15.04.08
The Republic and Trans-Tasman Relations
H. K. Farmer put this submission to the 2020 summit, arguing that since New Zealand and Australia already share a common Head of State, why not consider continuing the arrangement under a republic.
Australia and New Zealand currently share a head of state, however, republican debates on both sides of the Tasman have focused entirely upon breaking ties with Britain and not with a nation both geographically closer, more similar to our own, and with which we share a closer relationship. Thus this submission proposes the idea of a trans-Tasman presidency, which would allow Australia and New Zealand to maintain a common head of state whilst maintaining independence as two separate nations, much as they do now.
There are several ways in which a trans-Tasman presidency could function, however, in the case of this proposal the proposed presidency would simply replace the monarchy in Australia and New Zealand, the simplest method of change. Under this system the Governors-General of Australia and New Zealand and the state Governors would maintain their current roles, but would be the representative of the president rather than the British monarch. This would seem the best option for a trans-Tasman presidency as by maintaining Governors-General there would be a permanent representative of the head of state to the Commonwealth and New Zealand governments, allowing a president to freely undertake duties on either side of the Tasman. Within Australia there would also be an advantage to this as it would avoid the changing of the relationship between the Commonwealth and states that could come with a republic, i.e. state governors being representatives of a Commonwealth-appointed president or state governors becoming head of states within their own state.
Appointment of a president would undoutedly be complicated by needing agreement on both sides of the Tasman and the need to assure satisfactory representation of both nations in the presidency. Methods for appointment could include agreement of each appointment by the governments of Australia and the government of New Zealand, a rotating system in which governments take it in turns to appoint the president, and a council selected by the Commonwealth, states, and New Zealand to choose a president. Indeed, there would be many other ways to appoint and, of course, direct election would be a possibility.
PJ Thompson Said:
November 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm
This is a form of republic that I think would be more acceptable to both countries… direct election across the two nations would moderate any presidential selection
Bill Said:
September 12, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Australia and New Zealand do NOT share a Head of State! the Queen of NZ is not the Queen of Australia. Legally and constitutionally they are completely separate. Elizabeth Windsor fulfills both roles. What you suggest here is a radical constitutional change – an anschluss by Australia of NZ. NZ population is 4m Aus pop 20+m but many Kiwis may only swallow this constitutional change if they had equal say in who the president was to be!
From my perspective in NZ – Better the current system where we have to accept what the Lord bestows on the House Of Windsor.
David Latimer Said:
September 12, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your contribution.
According to what you write the roles are completely separate, but they they must be held by the same person. By this logic, I could be a financial auditor of a company and also be the company director. I could be a judge, but also be a police prosecutor, or a litigant. You could also look at this article on Wikipedia which reasonably uses the words “shared monarchy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand
If you could think about this, it would be appreciated.
To compare the Queen with Adolf Hitler is extremely unfair. Even as a republican I would never do this.
Mr Farmer clearly states that his intention is for Australia and New Zealand to remain independent as they are today. He also writes about ensuring that there would agreement between the two nations to ensure satisfactory joint representation, and a number of ideas are presented to achieve this.
In contrast, you seem content which the situation where the Lords in the United Kingdom have this power regarding New Zealand. So your logic on this point is extremely difficult to follow.
RobertVose Said:
September 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your contribution.
I agree that after the Statute of Westminster was ratified in our respective nations that there is now a Crown in Right of Australia (and independently of all the Australian states as well) and there is a distinct Crown in Right of New Zealand. Up until now the same person has been the reigning monarch for all the Commonwealth realms. As you say the Queen of Australia and the Queen of New Zealand are the same person, Elizabeth Windsor, but the two roles are very different and distinct. The rules of succession to the British monarchy determine who our respective heads of state will be in person, and by the Lord God’s grace that position will always be filled.
One approach for electing someone in Australia to serve as head of state is to have a state-based rotating presidency where each state elects one of their own to act as president for a term of one year each. If some such system were established in Australia, each state (and the territories) would have someone from their state in the role of president roughly once every seven years. If in the future there is some problem with the British monarchy or if the United Kingdom decides to become a republic itself, or if it seems to be in our mutual interests to band together in the Southern Seas, one possible way to do that would be to have a person elected in New Zealand act as president for Australia and New Zealand (whatever we would call that combined entity) for one year as part of a rotating presidency. The proposed presidency would fill the role of head of state as the Queen does now, with no real political power.
The possibility of this new model for a republic becoming reality is very distant at the moment – this new model for an Australian republic has not even been acknowledged publicly in Australia yet.
In the preamble to the Australian Constitution New Zealand is listed as one of the possible states of the Commonwealth. We decided not to join at Federation but it was considered a possibility around that time. It is not in any way comparable to an anschluss. The constitutional and political arrangements under the head of state will remain unique to New Zealand and the Australian Commonwealth and states as they are during the monarchy.If there would be any new cross-Tasman arrangements they would be negotiated on their own merits. New Zealand would not have its sovereign status changed into a state of the Commonwealth unless they had representation in the Australian Federal Parliament similar to that for Australian states. I don’t think that would happen in any case and neither Australia nor New Zealand would want that situation, I would think. The head of state is a symbolic position and carries no real political power.
If we were to share a rotating head of state across the Tasman Sea then there would be a person elected in New Zealand to serve a short term as our combined head of state and on an equal footing as with the Australian states. This new model for a republic and this possibility of sharing a rotating presidency is, however, extremely remote at the moment.
James Said:
December 18, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I don’t think this proposal in any way constitute an “anschluss” as both nations retain complete independence. The positions of Queen of Australia and Queen of New Zealand are, of course, legally distinct, even if obviously the same. It should also be noted that the Queen of Australia does not really constitute a single legal entity, being legally separate as heads of state of the Commonwealth and the states. The reason that Australia and NZ still share a monarch is that they both continue to use the Act of Settlement as the method of determining the succession of their head of state. A single trans-Tasman head of state could theoretically retain these multiple legal identities by all jurisdictions agreeing upon a common method of appointing a head of state. Therefore, there would not legally be a “President of Australasia” but rather legally distinct president of Australia and the states and New Zealand, they would just, as in the current model, be the same person. Even if there were to be a single legal trans-Tasman president, there would be little effect upon either nation’s independence, as he/she would only really have the power to approve appointments for governors or governors-general.
This model would be more difficult to achieve than two separate republics in Australia and NZ, but is certainly worth considering, especially considering the ever strengthening ties between the two countries. It could even be a good idea to promote for the centenary of the ANZAC landings in 2015, both nations declaring complete independence, whilst re-affirming the unbreakable bond between them.
RobertVose Said:
January 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Thanks for your comment James,
I agree that it would at least be worthwhile to consider this possibility. At present we do have the same person as head of state across the Tasman for both Australia and New Zealand, even if that same person is head of state of a number of distinct legal entities. She is wearing a lot of feathers in that fancy hat of hers.
It is something that might seem more appropriate at a later time and it might help us project a more noticeable international presence on the world stage than either Australia or New Zealand could achieve on their own. But it might be a little more difficult to set up, as you say.