Hei Elder. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Should or shouldn't New Zealand become a republic? It's a quandary that sparked fierce debate over decades, and it's back on the agenda as King Charles heads down Under for his first tour, but is skipping New Zealand with his visit, prompting debate over in Australia is a time for New
Zealand to consider becoming a republic? Today on the Front Page, Republican Z's Peter Hamilton joins us to discuss this issue and what a monarchy free New Zealand could look like. We did invite Monarchy and Z to participate in this discussion, but they declined. So, Peter, can you tell me how long have you been a staunch Republican?
Well, I guess it would be about twenty or thirty years. But I was, until my retirement ten years ago, a member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Wellington, therefore representing New Zealand overseas. So at that point I had to keep my views, my personal views to myself on the question of New Zealand's head of state. But since I've been retired, of course, I don't have that
constraint anymore. So I'm now free to say what I really think about the issues and also draw on my professional experience as a New Zealand diplomat over the years as to why I think we should now have our New Zealand head of state?
Well, why should we?
Well, it's an issue that can be debated from both sides. Firstly, I think that it's time for New Zealand to finish what, in essence is an uncompleted constitutional puzzle since we became a name from eighteen forty onwards. The head of state in any country, including New Zealand, has a very important role to play. In our case, it's a ceremonial role. It's not executive as it is in the United States,
for example. It's a ceremonial role, but it personifies the country itself, and so the head of state has to be a person in my view, who lives among us and is able to rise above domestic politics and can champion the interests of the nation, not only internally in New Zealand, but also externally. Overseas. Now we have a
New Zealand. Of course the Governor's General all have been fine people, but they're hampered in their international role because, of course other countries know that our head of state is not actually a New Zealander but somebody living offshore a long way away in London, and this is a
very confusing concept to most countries around the world. It does impede our international image, which is why I think we should bring home the role of head of state to where it actually really does now belong, and that is in the form of the Governor General by transforming the Governor General's office into that of our head of state as a New Zealander.
And like you said, the Governor General at the moment is very ceremonial. You'd want them to do a little bit more, say take some jobs off of the Foreign Minister's hands.
I suppose no, actually, no, this is a very important point. I think it's very important that we make the distinction between the head of state, who is a ceremonial role, and the head of government who is the prime minister in the cabinet. And I don't believe we should merge the two. I think the head of state should remain non political and clearly non political in terms of the person we appoint to the job, and should be able
to rise above the domestic politics at any time. So this is a concern I think that New Zealanders have about how we would appoint our head of state. I think it's essential that we keep the role as ceremonial nothing to do with running the country. In terms of executive roles. That remains with the government of the day, the Prime Minister and Cabinet of the day and Parliament, so it's quite quite separate.
Are there any other countries that we could look to and their set up? I suppose any of those that you'd quite like the look of.
Well, I think one that we would want to avoid is the United States model. And a lot of people do get very worried about our head of state, who might become a sort of Trump person. Now, in the manner we appoint our head of state, we would need to avoid any possibility of somebody like a Trump taking the role of head of state. Other countries some combine the role of government and ceremonial. In the United States,
does that other countries keep it separate. For example, in Germany, the President of Germany is not a member of the government. They are commonial as a Singapore. Now, some countries elect their head of state. Ireland does very successfully and as Singapore very successfully elects the head of state. But we're arguing in fact that we shouldn't have another election in New Zealand. New Zealanders are, i think, get tired of regular elections and the main election is for the key role,
which is that of government of the day. And we argue that the head of state in New Zealand, when we bring the office back to the Governor General, should be chosen by a super majority of Parliament to make that person quite deliberately and definitely a political In other words, no politician would be eligible to take on the role of head of state, unless of course they could garner
super majority support from Parliament. One example we've had in our past was when Robert Muldoon appointed Sir Keith Holyoke as Governor General. Holioch had been a Prime minister, stepped down and became a minister in Maldoone's cabinet, and to reward him, Maldoon appointed him Governor General. Now he served quite well in that role, but it's intensely political and therefore demeaned the office of Governor General at the time.
So we argue that the head of State in New Zealand should be chosen by Parliament and should remain a non executive ceremonial role as the Governor General currently does. The fact is we already have a head of state in Embryo and the Governor General currently Dame Cindi Keiro, does all the work of any normal head of state except for the international dimension, but she doesn't get the respect and the manna that should be accorded her as head of state because of course Governor General means she
is in the B team. She is the King's deputy in New Zealand and therefore doesn't have the manna that would go with being our actual head of state.
So of course King Charles and Queen Camilla are heading to our part of the world, going to Australia first with events in Sydney and Canberra, then going to Samoa.
The leg of the tour that has been shelved will be New Zealand, and I think that's it comes a bit of a sadness for the King Queen not to get.
To see the Kei Weeds.
Contrast the King's first visit to Australia as head of State to the late Queen's first visit to Australia in nineteen fifty four. She visited every single state and territory, seven capital cities, seventy towns over fifty eight days. King Charles is going to be there less than the week and is only going to be visiting Canberra and Sydney. But of course the Queen was in her twenties when she went, and King Charles Purley in his seventies and he's got cancer. It's studn see why.
While we're aware he has been unwell, does it surprise you that he and Camilla won't stop in New Zealand.
Yes, it does because since his coronation he's known very well. But at some point he has to turn up in an important relationship like New Zealand as our head of state. Now he is unwell, we know that, and he probably is avoiding coming here on the recommendation of his doctors. But it underscores the problem yet again that our head of state is absent and not among us. Although Charles and Camilla have paid occasional visits here, when he was
Crown Prince. Our head of state actually hasn't visited us in that role since two thousand and two, which was the last time Queen Elizabeth came in two thousand and two. It's quite an anomaly for any country to have a head of state who doesn't actually turn up in person for over twenty two years, so it shows in fact, the role now is very much different from the days of Queen Victoria, where she could set in her widow weeds and windsor castle and not worry too much about
the colonies in those days. Today we expect the head of state to be active and involved in the country, and Charles is unfortunately not able to do that. The issue, of course, is that we don't think much about what it requires of Charles to be our head of state. The suggestion that he has time to spend on looking after it's nearly fourteen thirteen fourteen other countries of which he is head of state, and that being head of state in the UK is not a full time job
is of course an anomaly. It's a huge job that Charles has to undertake in the UK itself, and I suspect that the subtext of him not coming to New Zealand is a subtle hint that it's time that we looked at taking some of the burden off the British monarchy.
And now quite recently, in the context of his trip to Australia, he did say that it is for any country like New Zealand, Australia or Canada to decide its own form of representation, and if New Zealand or Australia wished to become a republic, then of course he would
in no way stand in our way. That's quite right and proper for him to say that, but it's also i think a subtext as I say that he and the British establishment would quite like New Zealand to get on with the job and appoint our Governor General as our head of state. Now some people have suggested, well, we want to retain the monarchy because we like the king or we like the pageantry. The point is that
we're not getting rid of our relationship with Britain. We're not getting rid of our relationship with the King because he remains Head of the Commonwealth and still is welcome as a visitor here as head of the Commonwealth, except that when he does come to New Zealand. He is received by New Zealand's own head of State, who is our Governor General transitioned into the role of head of state.
You mentioned as well, which I thought that was quite interesting. Also the fact that King Charles has said that he won't stand in the way of Australia becoming a republic ahead of his visit there. Also monarchists in Australia have accused the state premiers of insulting King Charles as they will not be present at a reception welcoming him to the country. But I guess that's a sign of the times.
The fact that all six state premiers New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, they've all said that they're unable to attend. Now look back thirty years ago, for example, or even a couple of decades ago, that would have been unheard of. Don't you think.
Absolutely unheard of when you think about the huge crowds that welcomed Queen Elizabeth in nineteen fifty four, and even me as a youngster stood in Tarrona Domain in nineteen sixty three to welcome her waiver at her as she went past the fact that the state premiers in Australia have diplomatically said they have other things to do as a massive vote of no confidence in the notion of
having a foreign head of state in Australia. Now, whatever you might think of Charles and the royal family and some of the individuals there, Charles is head of the Commonwealth, so of course he's coming to sar More. But this is for Australia to decide, and I think as far as New Zealand's concerned, there's no great appetite at the moment for discussing constitutional issues because we have a lot of other things on. So this issue will I think,
burn along for a while yet. But nevertheless, when Australia becomes the republic, as it eventually will, I think at that point it does become anominally for New Zealand to still be a monarchy. So I think we will probably take our lead from Australia, even though we don't often like to admit that we follow Australia.
What we're saying to Australians is that it's time to farewell the role of monarchy in Australia. The next time may come, we'd love to welcome as visitors, absolutely welcomed by an Australian head of state.
The nineteen seventy five sacking of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor General Sir John Kerr remains one of the country's most polarizing political events, representing an unmatched level of intervention by the Commonwealth. Australians voted against becoming purely a republic in a referendum in nineteen ninety nine, but there have been repeated calls for another ballot.
What about the relationship between Maori and the crown. How would that change? Do you think if there was no longer a crown, Well.
There still would be a crown, of course, and the Crown would be the King in England and he would be head of the Commonwealth. I know that some people say that the Treaty of Waitangi in eighteen forty was signed by Queen Victoria. Well, actually it was negotiated by her officials, and I doubt that Queen Victoria herself really had much inkling as to what was involved in that far off, far flung dominion of for a colony of
New Zealand. Now the British monarchy long ago has given up any responsibility for the implementation of the Treaty of Waiteitungi, and since eighteen forty it's been the responsibility of a New Zealand government and the people of New Zealand to address the issues that arise from the Treaty of Waiteitungi.
So my argument is that although the Treaty is extremely important in this the actual movement of the head of State role from London to Wellington doesn't impact or impinge directly on the question of the Treaty of White Tungy, because that remains as it is now and is not in any way altered or changed by having our own head of State anything to do with the Treaty and its role in New Zealand. As you've seen through the Actor Treaty principles debate and the reaction from Mari people.
That's entirely a domestic New Zealand matter, and King Charles is absolutely no role in it, and I suspect even less an interest in it. So it's not an impediment as such for the head of State role to return to New Zealand or come back to New Zealand from the UK. So Certainly people can create a mischievous argument in saying that Mary will never allow us to become a republic because they have an un dying love for the British monarchy. I doubt that that is true in
my own conversations with Mari people. I think Mary people have moved way beyond that. The point too, is that the King Etanga is in no way impacted by having a New Zealand head of state. In fact, it might be the case that the New Zealand head of State is able to accord much more priority and consideration to the King e Tonga than King Charles can through his very fleeting and occasional visits to New Zealand. There's one important issue too, I think about having a head of state.
That is the fact that the Governor General at the moment is hampered in her international role because she is recognized as being the B team of our constitution and not the A team, so that when she goes overseas, there's no way the Governor General of New Zealand is going to be accorded the same status as the Emperor of Japan, or the Monarch in Holland, or any of the Nordic monarchies, so the Governor General does stand at a disadvantage because they don't have the correct designation as
head of state. The other point too, the government in New Zealand, the executive in New Zealand is quite happy to have a Governor General sitting in Government House in Wellington that's basically on speed dial for when they need her to come to Executive Council meetings and are quite happy for her to undertake the investitures and ceremonial activities that go with the Governor General's role. But to be honest, the Parliament and Government of New Zealand do not accord
the Governor General. I believe the status and manner that she should be given as head of state until she actually becomes formally our head of state. I think it's very easy for the New Zealand government to basically undervalue the role of the Governor General in our society.
Jasindra durn and Chris Hopkins have both said they think New Zealand will become a republic in their lifetime. Do you think that's true? Is the writing on the wall?
Yes? I can't see that New Zealand will continue with this arrangement. Indefinitely because it's so obviously an anomaly in the twenty first century. I hope that by twenty forty, the bi centenary of the Treaty of Waitangi, we do have a New Zealand head of state who can receive
the British monarch as an equal at that stage. Now, New Zealand politicians various colors and political leanings have said they believe we should become a republic people like Jim Bolger, Helen Clark, even Jacinda Down initially when she went into office was a convinced Republican. But of course reality of office makes it difficult for them to move on this
and so it gets left aside. It all becomes too hard under the pressure of day to day government and political intrigue in New Zealand, so well meaning people who actually do support the idea of having a New Zealander as a head of state to find it very hard in the reality of day to day politics to progress the idea. But yes, I think it does become obvious over time that New Zealand needs to have a New
Zealander in the role. Now. I've always found it rather odd that we expect the governor General to undertake this role of being the King's deputy or prevoucy the Queen's deputy in New Zealand. They did with such distinction. All our previous Governors General I think would have made excellent heads of state in their own right, but of course they never get the chance to do that because they
are only the B team. If you remember the anomaly situation during COVID when Cindy Kira was appointed Governor General, she actually had to do that video hookup with the Queen in England and so she got her mandate to be Governor General of New Zealand from the Queen sitting in the UK, not actually able to meet her in person.
It's an anomaly really to think that somehow the Governor General of New Zealand can have this power bestowed on her to be a governor journal by the British monarch sitting thousands of miles away.
Thanks for joining us, Peter. That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at NZ Herald dot co dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills with sound engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.