As part of the debate on whether New Zealand should change its oaths and affirmations, former Republican Movement president Dave Guerin makes the case for change to our oaths and affirmations - and argues that we should seek to reflect the values that bind us together.

Phil Goff's New Zealand Herald column (18 February 2004) about reviewing oaths and affirmations outlined a great chance for New Zealanders to decide what we stand for, and what new citizens and officeholders should agree to.

Many of our current oaths and affirmations were established in the 1950s and are showing their age. The references to the monarch, in particular, are really starting to date, as Mr Goff pointed out. While we still have a constitutional monarchy, there is no need for our oaths to require allegiance to the Queen, just as oaths in republics do not usually require oaths to the head of state (except in dictatorships, that is).

When new New Zealanders swear allegiance to New Zealand, they should be swearing allegiance to our country and what we stand for, not our head of state. The oath of allegiance is quoted below and half of it relates just to the Queen (the non-religious affirmation is slightly different). Since the monarchy plays no significant part in our daily life as New Zealanders, we should develop an oath that has more meaning and relevance.

I (your name) swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God.

The Australians have already updated their oath of citizenship so that there is no mention of the Queen, while maintaining the exact same constitutional monarchy as New Zealand. Instead, their oath focuses on democracy, respecting rights and liberties and upholding laws. Similarly the United States’ pledge of allegiance refers to supporting and defending the Constitution. South Africa’s citizenship oath requires loyalty to the republic, as well as upholding and respecting the Constitution. The Irish swear fidelity to the Irish nation. New Zealanders should take this opportunity to develop our own oaths and decide what is important to us in 2004. Personally, I think we could include respect for democracy, the rule of law and the rights of others, but there will be many other opinions. Importantly, new citizens and officeholders should be making an oath that reflects the bedrock of New Zealand, not simply swearing allegiance to someone on the other side of the world. It is not only new citizens that take oaths, though, and we still have some ridiculous oaths on the books, even though they are not enforced. The Education Act 1964 (s162(1)), for instance, requires teachers to swear an oath or affirmation that they:

"...will not, directly or indirectly, use words or be concerned in any act which would be disloyal to Her Majesty if those words were spoken or written, or that act was committed, by a New Zealand citizen."

I hope people smiled when they read that oath, because why should we raise loyalty to the monarch above and beyond effective teaching, care for children and preparation of new citizens? I struggle to see the relevance of that oath in 1964, let alone 2004! Hopefully that oath will be repealed at the end of this review. I am a republican, but this is not a strict republican issue. We don’t have to become a republic in order to update our oaths to reflect the times. While we are not yet ready to become a republic, changing the oaths is a recognition that our national values and attitudes are gradually changing. When we update the oaths, we should recognise that power comes from, and accountability is owed to, the people of New Zealand, not the monarch. Sometime in the future, New Zealanders will want the people to choose their head of state too.

Dave Guerin is the president of the Republican Movement