NZ citizens keen to stay wedded to the monarchy

More than half of us think a British monarch should remain as New Zealand’s head of state, but one of those pushing for Aotearoa to divorce the monarchy says the debate is hampered by a lack of understanding of how the system works – and what the alternatives could look like.
Survey results, provided exclusively to Newsroom, show 55 percent of New Zealanders think a British monarch – currently King Charles III – should remain as this country’s head of state.
This is in-line with a similar survey result from last year, where 54 percent of New Zealanders surveyed supported the monarchy.
Meanwhile, 27 percent think the British monarch should be replaced by a New Zealand head of state. And 19 percent weren’t sure.
The results come as Christopher Luxon prepares to fly to Samoa later this week to attend the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which King Charles will attend.
On Monday, Luxon described himself as a “soft republican”.
“I think that somewhere in my lifetime, New Zealand will choose to become a Republic. But I also just say to you right now, I’m also quite a fan of the royal family,” he said.
“At the end of the day, this is not a topic for New Zealanders. New Zealanders are deeply concerned about the cost of living … They’re deeply concerned about restoring law and order and delivering better health and education.”
Luxon said the royal family had served New Zealand “incredibly well, and will continue to do so”.
When asked to elaborate on how they served New Zealanders, the Prime Minister said they were “really dedicated people”.
Luxon was asked whether Māori would agree the British monarchy had served them well.
“Well, no,” he said, before repeating that New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements were not something Kiwis were “up for a big debate about right now”.
While Luxon said now wasn’t the time to have a debate about New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, his Government was also progressing its Treaty Principles Bill as part of National’s coalition agreement with Act.
The bill, which National and NZ First say they will not support further than the select committee stage, raises key questions about the country’s constitution.
In response to media questions about whether now was the right time to be having that national debate, Luxon said he had to advance the bill as it was a commitment he made to his coalition partner.
“I didn’t get what I wanted. David Seymour didn’t get what he wanted. We came to a compromise.”
The survey, which was commissioned by New Zealand Republic and carried out by Curia Market Research, asked 1000 people about their feelings on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.
Those who voted Te Pāti Māori were more likely to say they supported changing to a New Zealand head of state, than support keeping a British monarch in that role.
Of the Te Pāti Māori supporters who responded to the poll, 31 percent said they would like a New Zealand head of state. Meanwhile, 19 percent of that voting block said they would like to keep the King, and 50 percent were undecided.
This was the only voting block that showed greater support for a change of governing arrangement, than for keeping the status quo.
Those who voted Act were most likely to want to keep the British monarch as the head of state (75 percent) versus change to a New Zealand head of state (12 percent).
Act Party David Seymour has said becoming a republic wasn’t a priority for him.
“The question I ask is what difference would it make? We need a country where it’s safe to run a dairy, where red tape doesn’t get in the way of running a business, where we don’t have children regularly not attending school. These are the important issues I am focused on, and I don’t see how becoming a republic will help with any of that,” he said.
Meanwhile 66 percent of National voters wanted to keep the King, compared with 18 percent who didn’t. And 49 percent of NZ First voters wanted things to stay as they were, compared with 40 percent who wanted change.
Labour voters were split 50 percent in favour of the monarchy, to 32 percent who wanted a New Zealand head of state. And for the Greens, that split was 41 percent, compared to 40 percent.
In recent decades, political leaders like Jacinda Ardern, John Key, Helen Clark, Jim Bolger and now Luxon, all said New Zealand was moving towards becoming a republic. But, like Luxon, none wanted to spend their political capital on calling up the debate.
At the same time, that parallel discussion around constitutional reform, and what that means for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, has been bubbling away, with the Treaty Principles Bill bringing key constitutional questions to the fore.
In 2022, Te Pāti Māori launched a petition to “file for divorce from the Crown”.
“The only way this nation can work is when Māori assert their rights to self-management, self-determination, and self-governance over all our domains. Our vision is for constitutional transformation that restores the tino rangatiratanga of tangata whenua in this country” co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said at the time.
And in 2020, Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March questioned in a tweet why new MPs had to swear an oath to the (then) Queen, but there was no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The tweet sparked a debate, with the Green MP receiving vitriolic responses from staunch monarchists. But he maintained it wasn’t a conversation about monarchy versus republic; there was a more nuanced discussion to be had about the consistent calls for transformation that entrenches the values and purpose of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and addresses the need for the inclusion of indigenous rights.
This week, the third and final Hui ā Motu will be held at Tuahiwi Marae north of Christchurch. The series of national hui were launched by Kiingi Tuheitia in January as a response to Government policies, and in an effort to build kotahitanga (unity) among Māori.
Next month, a hīkoi from the Far North to Parliament is planned in opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill.
On Monday, the Prime Minister said he was looking forward to meeting King Charles III for the first time. Charles would be travelling straight from his brief Australian tour to Samoa, where we would meet Luxon and other Commonwealth leaders.
The survey also asked Kiwis whether Charles’ decision not to tour New Zealand increased or decreased their support for the monarchy. Overwhelmingly (79 percent), said it made no difference.
Charles had axed the New Zealand leg of his tour due to his ongoing cancer treatment.
New Zealand Republic’s Peter Hamilton said the results, which might be read as apathy or a lack of appetite for this conversation, were grounded in a lack of understanding.
Previous research, and anecdotal evidence, found many New Zealanders didn’t understand how the system of government worked and who was the country’s head of state.
Others baulked at the idea of becoming a republic, with the idea of a system akin to the US putting people off.
However, Hamilton – a former deputy secretary of foreign affairs and senior diplomat – said New Zealand deserved a New Zealand head of state.
A British monarch represented Britain and Britain’s interest, he said. Changing the head of state to the Governor-General (elected by a Parliament super-majority) would mean the person who held that top (albeit ceremonial) role would be a New Zealander, who was in-touch with the pertinent issues and people, and could serve the country’s interests at home and in the region.
This change would not mean dropping out of the Commonwealth, which is a voluntary association with the British monarchy.
Hamilton referred to the 50th anniversary of Niue’s self-governance in association with New Zealand: while Charles mentioned the milestone, the King had never visited Niue. At the same time our Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro was in that country, representing New Zealand. 
Hamilton said there were plenty of Kiwis who would be qualified for the job. Any suggestion that there wasn’t a pool of Kiwis who were up to the job was “total rot”, he said.
However, igniting a national conversation that could lead to change would “require some leadership”, he said.