The out-dated Oath of Allegiance - Our letter to Members of Parliament

We have written to all 121 MPs about the out-dated Oath (or Affirmation) of Allegiance they will be asked to say at today's Commission Opening of Parliament. Here is what we said:

 October 15th 2014                                                           

The Rt. Hon. John Key                                                                                                                         MP for Helensville                                                                                                                           Parliament Buildings                                                                                                                           Private Bag 18041                                                                                                                              WELLINGTON 6160

Dear Prime Minister

Congratulations on being re-elected to Parliament. When you take the Oath of Allegiance at the opening on Monday you will be asked to “bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors”.

Standing Orders now state that if you do not say the oath or affirmation correctly you must withdraw immediately and may not sit or vote in the House until you have done so.

As you repeat the oath please think about how appropriate it is that New Zealanders, elected in New Zealand by the people of New Zealand, are standing up in the House and swearing allegiance to another country’s head of state. 

Repeating an oath that many members do not believe in and do not feel comfortable saying is an obvious problem. The current oath is clearly out of date and it is time for New Zealand to have a better oath and its own head of state.   

The Governor-General already carries out the functions of a head of state so it makes sense to recognise that reality and accord the office the respect it deserves. We have put together some straight-forward plans on how New Zealand can achieve an independent and democratically selected head of state.

I have included an updated copy of our plans for you to read. Please talk to MPs on all sides of the House about how these changes can be enacted and how you can work together to ensure New Zealand has the best possible head of state. 

Please raise this issue in the House when you next speak. A New Zealand head of state is an inevitable step in New Zealand’s long journey to full independence. It aims to achieve what is best for all New Zealanders.

It will take time to make these changes so best to start sooner rather than later.  

Yours sincerely

Savage

Chairman, New Zealand Republic  

The outdated Oath of Allegiance

Both the Commission Opening and State Opening of Parliament next Monday and Tuesday highlight the need to update New Zealand's Head of State. Both ceremonies are important traditions but ceremonial traditions need to slowly evolve to remain relevant and accessible.

The Commission Opening on Monday will see Members of Parliament sworn in and the Speaker elected. New Zealand's MPs are asked during the ceremony to say the Oath (or Affirmation) of Allegiance. Under NZ law a religious Oath is distinguished from a secular Affirmation.

The Affirmation asks "solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law". If they prefer te reo Māori they say "Ko ahau, ko ……e kī ana i runga i te pono, i te tika, i te ngākau tapatahi me te whakaū anō ka noho pirihonga, ka noho pūmau ki a Kuini Irihāpeti te Tuarua me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ke te ture" .

In the past some MP's have sort to change the Oath they say in order to register their disapproval. Standing Orders now state, however, that if a member does not say the Oath or Affirmation correctly they must withdraw immediately and may not sit or vote in the house until they have done so. The Speaker and the Office of the Clerk has specifically addressed the problem this Oath presents to those who support a republic:

While any person taking an oath or making an affirmation is expected to do so in good faith, the oath or affirmation of allegiance is not a promise to refrain from advocating a republican or a different system of government. It is a promise of allegiance to the Sovereign established according to law. It is perfectly consistent with the oath for a person to hold views favouring an alternative form of constitutional arrangement, always provided that any change that they support is to be effected lawfully.

The Oath/Affirmation is clearly out of date when many MPs are already thinking of removing the role of the Sovereign even as they say the oath. Ironically, the Speaker goes on to say:

...the consequence of taking the oath or affirmation of allegiance is that it is inconsistent for a member to take a subsequent oath pledging allegiance to a foreign power. To do so will result in the member’s seat becoming vacant.

The wording of the Oath can be changed but the more obvious issue is that New Zealand needs a Head of State who is from New Zealand. One that represents all New Zealanders.

MPs should either swear allegiance to New Zealand or New Zealanders (or to the Treaty or the constitution) or they should be asked to swear allegiance to the Head of State to symbolise their allegiance to all New Zealanders. Any of those options would be better than the current wording.

On Monday, 121 worthy New Zealanders will stand in the New Zealand parliament and pledging allegiance to another country's Head of State. 60 years ago it might have made sense. In 2014 it is plainly out of date. The oath reminds us why it is important to keep moving slowly but surely toward a Kiwi Head of State and a New Zealand Republic.

You can read more about both ceremonies including the quotes above at the Parliamentary website.

Who do Government Ministers work for?

Ask any government minister who they work for and the most likely answer will be something akin to 'for New Zealand' or 'on behalf of New Zealanders'. 

That is how it should be. New Zealanders elect parliamentary representatives to serve in parliament. The Prime Minister appoints a cabinet (and Ministers outside of cabinet) and they take the required oath and are given the right to command the various ministries of state.

None of that will change when New Zealand has its own head of state. What will become clear is that Members of Parliament and Ministers of 'the Crown' are there to work for the people who elected them. Power and sovereignity will still be held collectively by the people of New Zealand and the right to use that power will be assigned every three years to the various New Zealand citizens who have earned the right to do so.

Today, all of the ministers appointed by the Prime Minister travelled to Government House, the seat of constitutional authority, to become members of the Executive Council. Despite the portraits hanging on the wall the whole ceremony had nothing to do with the British Monarchy. The conventions originated in the UK but New Zealand has since adapted them for its own purposes.

On paper the Executive Council advise the Governor-General. In actuality the Governor-General is there as a figurehead.  The whole Executive Council is run out of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet where the Secretary of the Cabinet Michael Webster is also the Clerk of the Executive Council. The Head of Government looks after the running of the country. The Head of State is there to make sure power is in accordance with laws and conventions of New Zealand.

Under our proposal for transitioning the position of Governor-General into a democratically selected position (and so becoming a republic) the basic functions with respect to the Executive Council will remain. Ministers will travel to Government House and New Zealand's Head of State on behalf of the people of New Zealand will ask them to repeat the oath

“I, [name], being chosen and admitted of the Executive Council of New Zealand, swear that I will to the best of my judgement, at all times, when thereto required, freely give my counsel and advice to the Governor-General for the time being, for the good management of the affairs of New Zealand. That I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. [So help me God.]”

Athiests may not like the last part of the Oath but the issue of Oaths and how they worded is a separate (but related) issue. At some point in the transition to a republic the various oaths and affirmations will have to be amended to account for the change. Those things are the finer details and can be decided upon after the first indicator referendum when the proposed Constitutional Commission would look at the issue of what needs to change in order to bring a republic into effect. For now the core of the head of state campaign is very simple. Parliament and the Cabinet works for New Zealand and only a New Zealander can be New Zealand's head of state and represent the sovereignity of New Zealand.

When to change the flag

In the debate over the proposed flag referendum it is important to avoid confusing the question of whether to change the flag with the question of when to change the flag.

National promised the flag referendum if they were re-elected and they were. So at some point in 2015 or 2016 New Zealanders can expect to vote in an indicator referendum. The government has yet to release the full details but is understood to be in favour of a two stage referendum process with an independent, or cross-party, group established to guide the overall process.

Some are calling the debate a distraction and not necessary. Even those who are fully in favour of New Zealand one day adopting a new flag are against it happening when, in their view, "there are more important priorities". Those who oppose any flag change agree with them. They either want to stop the referendum or stop a vote in favour of change.

Our campaign is all about giving New Zealanders their own head of state but we also support a new flag - if that is what New Zealanders decide. When that happens and what that new flag might look is, again, for voters to decide.

We are focused on the substance of change rather than the symbolism and believe the turn the Governor-General into an independent head of state is an important priority. Clearly New Zealand will not be constitutionally independent until we have our own head of state.

We welcome, however, the discussion of national identity that will accompany the flag referendum. The flag debate will see New Zealanders engaging in widespread discussion as to what it means to be an independent and sovereign nation.  There will be talk of post-colonialism and nationhood. About what it means to be a New Zealander.

Referendums highlight the importance of open and democratic decision making and as an organisation we are committed to keeping New Zealanders fully informed with relevant and reliable information.

To assert there are 'other priorities' than flag change or head of state reform is understandable but it misrepresents the widespread nature of progress and political change. New Zealand has many pressing social and economic problems that have to be addressed but it also has democratic and constitutional reforms that need to happen as well. We have to make progress in all areas and not fall behind in one just because we are busy fixing another.

Reforming the office of head of state, and ensuring Government House is working on behalf of all New Zealanders will take many years and that process has to start sooner rather than later.  It is not the same kind of priority as child poverty or increasing illiteracy but it is still a priority.

New Zealanders deserve an fair and effective head of state. One that reflects the diversity of contemporary New Zealand.

The flag debates are going to happen with the next two years and the more New Zealanders who are involved the more productve they will be. Whether we get a new flag, and when we get a new flag, is something only New Zealanders can decide. In either case the debate will be a chance for New Zealanders to decide what their priorities are.

Post Election Planning: AGM 2014 is this Saturday

AGM 2014 is next Saturday, September 27th 2pm to 5pm,

Library Cafe, 55 Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland.

Refreshments will be served. All members are welcome and encouraged to attend.

The election is over and National has promised a flag referendum. 

If you have ideas on how to improve the campaign then please send them to info@republic.org.nz and they will be added to the AGM agenda (available from Thursday 25th).

Read our policy statement and reference your ideas to the relevant section of the statement.

We know what our message is and who we have to deliver it to.
We know we need more money and we need more active supporters.

How can we improve? How do we win? Send your thoughts and come along next Saturday to meet your fellow republic supporters.

Scotland votes No. New Zealand looks to the future.

Scotland has voted no to becoming a separate nation and yes to the greater devolution of powers promised by the British parliament.

There was an 84.6% turnout and yes campaign gathered only 44.7% of the vote. It was a clear victory for the no vote winning in 28 of the 32 voting areas.

Voter turn-out was crucial. Dundee had the highest yes vote (57.3%) but the second lowest turnout (78.8%). In Glasgow 53.5% voted yes but turnout was the lowest of all (75%). Overall in the four areas that voted yes the average turnout was only 81.5%. Everwhere else it averaged 85%. 659 000 did not vote at all.

Tonight we will find out whether New Zealand's voter turnout has increased or decreased since the record low in 2011.

There were many sound and practical reasons why people chose to vote in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom. There were also a lot of negative arguments claiming  a yes vote would spell "chaos" and "disaster". For many there were genuine concerns that 'independence' would cause ongoing economic problems without necessarily fixing existing ones. There were also deliberate attempts to undermine the yes vote by spreading anxiety and confusion.

The same thing happened during the MMP referendum here in 1993 and during the Australian head of state referendum in 1999 and we can expect something similar during the head of state referendums proposed for New Zealand. Supporters of hereditary selection and a foreign head of state, themselves anxious about change, will almost certainly rely on targeted campaigns to frighten and confuse undecided voters.

The Scotland referendum proposed reforming every aspect of Scotland's economy, constitution and government including the seperation of its military forces.  By comparison, in New Zealand, the final step to constitutional independence is very simple and straight-forward. To have an independent New Zealand head of state we simply have to take the position of Governor-General and transition it into a democratically selected position. 

Opponents of change in New Zealand have long claimed that an unelected Monarch and a hereditary lineage provides enduring stability. That it creates unity.

Stability, however, does not come from one person or one family. It arises from a broad set of traditions, laws and conventions. By respecting the importance of diversity and valuing open and peaceful government, New Zealanders have created a robust and stable democracy.  This will not change just because we have a new way of choosing our head of state. If anything a properly independent head of state will strengthen  and stabilise New Zealand even more.

Kiwis accept the need for ongoing incremental improvements and reforms to our constitution in order to remain responsive to broader changes in New Zealand's society. Here in NZ if something is not working as well as it could be, we take a good look and find a better way.

Updating the position of Governor-General is a straight-forward solution to out-of-date head of state. It takes the traditions of impartiality and party neutrality we have inherited and improves upon them with a fairer and more open alternative. It is a change that is overdue and a change that we deserve as a nation.

Republic campaigners in Britain see the result in Scotland as a sign it is time for rethink how Britain is governed. They are looking at the yes campaign as an example of how a reform campaign can achieve a referendum and change minds and they are looking to learn as much as they can about how to campaign successfully in a referendum.

Regardless of all the devolution changes about to happen in Scotland every New Zealander wishes Scotland and the rest of the UK well. The multitude of historic, personal and political ties that binds New Zealand to the British Isles will always be strong. He in New Zealand the need for an independent head of state remains a priority.