LewisHolden3February

3 February 2013

Correspondence from Lewis Holden

Hi Geoff,

In response to your latest statement:

1. However it happened, the fact remains that many of my attempts to comment on the republic website were blocked, and then I was told that one which got through should have been blocked. Debate is the lifeblood of politics, whether it concerns itself with principles, strategies or tactics. You have nothing to fear and everything to gain by allowing discussion on all aspects of republicanism and the republican movement. For the record, I never comment anonymously, in any medium or forum.

The only reason why some of your comments may have been blocked was that they were filtered for being spam. If you'd alerted us to that we could've made sure your comments were posted. The first I heard of it was when you wrote about it on your website. And as I keep saying, if you'd just signed in, it wouldn't have been an issue. You say for the record you never commented anonymously; I should probably clarify that what I meant was you weren't signed in. If you're not signed in, even if you enter your name, the website treats your submission as anonymous.

This is a different situation to the comment you made about the Republican Movement's strategy. It was not filtered by the spam filter at all. I simply e-mailed you and said if I'd seen the comment earlier I would've deleted it and responded via e-mail. There was never any objection to discussing principles, strategies or tactics. The website is a forum which anyone - including those campaigning to keep the British monarch - can read. For that reason I can't respond to questions or criticisms about strategy or tactics in that forum.

That doesn't mean, as you imply, that myself or the executive won't debate strategy or tactics with members. We certainly don't fear it - if anything we enjoy it. As I've pointed out, we regularily do so - via e-mail, on the phone, and in person. But for exactly the same reason we don't allow anyone other than our financial members to attend our AGM or teleconferences or policy discussions, we don't discuss our strategy where anyone could read it.

2. I stand by the claim that the queen is a potential check on the executive. She has not intervened in the past, but it is not too difficult to conceive of circumstances where she might, and she could lawfully do so. I differ from the monarchists in that I regard that latent power of the monarchy is more of a danger than a safeguard.

Your claim is more of an assertion. The circumstances where the Queen might intervene are so rare they basically do not exist. This is because - and this is a critical point - the Governor-General has all of the Sovereign's executive powers with respect to New Zealand. Under clause 3(a) of the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor-General (which states the Governor-General is authorised and empowered "...to exercise on Our behalf the executive authority of Our Realm of New Zealand, either directly or through officers subordinate to Our Governor-General"). The Governor-General's office would need to be vacant and the Sovereign would actually have to be physically present in New Zealand to make use of their powers. The Queen has only used her powers in New Zealand a handful of times - for example, signing the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act into law in 1995. In all cases it was on the advice of the government of the day.

This means the circumstances where the Queen could lawfully intervene are basically non-existent - which means both the monarchists view that the Sovereign is a safeguard is wrong, as is the claim the monarch's powers are a danger. As we've seen numerous times across the Commonwealth, whenever there's a bloody coup or invasion, the Queen simply defers to her local representative, the Governor-General.

The real danger comes from a lack of checks and balances on the office of Prime Minister. Currently, the Prime Minister can appoint and sack the Governor-General more easily than they could sack their driver. This is critical as it means that the Governor-General really has no way of holding the Prime Minister or their government to account. The Governor-General is meant to have the power, like the monarch, to "be consulted, advise and warn." It's well documented, even among former Governor-Generals and ministers, that this doesn't happen.

3. It is not my intention to attack either the monarchists or RMANZ or anyone else for that matter.. In deference to those who are offended, I will try to express my opinions in a non-confrontational way.

I welcome your new approach. This isn't a question of offense however - it's a question of emphasis. The emphasis of your website appears to now be simply attacking the Republican Movement, even when you're writing about topics unrelated to our remit.

4. I respect the right of parliamentarians to swear allegiance to the Queen, "the people of New Zealand", "New Zealand", "the treaty of Waitangi" or anything else which takes their fancy. I do not accept that they have a right to force others to do likewise.

I do not, and cannot, impose "preconditions for a peaceful process". I just make the point that if you use artificial contrivances to lock your opponents out of the political process, then it is less likely to remain peaceful. I concede I was wrong to say that "If not, it follows that a republic could not be established by any means other than a popular insurrection". A republic could also be instituted by a parliamentary act of treason against the crown, which is possible, even if rather unlikely. However I personally would view such a development with some misgiving.

Of course it's highly unlikely parliament will simply abolish the monarchy by an enactment. It's more likely we would have a referendum (or policy is for two) empowered by an Act of Parliament. Swearing an oath to the Queen doesn't lock opponents of the monarchy out of the political process - the view that it does is where you've got this wrong. No republican MP from Allen Bell to Keith Locke has ever been challenged for swearing allegiance to the Queen while holding republican views or pushing the cause. This is because no-one apart from the most die-hard monarchists and yourself really takes the oath seriously. For everyone else it's simply part of the process.

From our standpoint the oaths are something that need to be changed to reflect reality.

5. The object is not to initiate a referendum, thereby imposing an unwanted political system on one side or the other, but to offer a true alternative for those who are dissaffected with the British monarchy and are looking for a system which is open, free, transparent and based on the people. To do that we don't "have" to take people with us. They will be free to make a choice. It will be "some sort of confederation of iwi" but not exactly as it was in 1840.

This raises a number of questions: Firstly, how is having an elected New Zealand citizen as our head of State not a "true" alternative to the status quo? The assertion you're apparently making is that it won't be "open, free" or "transparent". I've already shown your claim our proposals would have no checks and balances to be objectively wrong. It's pretty obvious that the head of State we propose would be far more open and transparent than the status quo, certainly with respect to the Governor-General's office.

Secondly, how can you claim to be creating a system that's "based on the people" if the people don't support it? Referendums may be blunt instruments, but they're certainly better than vague claims that the people will be "free to make a choice." At least they're definitive.

Finally, I'm fascinated to know whether this is a Royal "we" or if you're actually going to build some sort of organisation?

Regards,
Lewis Holden

Reply from Geoff Fischer

1. I won't debate this point any further except to suggest that RMANZ
        review the settings of the "spam filter".
        provide contact email addresses for readers who can't get past the spam filter.
        investigate why some readers accounts appear to become disabled

2. Lewis takes the position that it is very unlikely that the Queen would formally intervene in New Zealand affairs, that there would be no precedent and so on. All no doubt true. I believe in a Head of State who takes part in the political process and has the credentials to do so. The Queen possibly could take part, most probably would not, and most emphatically lacks the necessary credentials.

4 My extensive writings on the oath of allegiance are on record here.
Lewis writes "no-one apart from the most die-hard monarchists and yourself really takes the oath seriously". That is wrong. If a census was taken today, and the question was asked, "Would you in any circumstances take the oath of allegiance to the Queen?" I know for a fact that in excess of 10,000 New Zealanders would reply in the negative.   It could be as many as fifty thousand. Ten thousand is not a large number, but it is significant, and it is silly to say that I am the only non-monarchist who takes the oath seriously.
The monarchy has the benefit of a thousand year history, during which it has learned how to make a people, and individuals, submit to its will.   The oath is not there by whim or accident.   The regime knows that a formal token of submission emasculates opposition. That is why it insists upon the oath as a condition for citizenship and for taking a place in parliament.
What would happen if a republican parliamentarian had the courage of his or her convictions and refused to utter the oath?   One elected representative would be denied the right to sit in parliament, one electorate would be denied representation, and then the requirement for the oath would be quietly withdrawn, and the establishment of a republic would move significantly closer.
I have taken a stand against the regime three times in my life, and on each occasion I have felt vindicated.   The first was when I refused to serve in the monarchist military forces.   For that I was imprisoned, along with many others, and told I would remain in prison until I consented to serve the queen. Along with all my fellow prisoners I refused and what actually happened was that we were released and shortly after the regime abandoned its demands for military service. Later I refused a demand under the Official Secrets Act that I should agree to remain silent about the effects of toxic chemicals being used in the timber industry. I refused, and my career was systematically destroyed, on orders from the highest level of government, but a few years later the Official Secrets Act was repealed. More recently certain elements in government attempted to use unlawful means to deprive me of property rights over my small patch of land at Te Ngae. After a dispute lasting fifteen years, wiser counsels and natural justice prevailed, and my legal rights have been recognised.   Things change when people take a stand. Things remain the same when people submit to power.
Thirty years ago, teachers were required to swear allegiance to the queen. Many refused, and were denied the right to teach, but once again, the state was eventually forced to back down.
Is there a reason why parliamentarians should not be expected to show the same courage and conviction as ordinary citizens?
Everything comes at a price. Allen Bell, Keith Locke and Hone Harawira have been willing to pay the price of a seat in parliament, but not the price of their people's freedom.

5.i. By a "true alternative" I meant one which would enable people to participate in a national process which is independent of the British crown. I did not mean to preclude any other alternative. Objectively speaking, a Governor-General appointed by the Prime Minister to the position of Head of State would be a small step in the right direction, although fraught with constitutional risk. Any positive reform would be welcome, but I see institutional impediments to this process, and so I choose to proceed in a different direction.

5.ii Monarchies appear to enjoy majority popular support, or at least acquiescence, in countries such as Britain, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Thailand. On the other hand proposals for a republic "based on the people" only garner minority support. It is necessary to distinguish between the level of popular "support" (which is often exaggerated or illusory) and the inherent characteristics of a political system.
It does not matter to me whether I am part of a system comprising ten or ten thousand individuals, so long as I have confidence in the way the system is structured. There is nothing "vague" about the choice between the monarchy and the CPA.

5.iii I normally try to avoid the first person plural in any political polemic, but felt obliged in this case to use "we" in place of "I" because the actual task of re-establishing the confederation is being undertaken by a younger generation.
We are not building an organisation. We are retoring a nation. RMANZ is attempting to reform the state, by effecting a transition from the Realm of New Zealand to a republic. Our progress will be slow, and yours will be uncertain. We are on different paths so should not come into conflict.

Lewis Holden writes 23 February 2013

Hi Geoff,

In response to:

http://republican.co.nz/LewisHolden3February.html

1. I won't debate this point any further except to suggest that RMANZ

review the settings of the "spam filter".
provide contact email addresses for readers who can't get past the spam filter.
investigate why some readers accounts appear to become disabled
Fair enough - quickly in response to these points:
Everytime we've relaxed the filter's settings, we've come under renewed attack by spam bots. Currently we're exploring an alternative where anyone can sign up for an account to comment.
When the spam filter blocks a comment, a message is displayed with the general contact e-mail address.
I'm not not sure what you mean by "readers accounts". If you've got a user account on the website (as you do) you'll be able to sign in to comment. However if you've not paid your membership subs (as you haven't) you won't see anything when you sign in, apart from a message asking you to renew your membership. You can still post comments and update your contact details though.
2. Lewis takes the position that it is very unlikely that the Queen would formally intervene in New Zealand affairs, that there would be no precedent and so on. All no doubt true. I believe in a Head of State who takes part in the political process and has the credentials to do so. The Queen possibly could take part, most probably would not, and most emphatically lacks the necessary credentials.

Not just very unlikely, so unlikely that the possibility does not exist, and to claim that it does exist misrepresents constitutional reality - that is, the Governor-General holds the Queen's powers and he or she only ever acts very rarely. My view has always been it's more important to make a constitutionally honest case for a New Zealand head of State than dance on a pinhead about the improbable uses of the Queen's remaining power.

I do agree though that any intervention in our governance the Queen would lack the necessary credentials to intervene. Which is another reason why it won't ever happen - for the British monarch to intervene, even though the legal means might exist in rare circumstances, would badly damage the institution and probably lead to its abolition. The same is largely true for the Governor-General. You only have to look at Australia's dismissal of 1975 to see why.

Having said that, I don't think that that justifies a politically interventionist head of State as an alternative. By politically interventionist, I mean a head of State who exercises executive power, as opposed to only exercising constitutional power. A lot of the opposition to the New Zealand republic stems from the public's dislike of the US political system - and the argument that a New Zealand republic equates to adopting it or something like it. The opponents of change know this and actively encourage this argument in order to muddy the waters.

The public is right to take issue with the US system. There's no other example like it worldwide that has actually worked, in fact it's worth pointing out that basically all of the "bad" republics around the world are presidential systems like the US. The US system concentrates far too much power in the hands of one individual, without the same means of accountability as Prime Ministers face in parliamentary democracies. The only checks and balances in the US system are each branches individual powers - which causes government to become dysfunctional as, for example, the only ways for the legislature to hold the presidency to account is to block their legislative program, appointments or budget.

There is clearly a lack of checks and balances on our Prime Minister at the head of State level. This is because the Prime Minister appoints the effective head of State - the Governor-General - and can have them dismissed.

3. My renewed criticism of RMANZ, came after Savage denounced me for my stand on homosexual marriage while declaring that he was "too busy" to offer any objective comment on this website. Some prominent members of RMANZ (including Savage, Dean Knight and David Farrar) need to understand that constructive dialogue requires that all parties should be willing to speak and to listen. In the vernacular, they should "put up or shut up". Lewis, to his credit, and I think to his advantage, has taken a more constructive approach here.

I can't speak for Savage, but I do take issue with your dragging our organisation - which has no stance on the Marraige Equality Bill - into your posts because some of our members have written about it in other forums or e-mailed you about it. Our members are drawn from a wide range of professions and political view points and express them in their own way.

I'm always happy to engage in constructive dialogue with anyone on the republic issue.

4 My extensive writings on the oath of allegiance are on record here.
Lewis writes "no-one apart from the most die-hard monarchists and yourself really takes the oath seriously". That is wrong. If a census was taken today, and the question was asked, "Would you in any circumstances take the oath of allegiance to the Queen?" I know for a fact that in excess of 10,000 New Zealanders would reply in the negative. It could be as many as fifty thousand. Ten thousand is not a large number, but it is significant, and it is silly to say that I am the only non-monarchist who takes the oath seriously.

Sure, there may be others who take the oath as seriously as you do who aren't monarchists. But my point was that the general public don't see it that way - this is part of the significant shift in the public's view of monarchy in New Zealand over the past 50 years. Your position is entirely based on the view that the public does in fact take oaths seriously and anyone who takes an oath to the Queen but supports a New Zealand republic must be untrustworthy, which is a ridiculous position.

The monarchy has the benefit of a thousand year history, during which it has learned how to make a people, and individuals, submit to its will. The oath is not there by whim or accident. The regime knows that a formal token of submission emasculates opposition. That is why it insists upon the oath as a condition for citizenship and for taking a place in parliament.

It certainly is true that oaths were a means of making people subject to the monarchy. But if it certainly isn't part a conspiracy by the "regime" to "emasculate opposition" - if it were it isn't effective, and surely it would be enforced. Keith Locke or Allen Bell would've been thrown out of parliament for their views, which despite the the calls by the most hardcore monarchists never happened.

Taking an oath to the Queen is only a condition of citizenship for new citizens. There are also a number of oaths which are specified in law yet hardly ever uttered. For example, s162(1) requires teachers to take the oath of allegiance before they can be employed as teachers. A number of my friends are teachers - none of them have had to take the Oath of Allegiance. The only teacher I'm aware of that had to take an oath started teaching in the 60s, which confirms the position that no-one takes the oath seriously anymore (as below, it's a myth that the Oath requirement no longer exists for teachers).

What would happen if a republican parliamentarian had the courage of his or her convictions and refused to utter the oath? One elected representative would be denied the right to sit in parliament, one electorate would be denied representation, and then the requirement for the oath would be quietly withdrawn, and the establishment of a republic would move significantly closer.

It would be nice if bringing about change was that simple, but in reality it isn't. In order for the Oath to be withdrawn, it has to be removed from law. That requires an Act of Parliament, which has to be voted on. Charles Bradlaugh, the famous English atheist who challenged the oath in the 19th century, found it wasn't nearly as straightforward as refusing to take the oath. He was first elected in 1880, and went through four by-elections and several ongoing campaigns - all so he didn't have to say "So Help Me God". When the Oaths were changed in 1888, he only sat for three years before he died.

I have taken a stand against the regime three times in my life, and on each occasion I have felt vindicated. The first was when I refused to serve in the monarchist military forces. For that I was imprisoned, along with many others, and told I would remain in prison until I consented to serve the queen. Along with all my fellow prisoners I refused and what actually happened was that we were released and shortly after the regime abandoned its demands for military service. Later I refused a demand under the Official Secrets Act that I should agree to remain silent about the effects of toxic chemicals being used in the timber industry. I refused, and my career was systematically destroyed, on orders from the highest level of government, but a few years later the Official Secrets Act was repealed. More recently certain elements in government attempted to use unlawful means to deprive me of property rights over my small patch of land at Te Ngae. After a dispute lasting fifteen years, wiser counsels and natural justice prevailed, and my legal rights have been recognised. Things change when people take a stand. Things remain the same when people submit to power.

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with oaths. Only the potential military services appears to, although that seems to be more related to your refusal to undertake the service - the oath is simply the point at which you can refuse.

Thirty years ago, teachers were required to swear allegiance to the queen. Many refused, and were denied the right to teach, but once again, the state was eventually forced to back down.

As discussed above, the state didn't "back down". The oath simply fell out of use. There might've been teachers who refused, but clearly their refusals were in vain. The law stands, awaiting its own resurrection. No doubt that's something on the monarchists agenda.

Is there a reason why parliamentarians should not be expected to show the same courage and conviction as ordinary citizens?
Everything comes at a price. Allen Bell, Keith Locke and Hone Harawira have been willing to pay the price of a seat in parliament, but not the price of their people's freedom.

I would love it if Hone or any other MP were to actively refuse to take the oath with the aim of changing the oaths to something relevant. But experience shows (as Charles Bradlaugh example above) this is probably the least effective way of bringing about change. It might make the individual would-be MP feel good about themselves and get them plenty of media attention, but as Keith's example demonstrates, it would actually prevent change from coming about. Keith's Bill has easily set the framework for a New Zealand republic, it started the process of refuting a number of the myths around the issue - that it means adopting the US system (it doesn't), that it means dumping the Treaty (it doesn't) or leaving the Commonwealth (it doesn't). It set out a democratic path to a New Zealand head of State. None of this would've been possible had Keith refused to take the oath - which is exactly why the monarchists wanted him booted out of parliament.

I would sooner make progress on the core issue than be side-tracked by what is an inevitable side-issue. Allowing ourselves to be road-blocked by pointless bottom-lines on issues the general public don't care for really does nothing for the cause.

Of course there are institutional impediments. We're talking about abolishing the institution of monarchy by reforming that institutions representative in New Zealand. That is really no justification for attempting to put together some vague process "independent of the British Crown." (It's legally the New Zealand Crown, but I know what you're getting at). The reality is you will have to deal with the state at some point. Instead of pretending otherwise it's smarter to make use of the state's resources - as we will have to in the referendum process. After all, republicans are taxpayers too.

Again, you've got it wrong on our proposal. You have described the status quo above - the Prime Minister advises the Queen who to appoint as Governor-General. Our proposal is that the head of State be elected either by parliament (through a super-majority) or directly by ballot. This issue would be decided by referendum, to avoid the problems the Australians had at the 1999 referendum.

I'm yet to see what the difference is between your proposals and ours in terms of being "based on the people". I don't believe the monarchy in New Zealand has majority support of the public - there's plenty of indicators that point to the fear of the alternative keeping the people on the side of monarchy. That certainly doesn't mean the monarchy itself is popular.

It does not matter to me whether I am part of a system comprising ten or ten thousand individuals, so long as I have confidence in the way the system is structured. There is nothing "vague" about the choice between the monarchy and the CPA.

What's the "CPA"? A Certified Public Accountant? Of course it's vague if it's undefined. I couldn't have confidence in a system which is undefined.

We are not building an organisation. We are retoring a nation. RMANZ is attempting to reform the state, by effecting a transition from the Realm of New Zealand to a republic. Our progress will be slow, and yours will be uncertain. We are on different paths so should not come into conflict.

Again, there's a paucity of detail, so I can't really respond to your point above.

Regards,

Lewis Holden