Call this week by the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, for New Zealand to become a republic by 2000 has drawn far less heat than a similar call last year by his Australian counterpart, Paul Keating.
From this side of the Tasman, that might seem odd, considering the popular myth in Australia that New Zealand is more English than England and the manifestation of that in the clinging to the imperial honours system and appeals to the Privy Council — thing which have been discarded in Australia as anachronisms. Who would have predicted that the green and (to a minor extent) scepter’d isles of New Zealand might be a republic before Australia?
There are several reasons for the less heated response in New Zealand.
For a start, like a good All Black, Jim Bolger has positioned himself in a place where there is no-one to out-flank him. He is already out on the right wing. Anyone further to the right is off-field, is an old huffer and buffer not in the play. If the call for a republic comes from the leader of the conservative ranks, the natural monarchist constituency has been undermined. In Australia, however, the call came from midfield or slightly left of midfield. A swath of the paddock was left open for monarchists to come charging in.
Another reason is that New Zealand is a far cry from the backwater it was 10 years ago. It is no longer the land of Morris Minors that closed at weekends. New Zealand has embraced far-reaching economic changes. Inevitably they bring an impetus for political change, not only in totalitarian countries like China, but also in democracies. The economic changes change the political outlook. New Zealand’s economic changes (from being an agricultural supplier with limited protected manufacturing to an export-oriented freer economy) have made English apron strings less relevant.
New Zealand is a more confident society. Its judges are as good as the Privy Council. Indeed they are far better when it comes to dealing with inherently New Zealand matters: Maori land claims, for example. The laws passed by the New Zealand’s Parliament do not need Royal assent (even ceremonially).
Another reason for the low-key reaction in New Zealand is that the change from monarchy to republic is not intricately bound up with political power-broking as it is in Australia. It is a cosmetic issue only. In Crown goes from New Zealand it means nothing politically. In Australia it means a lot because the Queen’s representative has potentially a major political role (as the events of 1975 showed). The republican debate in Australian, then, gets mixed up with the role of the Senate, states rights, Executive power and so on.
How ironic, then, that New Zealand, which embraced a more English model of governance early this century with a sovereign Parliament and no states, could quietly usher in a republic, while Australia, which embraced the American model, could languish with an out-dated monarchy because of political disagreement over the implications of changing it.