Independence Daze: When did Aotearoa / New Zealand break free?

Chris Hipkins has expressed his republican views and questioned the country's independence due to our shared allegiance to King Charles. Because the coronation of the King has stirred republicans up, we’ve also had a report about a new citizen from Ireland taking offence at having to pledge allegiance to - as the reporter phrased it - "the King of England" during her citizenship ceremony. 

So frustrating.

King of the New Zealanders

New Zealand is an independent realm. We owe no loyalty to Charles as King of England. We owe it to him as King of New Zealand and the personal embodiment of the New Zealand state. This distinction is actually really important because it underpins our status as an independent country fully in control of our own destiny. 

To be fair, it’s not an entirely simple situation. You can perhaps forgive regular people for being a bit confused. But a prime minister suggesting that New Zealand is somehow not fully independent is, quite frankly, a bit embarrassing.

It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen

Quite when New Zealand became fully independent is up for debate. We became a dominion of the British Empire in 1907 and by 1926 the UK had acknowledged that the dominions were equal in status and no longer subordinate to the mother country. This was given legal form by the British Statute of Westminster in 1931 which New Zealand adopted in 1947.

In the following decades, a Crown of New Zealand emerged as a separate entity to that of New Zealand. In the mid-1970s, laws were passed asserting our authority to govern ourselves without interference from the British Parliament. These were duly signed by the Queen, who was also declared by Parliament to be Queen of New Zealand with reference to the United Kingdom removed.  

Any lingering doubts were put to the sword in the 1980s. In 1983 the "Realm of New Zealand" was formally defined by royal decree. The Constitution Act 1986 confirmed once and for all that the United Kingdom could never again make laws for us.

Whenever it happened, it happened

The exact point at which New Zealand became fully independent is certainly something that can be debated. There is a good case for many of the points in time mentioned above. What’s not up for debate, however, is that our independence now exists. 

So why do we pledge allegiance to King Charles since he quite famously is the King of the United Kingdom?

The sixteen-for-one crown special

We are not dependent on Britain, but we do share a personal union. This is a key aspect of understanding New Zealand's relationship with the British monarchy. A personal union describes two or more independent states where the role of monarch happens to be fulfilled by the same person.

Take Scotland, for example. That country is not independent as it is a constituent  nation of the United Kingdom. But were it to become independent, it does not follow that Charles would necessarily cease to be its king. The Scottish National Party, for example, supports an independent Scotland in a personal union with the UK as well as Canada, Australia and... New Zealand. 

The constant gardener

Try to imagine several houses in the same village haring the same gardener. Each garden its own distinct character and grows in its own way. None is exactly like any of the others. Will there be some similarities? Probably. But fences and walls clearly delineate what belongs to whom.  

The King is our shared gardener. He does what we ask, which is different to what the neighbours ask him to do. If we decide we don't like him, we’re free to sack him and get a new gardener instead.

This is what happened with the Republic of Ireland. Oppressed by Britain for centuries, the 26 mostly Catholic counties of Ireland were given independence in 1922. It didn't become a republic right away, however, and was reigned over by three kings in a personal union with the United Kingdom and New Zealand before abolishing the monarchy in 1949.

But what if we have a war with the Poms??

This, of course, would be a problem. If we were to declare war on the United Kingdom (or another Commonwealth Realm like Australia or Canada) then King Charles would have a serious conflict of interest on his hands. How would he juggle being c̶o̶m̶m̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶-̶i̶n̶-̶c̶h̶i̶e̶f̶ at the head of opposing armies?

I suggest we cross that bridge when we get to it.

By becoming a member, you'll instantly unlock access to 125 exclusive posts
1
Audio release
79
Images
1
Link
2
Livestreams
51
Writings
1
Video
By becoming a member, you'll instantly unlock access to 125 exclusive posts
1
Audio release
79
Images
1
Link
2
Livestreams
51
Writings
1
Video

The Blue Review

A reasonable centre-right perspective on NZ politics

The Blue Review

A reasonable centre-right perspective on NZ politics

Recent Posts