Charles’ absence highlights case for a homegrown head of state
It’s official. King Charles, our head of state, is bypassing New Zealand when he comes south in October, to attend the biennial meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Samoa. Instead, he will pay a short visit to Australia, en route to Samoa.
Clearly, he is acting on the advice of his doctors in skipping a visit to New Zealand (reinforced by Camilla’s known reluctance to travel abroad). While New Zealanders wish him a speedy recovery, concerns remain over his health outlook longer term.
Of course, he will offer profuse apologies to our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, when they meet in Samoa – and Luxon has made it clear the king is welcome to visit at any time. But the surprising thing is that the news that he is not coming to New Zealand has been received with almost complete indifference by New Zealanders.
Queen Elizabeth was the same age as Charles is now when she made her last visit to New Zealand in 2002. It is unlikely, given his health status, that Charles will ever visit us as our head of state.
This gives rise to the obvious question: what is the point of having the British monarch as our head of state if they haven't shown up here in that role for over 22 years? The complete burden of carrying out his functions in respect of New Zealand falls squarely on the shoulders of the governor-general.
We have been lucky to have had governors-general of outstanding calibre over the past decades, which begs the question: what is the real value added for New Zealand of retaining the formal link withtheBritishCrown?
Politics in New Zealand, as elsewhere, is always short term, here based on a three-year cycle. Important constitutional issues, including who should be our head of state, require our political leaders to take a somewhat longer perspective, something they are not very good at doing.
It is an anomaly, even in the Commonwealth, that New Zealand does not have its own head of state, but continues to “borrow” one from the United Kingdom.
One might hazard a guess that, with his family squabbles and health issues, and his necessary primary focus on the UK, the King himself might be only too happy to see the responsibility for New Zealand transferred to where it rightfully belongs, onto the shoulders of a prominent New Zealander. Is that perhaps a subtext of his decision not to hop across the Tasman on this occasion?
A national conversation is now overdue on appointing the governor-general as our head of state. The conversation needs to be led, and carefully managed, by our political leadership and elected parliamentarians, with New Zealanders having a say through a well-designed consultative process. At the end of this process, a referendum will be needed to decide the issue.
This conversation is not an opportunity for a free for all on issues such as the Treaty of Waitangi and reparation claims from the British Crown for past injustices. Although the Treaty was signed by representatives of Queen Victoria, the British monarch has never had any role, let alone interest, in interpreting and implementing the Treaty’s provisions. That remains the responsibility of New Zealand – its people and its elected representatives.
The current debate over the Treaty should not therefore be permitted to obscure the simple question: is New
Zealand capable and competent enough to have its own head of state? The answer must surely be yes.
How should our head of state be chosen? Not by direct election, which could see well-heeled and politically ambitious rich-listers turn this largely ceremonial, but constitutionally key, office into a political battleground. Rather, our parliamentarians, by substantial majority, should choose someone who commands wide national respect.
The head of state would serve for a defined period, perhaps five years as the governor-general does now. For those worried that we might end up with a Trump or some politically biased person as our president, the appointee should be demonstrably apolitical and not have held major political office previously (that is, there must be no repeat of the appointment of former prime minister Keith Holyoake as governor-general in 1977).
With its own head of state, New Zealand would still be a member of the Commonwealth and participate in the Commonwealth Games. The King, and his successors, would still be welcome visitors to New Zealand as head of the Commonwealth.
Australia may well get out ahead of us and appoint an Australian as its head of state. King Charles must be aware of the strong and growing republican sentiment in Australia, which is perhaps another reason why he will spend the barest minimum of time there, enough for a respectable showing in a couple of Australian cities.
Peter Hamilton is a former deputy-secretary in the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who worked as a New Zealand diplomat for 35 years. His memoir, New Moons for Sam, sets out the case for having a New Zealander as our head of state.