User:Brian/Temp/HMM

Monarchism in New Zealand is the belief amongst certain New Zealanders that the system of constitutional monarchy is, for varying reasons, the best constitutional framework for New Zealand.

History and present day
New Zealand monarchists have historically celebrated the monarchy as a link to the United Kingdom and British Empire, and thus a tie to New Zealand's British heritage. However, through the 1980s and 90s, less and less attention was paid to New Zealand's British heritage, of which the Monarchy was deemed to be at least partly representative. Still, into the 1990s the Monarchy also began to take on more distinctively New Zealand aspects, including the enhancement of the role of the Governor General as a national and international representative of the Queen and New Zealand, as well as the government recognising and promoting the Queen's role as Monarch of New Zealand as separate to her position as Queen of the United Kingdom.

Thus, while monarchists will today still celebrate the monarchy as a historically significant institution, contemporary arguments will also often centre on the perceived political advantage of a constitutional monarchy system of governance, as well as what they assert are the distinct New Zealand aspects of the Crown in Right of New Zealand, which is sometimes referred to by New Zealand monarchists as the "Maple Crown." They state that as the Crown is shared with the other Commonwealth Realms in an equal fashion (by the Statute of Westminster), the monarchy is therefore partly New Zealand. Also, monarchists such as Noel Cox reject republican assertions that the monarchy as it operates within New Zealand is a British, rather than New Zealand, institution.

Monarchists argue that the monarchy is a fundamentally unbiased institution, and the apolitical nature of the Crown enables the Queen to be a non-partisan figure who can act as an effective intermediary between New Zealand's various levels of government and political parties. It is argued that the monarchy makes the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction as potent as the federal authority, thus allowing for a flexible federalism. Also, the Queen holds no favouritism towards any specific political party, group of voters, donors, etc., allowing them to be an unbiased referee during any potential governmental crisis.

Monarchists thus say that it is impossible to imagine that any elected head of state can remain as apolitical and unbiased as the Queen currently is. They argue that having both an elected president and prime minister could lead to the two coming to odds over who holds more authority; each could claim to be "elected by the people". Monarchists also argue that a republican head of state would cost more, not less, than the current monarchy due to additional costs involved in updating the Governor General's residences to full head of state presidential palace level, the costs of state visits, political advisers, increased ceremonial functions, etc.; functions that in many cases do not exist for a Governor-General, given that he or she is not a full head of state, but which would be required for a New Zealand president.

Public opinion polls in New Zealand show that the New Zealand Public is still in favour of the retention of the monarchy, with recent polls showing it to have between 50 and 60% support. The polls indicate that while many New Zealanders see the monarchy as being of little day-to-day relevance, the institution still enjoys the support of many New Zealanders, particularly older (those born before the Second World War) New Zealanders. Support for becoming a republic is still the view of only around a third of the population. With the popularity of the current monarch, and the position of the Treaty of Waitangi under a republic remaining a concern to many Māori and other New Zealanders alike, and the question of what constitutional form a republic might take unresolved, support for a New Zealand Head of state may not likely to crystallise into a majority for some time.