It is hardly surprising in the wake of the death of Queen Elizabeth II that the question of New Zealand becoming a republic should be raised. Indeed, it is inevitable that the end of the longest reign of any British Monarch ever should provoke discussion about the future and what might follow. 

However, as a staunch republican, I say for two reasons this is not the time for such discussions to occur. First, the late Queen’s reign was an unparalleled example of service and dedication that deserves to be honoured, without distraction. During the seventy years of her reign, the Queen touched the lives of many people in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and elsewhere and it is right that those people be given time and space to reflect upon and mourn her passing as they see appropriate. An early debate about becoming a republic would be an unwelcome intrusion on the grief of many at this point. 

Second, there is always a risk that decisions reached in response to a particular situation are too influenced by those circumstances to deliver the best and most durable outcomes. A period of distance and reflection is always best suited to enabling a dispassionate consideration of all the issues involved before a formal decision is reached. This is especially so in the instance of the momentous constitutional change that becoming a republic would be. 

The 2005 Parliamentary Inquiry into New Zealand’s Constitutional Arrangements – which I chaired – noted the “pragmatic evolution” of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and set out broad processes by which future changes might be considered. Although the committee was not asked to consider the question of becoming a republic, it did conclude that “the functions and nature of the most appropriate Head of State for New Zealand” was one of the most critical constitutional issues facing the country. 

While the process of becoming a republic is not nearly as complicated as some argue, any change needs to occur following widespread national consultation and consensus, not rushed hurriedly into place because of the death of a long-serving and much-loved Monarch. As the Constitutional Arrangements Committee concluded, “we will initially benefit from ongoing debate and consideration, rather than from hastily developed reform proposals. They are questions about our national identity and the way in which we want power to be organised in our country.” 

And, although New Zealand is an independent sovereign nation, there is also the wider position to consider. At present, only 14 of the 56 nations of the Commonwealth acknowledge the British Monarch as their Head of State, as New Zealand does. Of those, Australia, the Caribbean states, and possibly Canada are likely to consider becoming republics over the next little while. It would therefore make good sense for New Zealand to engage in informal dialogue with those countries about the processes for change they might be considering, including possible timetables, so that we can learn from and share common experiences. That would not involve any compromise of our sovereignty but would simply be a pragmatic way of ensuring each country understood what the other was doing. 

What is clear is that New Zealand’s position as a member of the Commonwealth is not at stake here. 36 members of the Commonwealth, including India, and South Africa are already republics, and there is no reason or suggestion that New Zealand would be obliged to cut its Commonwealth ties, were it to become a republic. 

Although the timing and form of any move for New Zealand to become a republic is ultimately in our own hands, we will not be immune from external influences. 

One of these might be King Charles III himself. His desire and intent to “slim down” the Monarchy is well known. Reportedly, he wants to reduce the effective working Royal Family to just seven members, and structure it more along the lines of the various European monarchies, both to secure its ongoing public support, and reduce the significant financial costs associated with it. With King Charles’ position secured as head of the "the free association of independent member nations" that is the Commonwealth, he may feel less inclined to pay much attention to their own individual constitutional arrangements, so long as they adhere to the Commonwealth’s broad principles, given he has no part in their day-to-day governance arrangements. 

Indeed, he has already indicated as much. In a 1997 discussion with former politician and diplomat Chris Laidlaw the then Prince of Wales reportedly said, when asked about New Zealand becoming a republic, “Well, to be frank, I think it would come as a great relief to all of us. It would remove the awful ambiguity we have at the moment. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for everybody if you all had your own completely independent head of state. I certainly never want to be dragged into any constitutional disputes in New Zealand or anywhere else. I simply can’t imagine how difficult it would be to be faced with having to dismiss a New Zealand Prime Minister.”

Could it therefore be that as part of slimming down the Monarchy, King Charles will proactively encourage long-term Commonwealth members like New Zealand to become republics? Given the timorous way successive governments have approached the issue over the years, accepting a Royal nudge for change would be the ultimate irony.