Time is ripe for monarchy debate
GORDON CAMPBELL
The fact an institution has lasted for a long time is not always a reliable guide to its merit. The British monarch has functioned as New Zealand’s head of state ever since 0ur founding document – the Treaty of Waitangi – was signed. Similarly, the vast majority of New Zealanders have never known any monarch other than Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state.
The one-off holiday on September 26 will finally bring to a close the mourning period for the late Queen. By then, surely, we can separate any gratitude owed to Elizabeth Windsor personally, from the constitutional role she served for so long. Now that she has departed the scene, it seems an ideal time to consider whether we should entrust the same powers to her successor.
On the face of it, having a foreigner on the other side of the world as our head of state is decidedly odd. While the role is almost entirely ceremonial, the
OPINION:
office has significant reserve powers – as Australians discovered in the mid-1970s when the Queen’s representative sacked their elected government. More recently, Australia’s current governor-general signed off on Scott Morrison’s plan to secretly appoint himself as the head of several key ministries.
So far, New Zealand has been spared similar unpleasant surprises. Generally speaking, the British monarch has been treated here as a neutral figure that spares us the potentially polarising problem of voting a New Zealander into the top job. Much the same arguments used to surround the decision to scrap the Privy Council, formerly our last court of legal resort. New Zealand chose to sever those ties, with no noticeable decline in the quality of justice.
Ireland, a country with much the same population and talent base, has found in Michael D. Higgins a capable head of state who commands wide public support.
Surely, it would not be impossible for New Zealand to do likewise.
The other factor worth considering is that once the dust of succession has settled, there are signs that King Charles III could be a less passive monarch. As one foreign commentator noted, one of Elizabeth’s assets as Queen was that she rarely betrayed strong emotions.
‘‘She seemed to accept her role was to be shown things, so very many things: factories and ships and tanks and local customs and types of cheese and the right way to tie the traditional garment, to receive bouquets of flowers from small curtsying girls, and in return never to appear bored or irritated by what was surely often a boring public role.’’
Temperamentally, her son has been more inclined to show his displeasure when bored or irritated. Several times already, Queen Camilla has been instrumental in returning him to an even keel. Even so, any decision by New Zealand to retain or dispense with the monarchy shouldn’t come down to a popularity contest.
Regardless, that could still be the backdrop to any public debate held here over the wisdom of us retaining the monarchy. Should we love it, or should we list it? No doubt, some attempts will be made to renovate the monarchy, but we all know what Charles thinks about modern architecture.