monarchist League of New Zealand, Inc.? Including, how you become involved with the Monarchy debate?

I am Professor of Constitutional Law (and Head of the Department of Law) at the Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, and became involved in the debate as a direct consequence of the focus of my academic interest. I joined the League when it was founded a decade ago, as a body dedicated to the principled defence of monarchy as the best form of government for New Zealand.

• Why do believe New Zealand should remain with the Queen as our de-jure Head of State?

Monarchy is a good way of separating the ceremonial and the practical aspects of government, ensuring that however much criticism the politicians running the day-to-day government of the country may receive the public retains confidence in the system as a whole. Partly this is because it denies absolute power to politicians, partly because it ensures that public servants - and the military - owe their allegiance to a permanent, non-political figure. In this time of increasing globalisation it is also good to remember that we are already part of an international family of nations, sharing the Queen with Australia, Britain, Canada and so on.

• There isn't much public support for NZ to become a republic, why do you think this is?

Simply because most people have confidence in the system. There is also an element of concern about the form of a replacement system - the example of Fiji since it became a republic isn't likely to instil confidence.

• For what reasons might New Zealand become a republic?

New Zealand might become a republic if Australia chose to do so. Of course that is not a good reason for doing so, but it is often cited as the most likely reason. The weakness of the case is shown in the nicely ironic argument that if Australia becomes a republic we (New Zealand) should show our independence by following their example! This country is mature enough to make its own decision.

• Republicans, including Lewis Holden, argue that becoming a republic will help New Zealand to become more independent and truly mark New Zealand's place on the map. Do you think we are achieving this remaining as a monarchy?

Given New Zealand's significant international profile - much greater than our size as a country would suggest - I don't think there is any question of us needing to take such a step to mark ourselves out. Becoming a republic would be more likely to suggest we were unsettled or unsure about our identity, which would be more likely to harm our international standing. We can follow Canada's example and make more use of the monarchy to promote our own national identity. As for independence, no one can seriously argue that being a monarchy limits this in any meaningful way. The Queen is Queen of New Zealand, and acts as such on the advice of New Zealand Ministers.

• What would become of New Zealand if we were to become a republic?

It is hard to be sure what the consequences would be - and this would probably depend upon the circumstances of the change. If is was messy and controversial then there could be heightened political and social tension (which no one would want to see). The future of the relationship between Maori and Paheka would also be even less certain than it is now, given that for many Maori at least - and for many Pakeha - the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi was a compact between Queen Victoria and the Maori chiefs is of crucial importance.

1. The topic of becoming a republic has always been a heated debate. How many supporters of the status quo are there in New Zealand, and why are republicans opposed to discontinuing our long standing relationship with the Queen?

Opinion polls have shown for decades significantly more people support the retention of the monarchy than support its abolition. There are many reasons why people support the current constitutional setup, just as there are many reasons why other people wish to change it. Some opponents are opposed to the monarchy because of its British origins, others because they believe that republics are preferable to constitutional monarchies. There are very few who would advocate change because of dissatisfaction with the performance of the Queen herself.

1. In what ways has the Monarchy developed as a distinct New Zealand institution?, and what is the role of the Monarchy in a modern New Zealand Government?

The monarchy shares many features across the different countries of which the Queen is Head of State. But some are unique to New Zealand. One is the relationship with the Maori people — which I will discuss next — and others include the special constitutional position of the monarchy. New Zealand is unusual among countries with which we are often compared in not having an entrenched constitution (one which cannot be changed except by special process, such as referendum) and also in being a unitary state. Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are all federal states, with provinces, states and countries respectively, each with its own parliament. Because of this the Crown has an important role in ensuring the legitimacy and continuity of government. Mostly this is achieved through the office of Governor-General, which is nowadays always held by a New Zealander of standing and integrity, without political allegiance.

• Queen Victoria signed the Treaty of Waitangi, however in 21st century New Zealand, does the Monarchy remain important as a Treaty of Waitangi partner?

The mere fact that the parties were the Crown and the Maori chiefs mean that, as the Treaty is a living document, this relationship continues. Technically, as a matter of strict law, the New Zealand government would be bound by the Treaty even if we became a republic. However, to remove one party to the Treaty would raise doubts about whether it should be scrapped altogether. While there are some who argue that New Zealand should become a republic specifically so that this would bring the Treaty to an end, the debate is much more complex. The legitimacy of government in this country - if not its legality - depends on a compact signed in 1840. We could perhaps renegotiate that compact, but it would be a brave politician who would suggest doing so. The Treaty is what makes New Zealand unique, and the monarchy is an essential element of the Treaty. We should not assume that the emotional attachment to the Treaty is something that can be legislated away.

• And finally, are you a Holden or a Ford fan?

I'd choose Ford, though actually I have a BMW.