R e p u b l i c
Newsletter of the Republican Movement - April 2007 [ PDF format]

In this edition: Duke just wants to be friends; President Jim Bolger elected by landslide; ALP commitment to plebiscites boosts Aussie republic's chances; Vague laws of sedition must go; Spoken, Putting the Case for a republic; and The Way Forward by Will de Cleene.

Duke just wants to be friends
THE DUKE OF YORK visited New Zealand for a week March and did all the usual stuff – opened hospital wards, visited Devonport Naval base, Auckland Museum, and attended a ceremony at Te Papiouru Marae, Ohinemutu, Rotorua to finally celebrate the gallantry of Lance Sergeant Haane Manahi during World War II. The Duke also attended a reception at the Northern Club hosted by the British New Zealand Trade Council, at which he spoke.

The Duke was at the reception in his capacity as the "United Kingdom Special Trade Representative". This is a sign of the times - there was a time when questioning New Zealand's trade dependency on Britain was seen as "anti-Imperialist" - indeed the first Labour Government got stuck in some strife for its "Buy NZ Goods and Services" campaign in the mid-1930s, because they were overtly supporting New Zealand goods over their British counterparts. It says a lot that contemporary Royal visits have to remind us of our trading relationship with Britain, as we're no longer Britain's farm. When questioned on this relationship in an interview with the Sunday Star Times, the Duke was reduced to stating the equivalent of "I just want to be friends"; noting New Zealand and Britain had a "close relationship". This is a major shift since the 1970s – the Duke wouldn't have been saying anything of the sort prior to Britain joining the EEC in 1973.

President Jim Bolger elected by landslide
THIS ISN'T a late April Fools joke – it’s an actual scenario painted by political studies lecturer Jon Johansson in his essay from the recently published book New Zealand As It Might Have Been. Asking the question "What if Ruth Richardson had never delivered the 'mother of all budgets'?" Johansson argues that, had the budget in question never been delivered, Bolger would’ve been seen as an elder statesman. Following on from that, support for his call for a republic would’ve been much greater, and at the turn of the millennium we’d have seen the swearing in of President Jim Bolger. Fanciful stuff perhaps.

At a conference to mark ten years since Jim Bolger left office, the former Prime Minister noted discussing republicanism with Her Majesty the Queen a number of times during his term as Prime Minister. In his opening address to the conference, Jim Bolger said "We discussed the matter in a most sensible way and she was in no way surprised or alarmed and neither did she cut my head off." Bolger also summarised the reactions to his republicanism: "Very many across New Zealand, especially within the National Party, thought this was at best totally ill-conceived and at worst an Irish Catholic plot."

ALP commitment to plebiscites boosts Aussie republic's chances
IT'S ELECTION YEAR across the Tasman - and it's the season of party conferences, pledges and promises. According to draft documents, Australia’s Labor Party will commit to holding plebiscites on the republic issue as part of Australian Opposition leader Kevin Rudd’s pledges at the 44th Federal Conference of the ALP. This is significant because it means the ALP is again committing to implementing the recommendations of the 2004 Senate Inquiry into the republic. Ironically, the idea of holding plebiscites – to decide what sort of republic the Australian people want – was first mooted by Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch monarchist, in his opening address to the Constitutional Convention on the republic of 1998.

Spoken
"[Britain’s] relationship with New Zealand has never been better. This ranges from Her Majesty and her family's love for New Zealand and the close relationship shared between our respective governments"
- The Duke of York, in an interview with the Sunday Star Times.
"Christianity is the religion of the British Queen and the Maori King and is therefore New Zealand's state religion."
- Pastor Manuel Renata from Destiny Church argues for a state religion.
"Labor believes that our head of state should be an Australian who embodies and represents the traditions, values and aspirations of all Australians."
- The ALP conference declaration sets out their republic policy for 2007.
"Key and English need to refashion National as the future party. A Queen-and country approach won't do - in all but trappings this country is now firmly republican."
- Colin James offers policy advice to National leader John Key

Vague law of sedition must go
IT SEEMS incredible that in 21st century New Zealand there exists a law that goes against our defining values as an open, tolerant democracy. But that's exactly what the law of sedition is – a law that goes against tolerance and acceptance of different races, religions and, most importantly, different points of view. What's more, the monarchists' are using the law as a pretext to stifle debate on the monarchy.

The Republican Movement supports the call for sedition to be abolished. Our best example of why the law should be abolished comes from a Monarchist League press release from early April. Spokesman Dr Robert Mann for the Monarchist League suggested sedition was needed for "defending our constitutional monarchy against destructive influences" such as "the threat from fanatical wings of Islam". This suggestion is very strange, as the most recent charges against individuals under the law have been Tim Selwyn for publishing pamphlets after throwing an axe through the Prime Minister’s electorate office. The monarchists' would have us believe that we should have a law that undermines New Zealand's defining values as a democracy in order to protect such values.

The monarchists' defence of sedition is self-interested: in February 2005 the Monarchist League stated in a press release that questioning whether Prince Charles should become King was "possibly seditious" - indicating they would use the law to prevent any debate on the monarchy. This is inherently anti-democratic. The Crimes Act 1961 has many other sections to deal with actions such as Tim Selwyn's. Had there been no law of sedition he could easily have been tried for incitement to break laws, for example.

Putting the case for a republic
This month, we look at the constitutional benefits of a republic versus the status quo.
IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT is the condescending battle cry of the monarchists. It's the famous last words of some caveman. In the last few columns of putting the case for a republic, we've looked at the specific problems of the constitutional positions of the Queen and her Governor-General. It’s pretty hard to see how our constitution system isn't "broke" in this sense. Usually, republicans focus on the obvious benefits – such as having a head of state that reflects the values of New Zealanders, a democratically elected head of state, and a head of state appointed to the job on their merits rather than by their birth. In response, monarchists usually say an elected head of state will be horribly partisan, elections are divisive, and there’s nothing wrong with inheriting political offices or discriminating against Catholics, women and New Zealanders.

But the main constitutional benefit of a republic is that the republican head of state would be more independent of the Prime Minister, and hence the government of the day. Usually this is claimed to be a bad thing by supporters of a monarchy, as having some uncouth colonial as our head of state is by their logic a recipe for instability. This is because, we are told that having a head of state independent of the government gives them ideas above their station. And yet this is exactly the same argument used in defence of the Queen or her Governor-General. In order for either to do the job of head of state, they too must be independent of the government of the day.

And so, there's a contrast of answers to what sort of checks and balances are best for New Zealand. On the one hand we have the status quo, with an unelected absentee head of state unwilling to get involved in a constitutional crisis, and a virtual head of state appointed by and beholden to the government of the day. On the other, the republican alternative – a head of state elected directly or indirectly by New Zealanders, independent of the government of the day. Some people argue that we could have this by electing the Governor-General. This may be possible, and was proposed under the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852 (the Colonial Office wanted to keep us on a leash, so it was never done). There’s a good reason why this would be a waste of time, but we’ll cover that in our next column.

The Way Forward by Will de Cleene

There are two paths to independence; through need and want. The former provides greater historical precedence. The French Revolution brought about the ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. America's war against the British led to the Declaration of Independence.

In New Zealand's context, this path is likely if a constitutional crisis arose which pitted the Crown against a popular uprising. It would be bloody and unfortunate, regardless of what was created from the destruction. The less painful path is for New Zealanders to receive an amicable and smooth transfer of powers from the monarchy to the people. The difficulty on this path is gathering sufficient popular motivation. We have no memory of our head of state as being anything more than a hollow symbol. The memory of an Upper House is fading fast. Most of our mokopuna know nothing but MMP with a GG. But we remember the fallen on April 25th. Without them, there would be no us.

As we increasingly acknowledge their sacrifice, we gather a sense of maturity of who and why we are. We will not blindly tread the path of the British, United States and Australian surveillance states. We will find our own way, in freedom.

Ends

© Scoop Media