Does New Zealand have an official religion?
A guest post at Christian blog M and M asks the question - and answers "yes we do - because of the monarchy". Contrary to the popular view that New Zealand does not have an official religion (and research showing New Zealanders don't want one either), the guest poster at M and M is correct - we do have an official religion.
That does not impinge on religious freedom, however, and the poster uses the somewhat fallacious examples of communist states North Korea and the People's Republic of China as examples of states without official religions and poor records on freedom of religion and worship (then there's the counter-example of the Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan, which have official religions). A much better example would be the United States, which has an ongoing and longstanding debate as to whether the Founding Fathers created a secular state or "one nation under God".
The question is whether New Zealand's constitution should reflect the values of New Zealanders - in this case our "live and let live" and "each unto their own" style of secularism. While 55% of New Zealanders self-identify in the census as Christian, a majority are also against New Zealand having an official religion. Hence there are a number of Christians opposed to the notion of an official religion.
That does not impinge on religious freedom, however, and the poster uses the somewhat fallacious examples of communist states North Korea and the People's Republic of China as examples of states without official religions and poor records on freedom of religion and worship (then there's the counter-example of the Islamic Republics of Iran and Afghanistan, which have official religions). A much better example would be the United States, which has an ongoing and longstanding debate as to whether the Founding Fathers created a secular state or "one nation under God".
The question is whether New Zealand's constitution should reflect the values of New Zealanders - in this case our "live and let live" and "each unto their own" style of secularism. While 55% of New Zealanders self-identify in the census as Christian, a majority are also against New Zealand having an official religion. Hence there are a number of Christians opposed to the notion of an official religion.
-
- LJ Holden's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
There are some attendant questions on religious freedom and faith/state seperation which are more germane to debate over a written constitution. Yes, I've read Simpkins piece too, and I must say, I am unimpressed. While Elizabeth II is head of the Church of England, and while Anglicanism is the largest NZ religious denomination, it has been surpassed by 'those of no religious observance' over the last fourteen years or so. We have no established church or religion, thankfully, and as our censuses show, inhabit a multifaith, pluralist society. Christian religious observance has declined substantially over the last half-century.
In any case, some liberal monarchists point to Prince Charles expressed desire to serve as a multiculturalist head of state and disestablishment of the Church of England with pride.
Status quo antebellum redux...
I'm not sure about the disestablishment of the Church of England - I think he might've suggested someone else within the UK Govt might take on the role as head of the Church of England, however I can't find anything to confirm that. If it's true that's pretty incredible, and would lose Charles even more support amongst social conservatives (including many within Monarchy New Zealand who oppose reforming the succession law).
That said, disestablishment would open the door to reforming the succession and removing discrimination against Catholics and women. The problem in New Zealand, coming back to the establishment issue, is that without an established church the issue of a Catholic as head of state is irrelevant. Under Brown's current proposal, it would be legal for the monarch marry a Catholic, but not to be one. I think it's unlikely other Commonwealth realms would accept that, except out of conforming with Britain's request - I mean, Canada has a much stronger Catholic population than us, as does Australia (albeit we've got a Catholic GG!).
Okay, I've just thought of a highly amusing future vignette in which Princess Diana (Will and Kate's eldest, and second in line to the throne after her dad) has imitated her nanna and namesake and fallen for a nice liberal Muslim bloke. Or, even better, Princess Elizabeth, her younger sister, turns out to prefer women and asks for a royal civil partnership!
Status quo antebellum indeed!
(My liberal monarchist partner has just harrumphed and said 'why not' when it comes to the latter...)
Queen Anne comes to mind...
Really? Good heavens, they *still* have sectarian bars to royal family membership?!
Yes. Contrary to the Human Rights Act 1993, several pieces of legislation (via the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988) contradict our otherwise sterling record.
Well, it depends on the exception and the importance you attach to it. I ask myself: will the democratic will of the people of NZ in influencing legislative change be improved by switching from an inherited figurehead monarch and appointed GG to an elected figurehead Head of State (President)? My answer is NO. Is the inherited monarch culturally inappropriate for NZ. My answer is NO.
I know it is a trite expression.....just like "pot calling the kettle black"... it means not having to offer a justification (or you cannot be bothered to).
Previously you disputed your inconsistencies, not it appears you don't. From my perspective while it is inconsistent with Republican Movement policy to talk about changing the flag, the fact of the matter is that it's a related debate and worthy of discussion.
Sure, your one-word answers to the questions you posed are trite. The issue we seem to have is the why part. I could accept that the legislative process won't be improved by becoming a republic under a minimalist model (although I think it would under an Irish/Icelandic or perhaps Swiss model), but that's simply because that's not what a republic would change. The question is really about whether having an elected head of state would improve the checks and balances on the Prime Minister and Cabinet - the answer to that, on the examples from around the world, is yes.
"The question is really about whether having an elected head of state would improve the checks and balances on the Prime Minister " I do think that the major check on the PM as it now stands is the the three year term.....I remember reading somewhere...sorry cant remember where....that Muldoon even admitted that. To misquote him no doubt...he said that he could think of something when shaving, get cabinet approval in the morning and parliamentary approval in the afternoon and it would be in force by dinner. In such a system, he said, the three year term as a check was essential.
Boosting checks and balances could still be take place without necessarily becoming a republic.
Changing the role of the Governor-General is obviously problematic as it is tied up with the Monarchy and its inherent faults. Relying on the three year term is also not pragmatic.
I think Lewis has pointed to the main issue. The Head of State's role is to ensure that due process is followed. They will enforce whatever rules they are given to enforce. If parliament tries to pass laws that are not constitutional or if they have not followed due process then the Head of State may be able to step in and slow or stop the passage of the bill.
I googled for info on the Muldoon quote and found at
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/275
a pdf file of a Thesis submitted by Harshan Kumarasingham in 2008 on
"Westminster Regained:
The Applicability of the Westminster System for
Executive Power in India, Ceylon and New Zealand
after Independence"
I have only skimmed it but he covers the differences in how the NZ GG operates in NZ compared to the British monarch vis a vis the UK government. His thesis also includes the Muldoon quote.
But getting back on topic... I assume you're saying that the Muldoon quote demonstrates the need for constraint on legislative process?
Boosting checks and balances could still be take place without necessarily becoming a republic.
Sure, no-one would dispute that - but the reality is that no serious supporter of the monarchy is ever going to risk exposing the institution to debate.
I am not trained in political science but have found that Harshan Kumarasingham's thesis was a good read. I had never thought of India and NZ finally gaining independence in the same year. I guess with NZ it was a more gradual (and reluctant) process.
"I assume you're saying that the Muldoon quote demonstrates the need for constraint on legislative process?" The absence of a second chamber and the party whip system does reduce the possibility of a cooling off of executive ardour. Some reform there could be of merit. Muldoon may have been comfortable with the three year term as the only check. He may have thought strong and decisive government has merit too.
Well, that depends on how you define "independence". India removed the last links its colonial past by becoming a republic in 1950. New Zealand still hangs on to them - we've not made any substantive changes to the monarchy since 1947.
I guess with NZ it was a more gradual (and reluctant) process.
Exactly.
I would concur with Harshan on this......adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1947 was when NZ achieved independence. I like the 1931 quote (Pg 175 of his thesis) about the Statute of Westmister from the Irish Industry Minister McGilligan to the Dail: "‘the [British] King acting on the advice of the British Government can no more contract for the Irish Free state than can the King of Italy or the Mikado of Japan". Obviously Irish government neutrality during the second world war in the face of tremendous disappointment from the UK underlined complete Irish independence after its adoption of the Statute.
The retention of appeals to the PC law lords and retention of Imperial honours, (not forgetting the recognition of International Court of Justice, and other treaties NZ is party to) did and does not signify lack of NZ independence.
As a side note, the hoo-hah over SC judge Justice Bill Wilson and the $250,000 he owed to a Barrister appearing on behalf of a party to a case before him, shows the advantage for a small close-knit country like NZ of having a final appeal court more detached from the local scene. Since that can no longer be the JC of the PC in London, then there would be advantage in having an Australasian - Anglo-Pacific final appellate court.
Sure, but that's an oversimplification of "independence". Sure, from a legal perspective it is possible for New Zealand to be in a state of war with the UK, for example. Nonetheless, the fact is our head of state is still a British resident, must as the British Government for permission to leave the UK, all the while we pay for a their conduit to do their job.
The retention of appeals to the PC law lords and retention of Imperial honours, (not forgetting the recognition of International Court of Justice, and other treaties NZ is party to) did and does not signify lack of NZ independence.
As above.
As a side note, the hoo-hah over SC judge Justice Bill Wilson and the $250,000 he owed to a Barrister appearing on behalf of a party to a case before him, shows the advantage for a small close-knit country like NZ of having a final appeal court more detached from the local scene.
Not really. There was a certain case involving judges with links to Air New Zealand that the Privy Council refused to throw out, despite the evidence being that they ruled against a certain Justice simply because he exposed Air NZ executives as liars; although I do agree we should've allowed Australian judges to sit on our Supreme Court. In the case of Justice Wilson that would've saved everyone a lot of bother.
this doesnt make sense im new zealand so your wrong
Hi Anon,
Please let us know why this "doesn't make sense". Your last sentence doesn't itself make sense. You can't be New Zealand...