August 2008 newsletter

In this edition: Voting Begins In New Zealand's Head Of State Election; Study: 60% of Aussies Support Republic; Opinion: More Olympic Absurdity by Lewis Holden; Monarchists Censor Beer Billboard; Republican Movement News; 60 Years of New Zealand Citizenship.

Voting Begins In New Zealand's Head Of State Election

Some of the Presidential candidates

VOTING HAS NOW OPENED for the Republican Movement's election of New Zealand's first President. Using preferential voting, New Zealanders have until 15 September to cast their votes for the top five contenders to be head of State. After voting closes, the top five candidates will be announced and a second round will be held to find the head of State.

After a strong response to the nominations process, it appears the President of New Zealand website has raised the ire of some die-hard monarchists. One respondent complained that the website is a "sick joke". The Republican Movement notes that website certainly is a joke, but it is not sick. Another has taken to searching for "I hate republicans" in the search box. Their search yielded no results.

Study: 60% of Aussies Support Republic

BAD NEWS FOR THE MONARCHISTS - the results of the 2007 Australian Electoral Study are out - and it's not looking good for the monarchy.

On the key question of whether Australia should become a republic or continue to have the Queen as head of State, 60.1% of the 1,801 respondents answered they support a republic. The study by the Australian National University, undertaken after the pro-republic Rudd Labor Government was elected to at the 2007 Federal elections, covered a demographically accurate range of electors across all Australian States. Other questions represent even more bad news for monarchists: 64.4% do not think the Queen is important to Australia, and a slight majority - 50.9% - support election of an Australian head of State directly by Australian voters, along the lines of Ireland, Austria, Finland or Iceland.

While monarchists may try to discount these results, they are from a study, not an opinion poll. As such it is much more representative than phone-polls could be, and the results are much more in depth. The final statistic is interesting, in that it vindicates the view that Australian voters did not reject the 1999 republic referendum simply on the basis on rejecting republicanism, but on the basis that they did not like the model proposed.

British MPs Challenge Monarchical Oath

Labour MP Tony Banks swears allegiance to the Queen, with his fingers crossed.

22 BRITISH MPs HAVE SIGNED A PLEDGE prompted by Republic to allow republican MPs to swear allegiance to their constituents and Great Britain instead of the Queen. The story was broken by a Daily Mail article revealing their campaign to Challenge the Oath of allegiance to the Queen.

The Guardian notes former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Tebbit is against the move, calling it an "attack on the state itself", while Conservative MP Geoffrey Cox called it "uncomprehending constitutional vandalism".

Nonetheless, Norman Baker's proposal for MPs to swear allegiance "to their constituents and the nation" makes sense in a modern democratic country. It is intriguing that supporters of the monarchy revert to labeling any elected representative who wants to change the oath as "disloyal". There is no actual justification for swearing allegiance to the Queen.

The Oaths (Modernisation) Bill in New Zealand still languishes on the order paper, and probably will not be passed during the current Parliament. But it is likely that the next batch of MPs elected could cause a stir - especially the Maori Party. Following the 2005 election, members of the Maori Party attempted to swear allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi, something Maori Party MPs felt has much more relevance than a absentee head of State.

Monarchists Censor Beer Billboard

The Offending Billboard

REUTERS REPORTS that the Australian Monarchist League (AML) has succeeded in censoring a advertisement for Coopers' Beer which stated "Forget the monarchy, support the publicans". Australian Monarchist League Chairman Philip Benwell stated "It crossed a boundary, because it said 'Forget the Monarchy', and that is a political statement. Why not say forget the republicans?"

The Monarchist League claims it supports Australia's Constitution. Clearly they have not heard of the implied right of freedom of expression or freedom of political communication, something Australia inherited from Britain. Australia's High Court has found in numerous cases such a right exists.

The last word goes to advertising consultant Jane Caro, who said on the decision "It's a triumph of pomposity. I think the monarchists should apologise to us all for making the world a little duller"

Republican Movement News

WE'RE STILL TAKING ORDERS's for the Republican Movement's latest T-shirt production: "Heart NZ". Our first shirt is based on the "Heart NZ" designed by Matt Curran.

Republican Movement T-shirt in white

Because of the economics of t-shirt prints, we need to get 10 orders before commencing with a production run. All t-shirts will be supplied as soon as we reach the 10th order.

The t-shirts are locally produced and come in three different sizes - small, medium and large and are $25.00 for members and $30.00 for non-members. To order yours, click here.

60 Years of New Zealand Citizenship

THE 6th SEPTEMBER 2008 MARKS 60 YEARS of New Zealand citizenship. Over half a century ago New Zealand's Parliament passed the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948, which made New Zealanders "British subjects and New Zealand citizens" from 1 January 1949, rather than solely British subjects.

British and New Zealand Passports.

New Zealand citizenship was another step on New Zealand's path to independence, and was also a change in mindset for the country. For 108 years New Zealanders were simply "British subjects", the 1948 Act acknowledged our dual nationalism, and the global reality following the Second World War.

The concept of citizenship itself comes from classical republicanism, and contrasts with the concept of a "subject". In a monarchy, a subject is ruled by the monarch, whereas a citizen of a republic is equal to his or her fellow citizens. It is intriguing that New Zealanders only ever really consider ourselves as "citizens", without giving a thought to the concept of being a subject of our head of State.

It wasn't until 1977 that New Zealanders became solely "New Zealand Citizens" under the Citizenship Act 1977. As we see below, by then being "British Subjects" had ceased to have any practical meaning - New Zealanders had long since been required to enter the United Kingdom via the Other Aliens queue, since Britain had restricted immigration from its former colonies.

The 1977 Act also removed any remaining distinctions between New Zealanders and other Commonwealth citizens.

Ever since New Zealand became a British colony with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, all citizens of New Zealand were considered British Subjects. The Treaty itself states in its third article that "Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects." This made Maori British Subjects, even though over the next sixty years Maori were treated as second-class citizens by the Crown, rather than equals.

With the 1948 Act, New Zealand citizenship was legally separate to that of the United Kingdom. However, New Zealanders continued to enjoy the right of adobe in the United Kingdom. Over the course of the next sixty year, the British government tightened and restricted New Zealanders' former rights of entry. Eventually, being "British Subjects" became meaningless - both in law and symbolically.

In 1946, Canada decided to create its own citizenship law. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting of 1948 decided to make major changes in the law of nationality throughout the Commonwealth. It was decided at that conference that the United Kingdom and the self-governing dominions would each adopt separate national citizenships, but continue to have the common status of "British subject".