Oaths: a challenge to new MPs
During the last term of Parliament, a number of MPs challenged the oath they are required to swear in order to take their seat. Most replaced references to the Queen with the Treaty of Waitangi, others referred to the people of New Zealand - the ones who actually elected them.
As a result, the Speaker of the House, Dr Lockwood Smith, had the standing orders changed so that anyone not speaking the oath word for word was ejected from the house. As No Right Turn points out, this actually creates an opportunity for republican minded MPs to protest en masse.
The Republican Movement is sending all newly elected MPs* a copy of the New Zealand Republic Handbook, and will challenge them to swear allegiance to New Zealanders rather than the Queen.
Interestingly, it was pointed out to myself the other day that the committee reviewing the standing orders inserted this clause:
Most of us consider that, in the course of the 50th Parliament, the wording of the oath and affirmation set out under the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 should be subject to a review. The New Zealand National Party and ACT New Zealand members disagree with this proposal.
Such a shame they kicked the Oaths Modernisation Bill to touch. But one thing is for sure - the issue will keep coming up every time new MPs are sworn in. The monarchist system of requiring allegiance to an individual, rather than the nation that our elected representatives are elected to represent is not sustainable.
*Well, maybe not one of them. Chocolate fish if you know who!
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
Not reviewing an Act that works is parliament’s way of getting on with things that matter.
When you have MPs openly defying an oath, it's clear the Act doesn't work. You can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and pretend New Zealand hasn't changed since the 50s, but the underlying factors driving the defiance won't change. The punitive reaction of the Speaker to this defiance only underlines how out of touch the oath is.
The new Labour Party leader declares himself to be a republican, but qualifies that by saying that the republic "is not a priority". There is therefore only a fine distinction between Shearer and John Key who says that a republic is "inevitable" but not while he is Prime Minister. Meanwhile the New Zealand Herald says that it is time for a debate on the republic, but insists that all those who enter parliament - effectively, all those who will have a significant role in the debate - must pledge allegiance to the monarchy. The members of the current parliament themselves seem to have resigned their earlier attempts to challenge the oath, and were submitted unconditionally to the monarchy at the swearing in ceremony.
In these circumstances, it is hard to see what RMANZ hopes to achieve in "working through the current system". Praising politicians who have pledged their loyalty to the monarchy, and seeking to raise the status and extend the role of the Queen's personal representative, Lieutenant-General Mateparae, hardly seem the kind of measures calculated to advance the interests of the Republic of Aotearoa. As I understand it, RMANZ is intent upon elevating some elements of the regime (the office of Governor-General and "soft" monarchists) in order to isolate and undermine what it perceives as the hardcore royalists. It is a strategy which I believe is amoral, dishonest, misguided and doomed to failure. It completely fails to address, in fact wilfully ignores, the reality, which is that the power structure as a whole has a vested interest in the preservation of British rule.
Not one of the "soft" royalist parliamentarians championed by RMANZ have been encouraged to commit themselves to the republican cause. Without exception, they have resiled from their expressions of sympathy for republican ideals as soon as pressure has been brought to bear upon them from within the ranks of the regime.
Geoff, I'll send you an e-mail about this. But suffice to say if you want to discuss RMANZ strategy, contact me directly.
Hi Anon, As I think we have stated many times before. A considerable number of MPs are very committed to the republican cause but choose different tactics from what you might choose. This does not mean they are wrong or sell-outs or traitors to the cause. The very fact that they have chosen to be politically active via parliament means they are committed to working as reformers inside parliament rather than stand outside throwing ideological bricks at the windows. Expecting them to reject parliamentary processes on the issue of the oath is unrealistic. Have you actually gone and talked to any MPs about this at all? It might help if you do.
Sure it always sounds very principled and high minded to accuse someone of betraying a principle but that kind of rhetoric seems to me to betrays a very narrow & fixed conception of political activism and political activity. In fact it speaks of someone who is a fundamentalist in their views and who cannot think outside the limits their own rhetoric and ideology. Do you think of yourself as someone who takes a sophisticated view of political problems or as someone who likes to reduce everything to fit into their existing world view?
Your approach reminds me of the approach taken by [extreme] Libertarians or fundamentalist religious adherents who would rather exist in their own idealized little ethical world than risk stepping into the often complex and sometimes contradictory business of political discourse and reform.
There is a difference between pure political philosophy and applied political philosophy. We are in the business of promoting and applying specific political theory. We are in the business of building a republican consensus that will deliver constitutional change. This is not a theoretical exercise.
Well said :-)
Hi Savage
Hi Matt, yes you are right I should have written 'extreme libertarians'. As for your other claim that is not really part of the republic debate. Seems you are using this debate to advance your own agenda. It seems very implausible to me. Extreme and unfounded claims are always a sign of extreme views of the kind I was referring to. It sounds like you are trying to blame Johnny Foreigner for the UK's budget woes?
I did a very quick net search. As I understand it the deficit last year was approx £122 billion. Net contributions to the EU (contributions less rebates) were about £10 billion. The total foreign aid budget was approx £9 billion. African countries get about 45% of this. Aid money can be debt relief or paid directly to the governments or paid via aid agencies and specific development programmes. As to how much ends up in the personal swiss bank accounts of dictators and their minions I cannot say. So your claims seem spurious, extreme and unfounded. In short it is silly hyperbole that does little for the cause of Libertarian thought. Please don't add comments on this website again unless your comment is specifically about republicanism.
Apologies, Savage, if my views are both anathema to you and more importantly (in this instance) seemingly irrelevant to the NZ republic debate.
What we usually find Matt is that people often try and graft their own political issues onto the republic issue and try and make them one and the same cause.Trying to make the leap via the notion of sovereignty to the European Union, and the UK's role in it, is to me an example of this. You may only be empathising with us but it is still an attempt to turn a debate about who our head of state is into a debate about the relationship between the UK and the European parliament.
The sovereignty issue here is about an unelected hereditary head of state who has never faced an election. Our problem is not therefore that the British rule us. It is that our Head of State is ineffectual and does nothing to help us effect better government. They are irrelevant. [Geoff's contention is that we can still talk about being 'ruled' as we are still under the sway of colonising institutions. That Colonial ideology still, to some degree, shapes our government]
In Europe there is a democratically elected European parliament. It may not be ideal but it is at least a democratic institution. The sovereignty issue is about the sovereignty of your elected parliament and the need to negotiate and reach consensus with other European voters and parliaments. It is about the agreements the UK signs up to that commit it to adopt certain policies.
The only real parallel to the republic debate here is that we have to negotiate with the other realms to change the Act of Succession. We are tied together in a way we do not need to be. I imagine this is how people who are anti-Europe feel. Locked in to things they do not agree with.
This parallel is small however and to me does not warrant any strong comparison between the republic debate in NZ and the Anti-European movement in the UK (and other European countries). The institutions you are dealing with are all democratic. You voted them in. You can vote them out.
The insitution (the monarchy) we are dealing with is not democratic. We never voted for them. We do not want them.
Also as an issue of debate (and not a discussion about Europe) , why did you claim that the cost of the European Union and Overseas aid to Africa was equal to £122 billion. That is a misrepresentation. Do you think maybe you are so fixated on Europe that you are starting to misjudge the size of the problem?
Website problems Matt. The last few comments in our discussion have been
lost. My last comment was about the advantages and disadvantages of the
Swiss system. A 7 member executive council with a rotating head of
state. It is interesting in that it is really the only strong example of
a parliamentary republic where there is more than one person elected.
Here in NZ there will be suggestions and a debate over having a dual
head of state under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Shame, we had a really good discussion going there. But to continue on the Swiss system: whilst I'm not quite so convinced by the rotating head of state, like Lewis I admire the mix of localism, parliamentary & direct democracy. I believe only constitutional matters should be put to referendum as a matter of course (like in Australia and Ireland), but I also like the provision for binding citizens-initiated referenda on ordinary legislation. -M-
Apologies. As you can see from the front page the "sign on" box has stopped working, some sort of Java error. Despite once working for the company that developed Java, I have no idea on how to fix it...
The Republican Movement of Aotearoa-New Zealand, RMANZ, is ostensibly a broad based republican organisation comprised of individuals who hold to a range of political beliefs. The organisation comprises people from the political right such as blogger David Farrar, former communist and Green Party MP Keith Locke from the left, and United Future Party leader Peter Dunne from the "centre" of the political spectrum. There is also a certain level of support from self-proclaimed libertarians such as Mike Wilkinson.
The putatively "broad church" approach requires that the organisation restrict itself to quite limited objectives. The RMANZ vision is for a "soft republic", in which the Queen would be replaced by a Head of State elected either directly by the public, or by a "super majority" in parliament. Nothing else would change. The New Zealand flag, with Union Jack in the top right quarter, would be retained. New Zealand would remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and the Treaty of Waitangi would retain its present status in law. There would be no new constitution, and no change to the existing legal, economic or social order. The powers of the monarch would devolve upon the Governor-General cum President. The RMANZ plan is therefore a far cry from the radical transformation and de-colonisation of New Zealand proposed by the late Bruce Jesson, who championed the cause of a New Zealand republic in the late twentieth century.
RMANZ could be described as a fundamentally conservative organisation, even if its key objective, the establishment of a republic, has radical implications. It is probably fair to say that it is dominated by those from the political right, who may be uncomfortable with the political beliefs of republicans of the Bruce Jesson persuasion. However right-wing republicans, like those on the left, are handicapped by the fact that there is no widespread support for a republic within the political class as a whole. On both the left and the right the dominant attitude is that a republic is "inevitable", that it might even be a welcome change, but that it is "not a priority" and should not be actively promoted. RMANZ, therefore, feels obliged to seek, or at least accept, the support of leftwingers such as Keith Locke, in order to broaden its appeal among the general public. Locke's involvement in the organisation is unproblematic, arguably because he is a political moderate who is, or has been, an integral part of the current system, and who has no radical political agenda of his own.
Even so, tensions do arise within RMANZ, if not over objectives, then over the tactics used to achieve those objectives. RMANZ could allow those tensions to be worked out through internal debates, but instead the Chair, Lewis Holden, has opted to try to ensure that such debates are kept "out of bounds" for members of the organisation. Holden censors comments posted on the public discussion forum of the RMANZ website www.republic.org.nz. He removes or blocks comment which he judges to be "damaging" to the republican cause, or which originates from individuals who he judges to be monarchist "trolls" or "plants" . In practice, any comments which criticise or question RMANZ core strategy are deemed to be "damaging" to the republican cause.
Although not explicitly stated in organisational documents, the core RMANZ strategy is to work for change through the actions of sitting members of parliament who are sympathetic to republicanism, while attempting to increase the level of public support for a republican system of government.
Late last year I posted on the RMANZ website a comment criticising republican parliamentarians who make false oaths of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. Holden took exception to this comment, but was uncharacteristically slow to delete it from the website. He then wrote to me directly stating "I was going to delete your comment but then realised the damage was done" and went on to say "I'm not so surprised by the content of your comment. You've been pushing this line for some time....If you don't like any aspect of our strategy, please contact myself. Don't post your complaints in a public forum where anyone, monarchists included, can read them".
As Holden himself points out, he has long known of, and rejected, my criticism of false oaths. His mind is made up on the matter. By then insisting that I should address my criticisms to himself alone, he is really saying that I should not express an opinion at all.
Holden continued "In fact the way you've gone about this makes me wonder if you're not actually a monarchist plant" and "You've gone out of your way to attack RMANZ policy in a public forum..".
The problem is that RMANZ has only one forum for debate, which is the public website. The website is not "out of the way". It is the only place one can go if one wishes to criticise, or support, RMANZ policy. There is no other forum for internal debate, so once again Holden is effectively saying that I should not have expressed an opinion in any circumstances. He has now blocked any further comment coming from my normal email address.
Unsurprisingly, none of the website censorship which goes on behind the scenes at www.republic.org.nz is apparent to the casual visitor. In fact, Holden's colleague Savage (who uses only one name) strives to maintain the fiction that the website is an open forum for the expression of republican opinion. Thus the duplicity and deceit involved in the swearing of false oaths by RMANZ aligned parliamentarians also becomes evident in the general conduct of the organisation.
The activities of RMANZ illustrate the dangers which would be posed to the people of New Zealand by any "soft republic" contrived by parliamentarians in allliance with conservative political forces which are intolerant of criticism and possessed of a sense of entitlement to the instruments of power. The danger is exacerbated by connections which have been formed between the leading group in RMANZ and the New Zealand military-intelligence service axis. Incongruous as it may be for an avowedly republican organisation to take a hand in choosing the Queen's personal representative in New Zealand, RMANZ was closely involved in promoting the successful bid by Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae for the office of Governor-General, and sources within RMANZ have openly suggested that Mateparae should become "the last Governor-General and first President" of a New Zealand republic.
It is apparent that the rather misnamed "soft republic" promoted by Holden's RMANZ could easily degenerate into a Bonapartist state which would have little respect for the rights and freedoms for which our people have struggled over the decades. A "soft republic" would actually strengthen the forces which underpin the present monarchist regime, and it must therefore be countered by a popular movement for a radical republic as envisaged by Bruce Jesson, whether in the form of a unitary state or confederation of iwi.
Geoff has posted a reply to my comments above on his website. I probably shouldn't dignify them with a response, but one part sticks out: he now claims that I posted his post from his website into the comments section of this website.
Most replaced references to the Queen with the Treaty of Waitangi,
others referred to the people of New Zealand - the ones who actually
elected them.
The individual MP making the oath is actually only elected by those who cast votes for him or his party - oftentimes that is a small proportion of eligible voters. The "people of NZ" did not actually elect MPs.
A reference to the Queen actually covers the Treaty of Waitangi as she is the heir and successor to Victoria, in whose name the Treaty was signed and in whose name Government in NZ was established. In addition the Queen herself has sworn an oath to govern the people of NZ according to NZ's laws and customs.
...will challenge them to swear allegiance to New Zealanders rather than the Queen.
An oath of allegiance to New Zealanders or "the people of NZ" would mean that you would be pledging allegiance to many people, who, unlike the Queen, would not have sworn or pledged themselves to be bound by NZ's laws and customs.
It is understandable that republican MPs swear allegiance to the Queen as by so doing they know that they will be protected by NZ law and customs.
You're clutching at straws again Bill. It's great entertainment.
It's fairly well understood that under Parliamentary systems, MPs are elected to represent everyone in their seat/region regardless of whether they voted for them or not. That's exactly what Edmund Burke said when he was first elected. The same applies for list MPs, most of which have their offices in the seat they run for, while being elected to parliament as list MPs. The assertion that the people of New Zealand do not actually elect MPs is laughable. This is not Soviet Russia or certain parts of the US where districts are drawn along party lines.
If you asked most New Zealanders who our MPs serve, few - if any - would say "The Queen"; yet the current oath states exactly that.
As for the Treaty, this argument is a non-sequiter. The Queen doesn't "govern" the people of New Zealand in any case. The New Zealand Government does. The Queen reigns, the Government rules, as long as it has support of the House of Representatives, elected by New Zealanders. Pretty easy to understand really.
The final comment is also nonsense. Very few New Zealanders have ever taken the Citizenship Oath (part of the reason, I suspect, why it doesn't change) which requires new citizens to "faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand."
"Very few New Zealanders have ever taken the Citizenship Oath (part of
the reason, I suspect, why it doesn't change) which requires new
citizens to "faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand."
Indeed - few have taken an oath to uphold the country's laws...whereas the Sovereign, has made such an oath.
The coronation oath states that the queen should govern according to our laws and customs. She appoints the Governor-General on the advice of the parliamentary supported PM (being part of our law and custom).
That simply shows how out of touch the monarchy is. The Queen doesn't govern us. We govern ourselves. Oh, except for the succession laws on who gets to be our next head of state.
Post new comment