The Herald's Brian Rudman uses his weekly column to highlight Nepal's declaration of a republic, and calls for us to do the same. I agree - and I suggest that it would be even easier than Nepal. For a start, we wouldn't have to kick the Queen out of her palace, because she doesn't even live here. Instead, she's in London, half a world away - and about as interested in us as we are in her (i.e. not at all, except possibly as a quaint tourist attraction).
Rudman also makes a useful point about the perceived problems a republic would pose for the Treaty:
Much of the pussy-footing about making the last cut of the apron strings centres on Maori's so-called special relationship with the British Crown. Sir Paul, a Maori, says "I'm not died-in-the-wool wedded to monarchy, but I'd say, for Maori, to personalise the Crown, to put a face on it, is very important."It's a strong point: monarchy didn't stop Maori from having their land stolen at gunpoint in the 1860's. It didn't stop the long legal dispossession of the late 19th century. It didn't stop the systematic discrimination and sidelining of the 20th century. It didn't stop the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Petitions about all of those things fell on deaf ears. The justice Maori have had for those past wrongs (and I'm not trying to claim its adequate here, just that there has been some) has come from kiwis, not from a distant disinterested monarch. And there's no reason to think that would not continue or that a republic would spell the end of the process of justice and reconciliation.Why? The Crown, whether in person or metaphor, has failed to protect Maori interests when they called for help. It's been New Zealand-born politicians like Sir Doug Graham who finally answered the call. The landmark settlements with Ngai Tahu and Waikato-Tainui and the Sealord deals were the results of New Zealanders working together to create a better land for us all.
