Modernising citizenship oaths isn't a trojan horse for republicanism, it's about the meaningfulness of the pledge – as shown in Australia
Opinion: I arrived in the United Kingdom two days after the coronation of King Charles III. The streets and shop windows are still decorated with bunting and tributes to the new King and Queen.
Like many people, I have had several discussions with friends about the monarchy and the fact that Charles is our Head of State too. I am continually surprised by the number of people who don’t seem to understand the difference between a titular and, in this case, hereditary Head of State and an Executive Head of State such as the President of the United States.
But that is not the issue I wish to raise in this column.
READ MORE:
* The unpublished blueprint to bring home NZ’s head of state
* What will become of the Commonwealth under Charles III?
* How passive, avoidant NZ can become a republic
I want to talk about the opportunity that was given during the coronation to swear allegiance to the new King. It was the oath itself that caused a lot of comment. The words are very familiar to me as I have repeated them many times during my life. The first time was when I was admitted to the bar to practise as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. This was followed by the eight occasions I was elected to Parliament, the times I was appointed to the Executive Council, and then after I became mayor there were countless citizenship ceremonies, where I invited new citizens to repeat them after me.
And it is this latter issue I want to raise. It’s been on my mind since I saw coverage of the announcement that Australia was making the pathway to citizenship much easier for New Zealanders living in Australia.
A clip from an Australian citizenship ceremony accompanied the story, reminding me of when I first saw a poster containing the pledge new citizens make in that country. It is a pledge of loyalty to Australia and its people, “whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey”.
That is a pledge any Australian, citizen or not, can make.
I remember asking at the time why we required new citizens to swear allegiance to the reigning monarch of New Zealand along with their “heirs and successors, according to law”.
I was much more impressed with the idea that we make a pledge of loyalty to our nation and other New Zealanders and our shared values.
I raised this with the Prime Minister, and it was referred to the Minister of Justice. The ensuing discussion document did not excite much interest, and although it resulted in some modernisation of the law, the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the sovereign remained.
I have looked at the US and, unsurprisingly, it is to the US Constitution that allegiance is pledged. I note that new citizens also have to renounce any pre-existing allegiance, something that no doubt harks back to the days of King George III. But even so, the underlying pledge is to the rights and responsibilities that are based in their constitution, not to a head of state.
Even the Bill of Rights Act vet of the Oaths Modernisation Bill introduced in 2005 referred to court decisions that saw the oath as merely representing an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles that support the workings of representative democracy in the country concerned.
So why can’t our citizenship pledge say that?
It is no longer acceptable in the 21st Century that we swear “to be faithful and to bear true allegiance” to a person. I have met people in our country who have never taken out citizenship, because to do so they would have to swear allegiance to the Queen – now King – and they won’t do that. If we had a pledge like Australia, they would have become citizens years ago.
Finally, there is no issue with pledging to faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand or fulfilling our duties as a New Zealand citizen. (I was once asked at a citizenship ceremony what those duties were. There isn’t a list.)
I think it’s time we had another go at modernising this whole area.
I recall the last time this was raised, there was concern the change was a trojan horse for advancing the cause of republicanism. It wasn’t then and it would not be now.
In fact, when I originally raised this, it was the meaningfulness of the Australian citizenship pledge that triggered my desire to advocate for change.
And it is the events of the past few weeks that have reminded me that this is unfinished business whose time has surely come.
