Dame Patsy Reddy is backing English royals continuing as New Zealand heads of state, in a rare incursion into politics that has drawn fire as fundamentally misrepresenting the law.

Dr Areti Metuamate dreads one day having to explain to his son Iluka, now just 10 months old, that as a Māori he can aspire to any position in New Zealand – except the most important one of all.

"I grew up in a family where my grandparents, who were freezing workers, paid for their kids and their grandkids to go to good boarding schools and get good educations, so one day they could be leaders in this country," he said. "We grew up thinking, we could do whatever we wanted if we put our mind to it.

"But we can never be head of state of New Zealand. It doesn't matter how hard you work, it doesn't matter how involved you are in your community, it doesn't matter what your education is. That position is untouchable – because we've got this ridiculous situation we've inherited, that means a Pākehā in England who's never lived here, who has no deep connection, takes that position."

"We were uniquely formed by a contract, by a treaty. And that treaty was between the Crown of England and Māori of New Zealand."
– Dame Patsy Reddy, Governor-General

The prominent academic, and chief executive of Te Kupenga Catholic theological colleges, is of Ngati Kauwhata, Ngati Raukawa ki te Tonga, Ngati Haua and Cook Islands Maori descent. He has spearheaded calls for a greater Māori presence in the country's senior constitutional positions. 

Dame Patsy Reddy's term as Governor-General ends this year; Dr Metuamate wrote to the Prime Minister last month calling for her to be succeeded by a Governor-General of Māori descent, which has happened only twice before. At present, he points out, the Governor-General, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the Chief of Defence are all Pākehā.

But he says the even bigger question is whether Māori – or indeed, any New Zealander – can be head of state, the role the Queen now holds.

Ahead of her last visit to Waitangi as Governor-General, Dame Patsy has mounted a defence of the British monarchy and its ongoing role in New Zealand.

It is thought to be the first time a serving Governor-General has intervened publicly in the discussion over whether an independent New Zealand should have its own head of state.

New Zealand is one of only 15 former colonies that are still constitutional monarchies, out of the 54 member nations of the Commonwealth.

• How Will CANZUK and Britain Impact The Rest of The World?
• David Seymour against NZ becoming a republic - 'What we have actually works constitutionally'
• Calls for NZ to become a republic grow louder amid Prince Harry and Meghan Markle scandal
• Royal Flush: How long before NZ pulls the chain on the monarchy?

Dame Patsy was asked, in an interview with TVNZ youth media outlet Re: why New Zealand had maintained such an allegiance to the Crown when the connection had become more symbolic, and New Zealand had become more independent.

"It's quite a simple answer to that, and it's Te Tiriti o Waitangi," she said. "We were uniquely formed by a contract, by a treaty. And that treaty was between the Crown of England and Māori of New Zealand.

"It's also a sovereign whose links make that connection back to the Tiriti o Waitangi, which I think is still quite important, symbolically and actually in New Zealand.

"To me, that's enough of a reason to keep having that connection. I can see there are different points of view and some people might say, well, we shouldn't keep doing that indefinitely."

"A New Zealand republic should succeed to all the international or contractual obligations of the Crown, including the Treaty of Waitangi. That can simply be provided for."
– Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister

Dr Metuamate said Dame Patsy was "ill-advised" and had got the law plain wrong, and failed to recognise the widespread view among younger generations of Māori that this country should have its own head of state, rather than deferring to the English monarchy.

"I'm 35. I've not met a single young person, or a single person even of my generation, who does support the Queen continuing to be head of state of New Zealand, and I'm involved in a number of Māori groups, organisations, and in my own iwi," he said.

Former Governors-General Sir Paul Reeves and Dame Cath Tizard, respectively the first Māori and first woman to hold the role, both spoke out after leaving office, saying they supported New Zealand having its own head of state. And Sir Michael Hardie Boys argued in defence of the monarchy.

Both Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and her son Prince Charles – next in line to be New Zealand's king and head of state – have said it is this country's decision whether it wants to choose its own head of state like most other Commonwealth nations. Now aged 94, the Queen has not visited New Zealand for nearly 20 years.

One constitutional expert, University of Auckland law professor Janet McLean, interpreted Dame Patsy's words as a being about about the symbolism of the Treaty connection – "that the Treaty is a symbolically and actually important connection with the Queen and people can disagree about that."

But other experts led by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer said guaranteeing the status of Te Tiriti would only be a problem if New Zealand were to adopt its own head of state without stating the appropriate legal principles at the time the change was made.

"A New Zealand republic should succeed to all the international or contractual obligations of the Crown, including the Treaty of Waitangi," the constitutional lawyer and former Prime Minister told Newsroom. "That can simply be provided for. I know some Māori have sometimes stated that their agreement was with Queen Victoria in the Treaty. The obligations, however, can relatively easily be taken over.

"After all, the Queen must follow the advice of her New Zealand ministers as matters stand. I do not consider providing for succession obligations is a difficult constitutional issue."

"Several Māori deputations to Buckingham Palace over the years to remedy the injustices done to Māori ... were sincere but sad attempts to appeal to the honour of the Crown; such deputations were immediately forwarded on to Government House in Wellington and thereto to the government of the day."
– Professor Philip Joseph

University of Canterbury law professor Philip Joseph, who wrote the text book on New Zealand constitutional law, backed Sir Geoffrey. 

"I agree that New Zealand would not repudiate the obligations and responsibilities undertaken by the Imperial Crown in 1840 were it to become a republic," he said. "The obligations and responsibilities undertaken under the Treaty of Waitangi would devolve upon the new head of state, just as they did last century with the evolution of the separate and divisible Crown."

The Treaty was originally signed on behalf of Queen Victoria by her first representative in New Zealand, lieutenant-governor William Hobson. And just as iwi have inherited the responsibilities their ancestors signed up to in 1840, so too Queen Victoria's responsibilities have been handed down, through several monarchs, to the Crown in New Zealand. 

The Privy Council endorsed this view in 1994 in an appeal from New Zealand, where their Lordships stated: “The obligations of Her Majesty, the Queen of England, under the Treaty are now those of the Crown in right of New Zealand.”

Professor Joseph said: "Were New Zealand to become a republic under a new head of state, the above sequence would simply be repeated. The obligations and responsibilities initially undertaken by the Crown in 1840 would pass from the Crown in right of New Zealand to the new head of state in the republic."

He agreed that the support of Māori would be the deal-breaker, if they and other New Zealanders wished the country to appoint its own head of state. "Māori have always regarded the Treaty as being in the nature of a personal covenant entered into by Queen Victoria, whereby she personally undertook the Crown’s responsibilities.

"This explains the several Māori deputations to Buckingham Palace over the years to remedy the injustices done to Māori. These were sincere but sad attempts to appeal to the honour of the Crown; such deputations were immediately forwarded on to Government House in Wellington and thereto to the government of the day."

"We would be happy to explore moving towards a more independent country, away from the Crown, because she's 12,000 miles away and we really don't have a true relationship with her. It's a myth."
– Rawiri Waititi, Te Paati Māori

Te Paati Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said Māori leaders had repeatedly visited London to ask monarchs to require their governments in New Zealand to uphold their obligations under the Treaty. Every time they had been rebuffed. King Tawhiao travelled by boat to England in 1884 to seek redress for the confiscation of Waikato lands, but was refused an audience with Queen Victoria.

Waititi said he too had visited Buckingham Palace, as a tourist. "But the closest I've ever got to the Queen was licking the back of her head, on a stamp."

He said royalty "know nothing" about New Zealand and Māori. Indeed, on her last visit, the Queen had acknowledged an imperfect relationship between the Crown and Māori. 

• The Rise of a CANZUK Trading Bloc
• "A Look At CANZUK" - Live Discussion Panel With The Experts
• New Zealand Prime Minister: “We Are Committed To Closer Relations With UK”
• CANZUK vs. The European Union - What's The Difference?

He respected the Governor-General's mana, but he said she was legally and historically incorrect to say the relationship with the British monarchy was integral to the place of the Treaty. 

"What the Treaty actually did was gave rights to governorship, not ownership," Waititi said.

"What we can agree on is that the status of the Treaty needs to be protected. 100 percent. Our new constitution for Aotearoa must be guided by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I think we need something that's more inclusive, and reflects Aotearoa today.

"We would be happy to explore moving towards a more independent country, away from the Crown, because she's 12,000 miles away and we really don't have a true relationship with her. It's a myth, and our whole political system's built on that myth. It hasn't served Māoridom very well. It hasn't served anybody well, to be quite honest."

“We welcome Dame Patsy joining the korero on the head of state, even if that is unusual for a sitting Governor-General. When she does so, she must fairly represent the inevitable constitutional position."
– Dr Dean Knight, Victoria University

New Zealand Republic, the public group pushing for a referendum on the country's head of state, says the modern reality of the Treaty partnership is that Māori are dealing with the Beehive, not Buckingham Palace.

Independent Curia Research polls, commissioned by New Zealand Republic, have consistently shown higher proportions of Māori supporting a New Zealand head of state.

Victoria University associate law professor Dr Dean Knight, the group's constitutional adviser, expressed concern that Dame Patsy had misrepresented the law. 

“We welcome Dame Patsy joining the korero on the head of state, even if that is unusual for a sitting Governor-General," he said. "When she does so, she must fairly represent the inevitable constitutional position – elevating the Governor-General to Head of State but otherwise keeping everything else the same.”

The problem, he said, was that Māori respected the Queen's mana in her wharenui, the United Kingdom – but their own mana in their wharenui, Aotearoa, was disregarded. 

"I remember when a photo of Queen Elizabeth would hang in our wharenui if the Crown were coming onto the Marae. But after our iwi’s Treaty settlement that picture went and the Crown’s official apology sits in its place."
– Morgan Godfery

On one marae, English royalty has already been deposed. Political commentator Morgan Godfery said the institution was neither relevant nor necessary to his people any more.

 “What do the English royal family mean to us? Well, nothing, which is exactly the point.

"I remember when a photo of Queen Elizabeth would hang in our wharenui if the Crown were coming onto the Marae. But after our iwi’s Treaty settlement that picture went and the Crown’s official apology sits in its place.

"That’s a good metaphor for changing times - the Crown means the New Zealand government. No Māori ever had a relationship with the English royal family, so there’s nothing to protect in keeping Her Majesty as our head of state."

He, too, reflected on Māori leaders' personal and political appeals to the royals in London. "They did their very best to ignore us, which is consistent with their constitution," he said. "They’re figureheads and not much else. Power, both in the old country and New Zealand, resides in Parliament and the executive."