Republican Movement chair Lewis Holden gives his views on why supporters of separation of church and state in New Zealand should support a republic.
Speech to "New Zealand's Secular Heritage" conference 30 August 2008
The monarchy in New Zealand is broken. It is broken in the most important way: its symbolism. The symbolism of the monarchy has grown increasingly at odds with New Zealand’s national identity. The monarchy’s archaic succession laws, its religious and aristocratic symbolism are all at odds with New Zealand’s contemporary national identity.
This speech does not touch on the argument over New Zealand’s Christian heritage, that will be left to the other speakers. This speech will look at the arguments over the constitutional reality and symbolism of the monarchy. I will argue that a New Zealand republic would reflect New Zealand’s national identity as a state where religion and government are separated, and that a republic is a necessary step to not only reconcile New Zealand's people with their head of State, but also religion and the state in New Zealand.
Creating a republic will reaffirm New Zealand’s dedication to secularism as it would roll back the arguments in favour of an established state religion in New Zealand. While it is notable that such arguments are always made in the context of religious toleration, there is something disingenuous about the arguments for an official religion.
Secularism, the separation of church and state, has traditionally been a core aspect of classical republicanism. Separation was desired by the United States’ founding fathers primarily because of their experiences of religious persecution, but also because of the well articulated desire for a perfect separation of powers.
The evidence of the dedication of New Zealanders to the separation of religion and the state comes from the debate around a declaration made by the Human Rights Commission in just last year. "New Zealand has no official or established religion" declared the Draft Statement on Religious Diversity. This simple declaration, otherwise assumed to be a fact by the general public, revealed both an underlying ignorance of the nature of New Zealand’s constitutional monarchy and its symbolism.
The debate which followed was brief, underlining the secular attitudes of New Zealanders, but also poignant. For the first time in a long time the question of the symbolism of the monarchy as it relates to New Zealand’s national identity was raised. The Commission’s declaration incensed some to action. There were allegations that the declaration was an announcement that the government had "abandoned New Zealand's Christian heritage".
The problem for republicans is that a declaration of New Zealand having "...no official or established religion" is, constitutionally speaking, not accurate. Our head of State must by law be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, although this is not directly related to the governance of its New Zealand counterpart – the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand. Furthermore, under the New Zealand Royal Titles Act 1953 the Queen, as Queen of New Zealand, is "Defender of the Faith", where "the Faith" means the Anglican Communion - the faith of less than 20% of New Zealanders.
I'll touch on the controversy over the religious exclusions of the Act of Settlement 1701 later in this speech, but suffice to say that not only does the monarchy not represent non-Christian and non-religious New Zealanders, it also legally excludes - in the forceful language of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 all other religions. In fact, it excludes all New Zealanders - under the monarchy, no New Zealander can aspire to be New Zealand's head of State. While we may have
Yet our Parliament still opens with a Prayer calling on members to uphold "true religion" - again, meaning the Anglican Communion - and to honour the Queen. In particular the prayer states:
...the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen...
This prayer is despite a large number of MPs not being Christians, or even Anglicans, or even turning up for the prayer. Every Queen’s Birthday holiday, the celebrations held - almost exclusively nowadays - are held at Anglican churches. During each of the Queen’s ten Royal tours of New Zealand, there has always been a point of visiting various Anglican Cathedrals and Churches around the country.
The draft declaration was presented at a conference held at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands in May 2007, to much vocal protest. A survey published in June 2007 by Research New Zealand found 58% of respondents disagreed when asked whether New Zealand should have Christianity as its official state religion. Only 35% said "yes". Worryingly for supporters of an official religion, a significant 73% of those between the ages of 15 - 29 disagreed.
It would be wrong to assume on this opposition that views on the declaration of no state religion correlates to religious affiliation. The 2006 Census found 51% of New Zealanders self-identified as Christians. We can deduce that there are a number of Christians who support the separation of Church and state. After all, as one Christian member of the Republican Movement pointed out, Jesus was clear in Matthew 22:21 when he instructed to the disciples to:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's
Interestingly, there must be a large number of supporters of the monarchy amongst the supporters of the notion that New Zealand should not have an official religion. On most recent poll averages, support for the monarchy sits between 40 - 50 % of the population, while support for a republic has increased to around 30 - 40% of the population. A large band of New Zealanders, up to 20%, are undecided on the issue. Clearly, New Zealanders do not support the monarchy for religious reasons - although still, from time to time, come across supporters of the monarchy who believe in the Divine Right of Kings, that God ordains the Sovereign to reign over us, and act like God on Earth. Charles II excepted, of course!
The Divine Right of Kings may have been consigned to the dustbin of history, yet we see continually instances where the constitutional apex of New Zealand's government and religion meet. One example was the appointment of the pro-Labour Anglican Archbishop Sir Paul Reeves to the office of Governor-General by David Lange in 1985. The Leader of the Opposition at the time, Jim McLay, opposed the appointment on the grounds of his being a Archbishop, stating
How can an ordained priest fulfill that [constitutional] role?
Sir Paul stated prior to his swearing-in that he saw his appointment as a means of furthering his vocation as a priest, yet his term in office was remarkably uneventful on the issue of religion. Instead, Sir Paul chose to take issue with the government that appointed him, and openly criticized Rogernomics.
Another example often in the media is the Act of Settlement 1701, which governs the succession to the Throne. This Act, passed following the Glorious Revolution against James II, contains specific religious disqualification against Catholics, and cements the rule of primogeniture - males before females. New Zealand's head of State is determined on religious grounds, yet this country has a strong commitment to the principle that religion should not determine whether an individual can hold a political office.
The Monarchist League has stated in its journal that such discrimination was "merely academic". But it has just recently had a very real affect on one member of the Royal family - and there have been a number of Royals that have been excluded because of their religious choices or that of their partners.
Earlier Peter Phillips, son of Princess Anne and Capt Mark Phillips, and at the time the 10th in line for the throne (he fell down the list because his uncle had a male child), was planning on marrying Canadian Autumn Kelly. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Miss Kelly was a Catholic. If they were married, Peter Phillips would have been knocked out of the line of succession.
Luckily for Mr Phillips, the British Government had been proposing for some time to get rid of the sexist and anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement. The reforms would have removed both the rule of primogeniture (men before women in the succession - for no logical reason) and the clauses banning Catholics, or those married to Catholics, from the Throne. The previous attempt had faltered in the House of Lords, but Britain's recently-turned-Catholic Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was determined to see the change go through.
Sadly, with the Gordon Brown's own succession to the premiership, plans to push through another Bill to reform the succession faltered. Following a Cabinet meeting on 30 April, the British government announced that it would not reform the law.
Ironically, the stated reason the reform was not to go ahead was due to the need, created by the Statute of Westminster 1931 - albeit not legally binding - that Britain "consult" the other countries where Queen Elizabeth is head of State before making changes to the law of the succession. This means that, should Britain seek to remove discrimination against Catholics and women in the succession law, they're meant to ask New Zealand and the fourteen other countries first, and try to possibly get us to change our succession law too. That probably wouldn't be a problem for a country like New Zealand, which granted women the vote 15 years before the United Kingdom, and has a Catholic Governor-General. I say "probably" because members of New Zealand's Monarchist League have publicly stated their opposition to amending the Act of Settlement!
But back to the Phillips marriage. The day after the Brown government's announcement, Autumn Kelly announced her conversion to the Church of England. Peter and Autumn were then happily married on 17 May in an Anglican ceremony.
And then there's poor old Prince Charles' path to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles. I do not have enough time to describe the legal path taken by the heir to the throne for his marriage to take place. However, it is sufficient to say that there were plenty more pointless, arcane laws in their way: specifically around whether it is acceptable for the future head of a Church founded by England's most famous serial monogamist to marry a divorcée!
No New Zealander would accept an arcane law preventing them from marrying the person they love. Nor would they accept such a law forcing their partner to change religions they might not actually believe in for the sake of the family inheritance. No-one would really think the House of Lords, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury should have a say in whether it is acceptable for you to marry a divorcée. But that's exactly the situation members of the Royal family and their partners find themselves in. While the monarchists might call such discrimination "academic" it effects the Royals in real life. As Johann Hari argued in God Save the Queen, it's not the Royal family who are to blame for their imprisonment in this system, its us for allowing it to continue.
So why do we accept a constitutional system that equates to a soft theocracy? Why do we accept arcane marriage law for the Royal family, the family that is meant to be at the apex of our society, the family that monarchists claim represents all New Zealanders?
Supporters of the monarchy always argue the institution provides a figurehead for the general populace to venerate, because the Sovereign is not a politician or tied to any of the requirements of re-election. The Sovereign, we are told, unites us all - despite significant republican sentiment!
It is inconsistent to argue that such a figurehead could possibly be a representative of all New Zealanders and yet be the symbolic embodiment of one religion. It is inconsistent to claim that it is the symbolism of the Queen's position that matters, then claim that it does not matter that that position discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender and birth. The only answer is that practically speaking, the monarchy's discrimination - which is part of the basis of the institution - does not affect New Zealand. In other words, the monarchy, Sovereign and Royal family are irrelevant to New Zealand or any other Commonwealth realm.
This is hardly surprising - despite claiming that the Sovereign keeps her Governments in check constitutionally, the reality is that the Queen almost never intervenes in the decisions of her Governments: there have been coups under the Queen in at least five Commonwealth countries since Her Majesty's reign began, and yet not one intervention on the Queen's part.
Which raises the issue of national identity. Dr Jock Phillips, Chief Historian for the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, defined national identity in a paper published in 1997 as:
...the recognition by a population of itself as a community of interest at the national level
Dr Phillips argues that national identity is concerned with the "...perceptions which individuals and communities hold of their nation and of their relationship to it". Dr Phillips went on to set out a number of factors which are defining New Zealand’s national identity, which he argues includes tolerance of different ethnicities and religions.
From Dr Phillips paper, it is easy to conclude New Zealand's national identity is that of - at the very least - indifference to an individuals religious choices, and at best tolerance and celebration of them - and rightly so. This means that no-one thinks it strange that we have a Catholic Governor-General representing a monarchy which is by law Protestant. No-one in New Zealand really cares, except those who still believe in the divine right of Kings, or worry about a second Jacobite invasion.
Yet at the height of the debate over whether we have an official religion or not, one prominent evangelist in New Zealand claimed:
To deny Christianity [as New Zealand's official religion] is to deny our heritage, which is intricately connected to our national identity
As we have seen, the extent to which the link is "intricate" is disputable. The research - albeit fleeting - shows that an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders have no time for an official religion, even if over half of us believe in a Christian God.
Yet the link between an official religion and the monarchy is often highlighted by supporters of both. Two controversies illustrated this point during the Royal Tour of 2002 – at a State Banquet during the tour; Prime Minister Helen Clark refused to have a Prayer before dinner. While a few commentators were outraged at the lack of a prayer in general, the public reacted with apathy. The issue was overshadowed by a second controversy; the Prime Minister's breaking of Victorian social traditions by wearing pants in front of the Queen. In both cases members of parliament and other commentators did not focus on the separation of church and state, but on showing respect to the Sovereign.
Of course, republicans believe that New Zealand deserves better than this. We deserve to have a head of State of our own - and one that does not simply represent certain groups for irrelevant historical reasons. We deserve to have a head of State who is inclusive, not exclusive.
In this vein, it is interesting to note that, despite attempts to modernize the succession, there have also been moves to disassociate the monarchy from the Church of England. Prince Charles wants to become "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith". This change is intended to indicate to Charles' subjects that as Sovereign, Charles sees himself as the upholder of religious freedom, and a broker for religious tolerance.
In doing so, Charles has courted the wrath of many who would otherwise support the monarchy. Wearing a turban while attending a Mosque certainly riled a number of conservatives, not the least the otherwise pro-monarchy Peter Hitchens. In a similar vein the former Vice-Chairman of the Monarchist League, Dr Robert Mann, recently attacked moves to repeal the law of sedition, which he argued was required so that we can:
...defending (sic) our constitutional monarchy against destructive influences
Such as:
...the threat from fanatical wings of Islam
Prince Charles' attempts at creating a more religiously inclusive monarchy may therefore come to naught.
The Republican Movement believes that a New Zealander should be our head of State. They should be elected democratically and be accountable to all New Zealanders. Such a head of State should represent all New Zealanders, irrespective of their religion. These ideas are the heart of republicanism, where power comes from the people. New Zealanders are increasingly supporting a republic. Support has grown significantly over the last two decades, as people realise that our system must change.
No New Zealander can aspire to be our head of State, no matter how much ability they have, no matter how much effort they put in. Instead, a British resident is reserved for that role. The monarchy clashes with our national identity, an identity that values egalitarianism and merit.
As I speak New Zealanders are using expressing their views on who should be New Zealand's first democratically elected head of State - the Republican Movement is running a website for the "President of New Zealand" - www.president.org.nz. In July we opened the position for nominations. We received over 500 names of New Zealanders who could do the job. Currently voting is open in the first round for the top 10 nominees, and we've received over 1,500 votes so far. New Zealanders are more than able to choose a head of State of their own.
Under the status quo our monarch is chosen according to gender, religion and birth. The Sovereign's legal powers are massive, and only constrained by informal understandings, yet politically they are very weak. The claim that the Sovereign protects democracy has been proven to be wrong continually over the last century - there have been coups in Sierre Leone, Pakistan, Grenada, Fiji and the Solomon Islands without so much as a peep from the Sovereign. There have been constitutional crisis in Canada, Australia and Fiji without any intervention either. Prince Charles, when asked by a former New Zealand diplomat, stated that he did not want to get involved in the politics of the Commonwealth realms.
There is no need to put aside our traditions or rewrite history. We will still be a member of the Commonwealth. A republic referendum will not change our flag. We will honour the Treaty of Waitangi. We seek to confirm our coming of age as a nation - a republic will affirm our national identity.
The change to a republic is simple, in law and in practice, but it is a step that we need to take after sensible debate. A republic will affirm our national identity as a country where Church and state are kept separate. It will roll back the arguments that New Zealand should have, or has, an official or established religion. A republic should be supported by all New Zealanders who believe in such separation.
