Queen Elizabeth's death raises questions over New Zealand's constitutional future, including a republic

To become a republic or not?

That is a question many New Zealanders will ponder following the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Discussions about breaking away from the monarchy have increased in recent years. The connection is now seen as largely symbolic, with New Zealand becoming increasingly independent from Great Britain.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said that in her lifetime she expected the shift from a constitutional monarchy to a republic to take place.

Former prime minister Sir John Key said he believed New Zealand would only ever do so after Australia had made the move.

On the surface, a breakaway might seem a simple question.

New Zealand is different to Great Britain in many areas and is culturally unique in the world.

University of Auckland law school associate professor Dr Claire Charters said it was in a way "absurd" to have the ultimate power resting with someone born thousands of kilometres away and "so out of touch with New Zealand reality".

"I think there is some level of emotional attachment to the Queen, and [now] she's passed the conversation will become less emotional."

University of Auckland law school associate professor Dr Claire Charters. Photo / Supplied

However, there was also a factor of indifference, with New Zealand already being regarded as a "de facto" republic, with the Queen's representative here, the Governor-General, acting as head of state, but in practice staying out of domestic affairs.

That indifference could well continue, especially if Australia keeps the status quo.

Scratching slightly deeper too, a split from the monarch could open a "huge can of constitutional worms", Charters said.

It could involve not only establishing a new head of state, but new parliamentary and judicial systems and a new relationship with Māori, at least on paper.

Charters said there were mixed views among Māori over whether to become a republic or maintain a relationship with the Crown.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi was a contract - a treaty - signed between the Crown of England and Māori of New Zealand.

It enshrined the mana and status of iwi Māori and espoused a partnership role with the Crown.

Charters said while becoming a republic would remove the Crown as a partner, those obligations could in theory be carried on to the new head of state.

"At a minimum, we would need to ensure the state recognises the obligations under Te Tiriti," she said.

The modern reality of the relationship was also that Māori already dealt with the Government and not the Crown, she said.

Charters numbers among many academics - including the late Moana Jackson - and politicians, including those from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, who have been pushing for constitutional reform in Aotearoa New Zealand, with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori at the heart.

"I think that is the issue I am most concerned about, and it is definitely a good opportunity for those discussions," she said.

"If you're going to make such major constitutional change to become a republic you cannot do one without the other.

"You have to, by definition, lead to constitutional transformation."

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said losing the "familiar, trusted and even loved" Queen Elizabeth, the only monarch most New Zealanders had known, raised the question of whether the monarchy still made sense without her.

The sovereign's role was now a "largely symbolic, ceremonial and notional post based on historical colonial ties", he said.

Geddis said moving to a republic could be done quickly with an act of Parliament, although it would gain more legitimacy through a wider process of public consultation and debate.

Key questions would include how to choose the new head of state, whether by popular vote, or through an appointment process in Parliament with the support of three-quarters of MPs to attempt to keep the role above politics.

Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis. Photo / Supplied

There would also need to be a review of the most unstable parts of the current constitution, given many practices and the government's legal powers rested on presumptions linked to the UK monarchy.

"We would have to give them a new, local legal basis," Geddis said.

Some "reconceptualisation of Te Tiriti" would also be needed, he said.

"However, replacing the sovereign as our head of state would not undermine its importance or ongoing relevance.

"Māori have long since ceased travelling to London in the hope that the inhabitant of Buckingham Palace can offer them aid. Rather, the meaning and application of Te Tiriti lies here in Aotearoa.

"That would be made even more clear if the formal head of our nation was someone from here, and not 18,000kms distant."

University of Canterbury law professor Philip Joseph, author of a textbook on New Zealand constitutional law, said it was "inevitable" the Queen's death would spark a conversation about severing ties to the monarchy.

"That is a conversation that will and should happen," Joseph said.

"At some point, we need to consider whether we wish to remain symbolically linked to a former colonising power that proclaimed sovereignty over these islands in the 19th century.

"It might be thought that our national sovereignty is deserving of formal recognition through a head of state that exemplifies the people."

Such a transition would not necessarily "rupture" existing constitutional arrangements, given the Governor-General was already de facto head of state, nor obligations to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi.

These obligations had already passed to "the Crown in right of New Zealand", and would simply devolve upon the new head of state, he said.