This stinks

The coalition government has barely been in office for a month, and they're already giving themselves fancy titles:

The prime minister has made Attorney-General Judith Collins a King's Counsel.

Christopher Luxon said it was an appropriate appointment, as Collins is now the Crown's senior law officer.

He said it also reflected her career achievements and the responsibility she now holds.

And of course it will significantly boost her prestige (among lawyers) and income when she eventually leaves politics. A pretty nice retirement package.

This is a pretty stinky decision, made more so by the fact that its normally the Attorney-General who recommends people for this title. But I guess Collins figures that awarding it to herself would be just a bit too obvious, so another Minister had to act in her place (which they can do). So its just Luxon handing out the retirement package, like some medieval king handing out duchies to his cronies, abusing the state to enrich themselves.

And no, we won't get any transparency over this. The appointment is technically made by the Governor-General. They only act on advice, but communications with them - even about our business - are covered by a special withholding ground in the OIA, because monarchy. The "counsels of the Crown" are, by tradition, secret - a medieval rule so obviously self-serving that it beggars belief that it has been retained. But it has, ostensibly as a protection for the "neutrality" of the foreign monarch and their local representative, even when all they are doing is rubberstamping the commands of the elected government. In modern Aotearoa, people might ask whether that should still be the case, or whether transparency rather than secrecy is a better safeguard against "politicisation" and a better means of ensuring accountability.

Pushback

When this government came to power, it did so on an explicitly white supremacist platform. Undermining the Waitangi Tribunal, removing Māori representation in local government, over-riding the courts which had tried to make their foreshore and seabed legislation work, eradicating te reo from public life, and ultimately trying to repudiate Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This agenda is highly controversial, to say the least, and this morning it resulted in the expected pushback, with nationwide protests against the racist government. They were organised at short notice, but a respectable size for all that, and the message was clear: if the government continues with its racist agenda, there will be more.

Meanwhile, in parliament there was pushback of a different sort, with te Pāti Māori MPs swearing their own oath first before doing the legally-required one. Its worth comparing the two. Here's what Tākuta Ferris went for (other te Pāti Māori MPs used similar language):

I, Takuta Ferris, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to our mokopuna according to tikanga Māori. I will perform my functions and duties and exercise my powers in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

And here's the legal oath of allegiance, set out in unmodernised 70-year old legislation - which is itself cribbed from legislation 150 years old:

I, [specify], swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her [or His] Majesty [specify the name of the reigning Sovereign, as thus: Queen Elizabeth the Second], Her [or His] heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

One of these sounds a hell of a lot more like modern Aotearoa and a hell of a lot more in tune with kiwi values than the other, and it wasn't the one full of archaic feudal bullshit. And while many people would prefer an affirmation with references to other parts of the constitution, its still likely to look a hell of a lot more like Ferris' than the legal one. Which tells us just how archaic and out-of-date key parts of our legislative framework are. Its long past time we changed them.

Abolish this hereditary fascism

Many people think the monarchy isn't a problem, just a distant bit of pomp and pageantry. Outdated and undemocratic, sure, but just a harmless bit of constitutional dress-ups. But events in Britain are showing it to be anything but. First, there's the intimidating letters police sent to republicans before today's giant monarchical wankfest. And then, there's the pre-emptive arrests:

Police arrested the leader of the anti-monarchy group Republic hours before King Charles' Coronation and a number of other protesters who had gathered among the crowds lining the procession route in central London.

Republic had earlier said it would mount the biggest protest against a British monarch in modern history. But London police chief Mark Rowley warned on Friday that police would take action if protesters tried to "obstruct the enjoyment and celebration" of people.

Protesters, dressed in yellow t-shirts to make themselves stand out, were demanding an elected head of state and say that the royal family has no place in a modern constitutional democracy and is staggeringly expensive to maintain.

A spokesperson for the group said police had arrested its leader Graham Smith on Saturday morning. A photo posted on Twitter showed Smith sitting on the ground surrounded by police officers.

If this seems like a headline from Putin's Russia rather than a modern democracy, you'd be right. Because when you scratch the surface, monarchy is just hereditary fascism in fancy dress. Its existence isn't just an affront to modern, democratic values - it is fundamentally toxic to and incompatible with them. And that is why we must abolish it.

Hipkins' Augustinian republicanism

England is in the middle of a giant monarchical wankfest at the moment. Given its utter irrelevance to modern Aotearoa, the media today asked Prime Minister Chris Hipkins whether he would be offering us a referendum on a republic. And when he said "no", they rightly took him to task on it.

Like every other recent Labour Prime Minister, Hipkins claims to be a republican. And like all the rest, he's completely unwilling to do anything about it. What he fails to understand is that when you say you support something (like action on climate change), people eventually expect you to deliver. And if you consistently refuse to, then people might just begin to doubt the sincerity of what you claim to believe in, and vote accordingly.

This isn't to say that we should be rushing into a referendum - we need a lot of public consultation on what we want to change, whether a "twink republic" is enough (or enough to be getting on with), or whether we want to make other changes too. But Hipkins is refusing to even start that process, refusing to even have the conversation. And that makes him, in practical terms, a monarchist, a supporter of the rotten, foreign, inbred status quo. If you want something better, something modern, something alighned with Aotearoa's values, then don't vote for him.

No freedom of speech in the UK

In the eighteenth century, the British government waged a campaign of repression against those calling for democracy and an end to the monarchy. Over two hundred years later, nothing has really changed:

A woman was arrested holding an anti-monarchy sign in Edinburgh today, before the Queen’s cortege arrived in the city.

[...]

She held a sign saying ‘f*** imperialism, abolish monarchy’.

Officers appeared behind her and took her away, prompting the crowd to applaud.

The police are saying there was "a breach of the peace". But peacefully holding a sign is not a breach of the peace, and in a free and democratic society citizens are expected to have tolerance for the views of others and their right to protest. But then, the whole problem here is that the UK is not a "free and democratic society" - it is a monarchy, a hereditary dictatorship in fancy dress. If UKanians want to be free, they need to fix that.

Bring on the republic

When I was a child, the foreign monarch visited New Zealand. They marched us all out from school and had us stand by the side of a road to watch a car go past, and it was absurd and boring and meaningless, pretty much like the monarchy itself. For most of my adult life, Aotearoa has been sleepwalking towards a republic, with every recent Prime Minister saying its "inevitable", but never doing anything to make it happen. The conventional wisdom, spouted by most politicians, has been that the time for change was when the incumbent died, and not before.

Well, that just happened. And once the body is buried, its time for politicians to fulfil their promise and let us make the move.

Obviously, such a change would need to be endorsed by a referendum, so the process will take a couple of years. As for the nuts and bolts, Dean Knight helpfully provided a guide for the minimal reform - which changes nothing while changing everything - in his 2020 paper A Republic for New Zealand: A Possible Blueprint in the Tradition of Minimalist Reform. That would rid us of the foreign monarchy and replace the appointed Governor-General with a government-nominated, Parliament-endorsed Head of State, clearing away the royalist baggage without the distraction of other issues, and leaving us free to decide what other changes we might want to make later.

The archaic ideology of monarchy is completely at odds with the values of modern, democratic Aotearoa. And now the incumbent is dead, it is finally time for us to move on.

Parliament's ugly, outdated protocols

Today Trevor Mallard resigned as Speaker, so he could go off to a corruptly-appointed diplomatic sinecure as a retirement package. Which meant Parliament today began with a humiliating "order" from the Governor-General to elect a replacement. It was entirely ceremonial and unnecessary; our House has its own processes around this, and does not need to be "ordered" by the unelected representative of a foreign monarch to follow them. It can (and should) just elect someone and tell the Governor-General to lump it.

But this is a powerful reminder that many of our political protocols and ceremonies were inherited from an age of absolute monarchy, when power and legitimacy flowed downwards from a monarch supposedly appointed by a god. In modern Aotearoa, we recognise the reality that they flow upwards from the people. And we should change those outdated protocols and ceremonies to reflect that reality, rather than the archiac views of early seventeenth-century England.

Jamaica plans to become a republic

At the end of last year, the Caribbean state of Barbados became a republic. Now, the Jamaican government has taken the opportunity of a royal visit to announce plans to do the same:

Jamaica’s prime minister has told the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge that his country is “moving on” and intends to become a republic.

The royals’ arrival in Jamaica on Tuesday coincided with a much-publicised demonstration urging the monarchy to pay reparations for slavery, and calls from politicians for the country to become a republic.

The couple’s visit to Jamaica has given the nation the opportunity to address “unresolved” issues, the prime minister, Andrew Holness, told them. During an official welcome, Holness said: “There are issues here which are, as you would know, unresolved but your presence gives an opportunity for those issues to be placed in context, put front and centre and to be addressed in as best [a way] as we can.

“Jamaica is as you would see a country that is very proud of our history and very proud of what we have achieved. We are moving on and we intend to attain in short order … our goals and fulfil our true ambitions as an independent, developed, prosperous country.”

They've already established a ministry for constitutional reform, but Barbados provides an easy model for quick change: simply twink out the old royalist terms like "monarch" and crown", write in "president" and "state", and appoint your existing, domestically-appointed governor-general as president. This settles the main change - getting rid of the British - while preserving existing constitutional norms and leaving space open for further changes if desired.

And obviously, this raises the question: when will Aotearoa join the modern world?

When will we follow Barbados?

Barbados became a republic last night, ending nearly 400 years of British colonialism:

After 396 years, the sun has set on the British monarchy’s reign over the Caribbean island of Barbados, with a handover ceremony at midnight on Monday marking the birth of the world’s newest republic.

As the clock struck 12, the Royal Standard flag representing the Queen was lowered over a crowded Heroes Square in Bridgetown and Carol Roberts-Reifer, chief executive officer of the National Cultural Foundation, made the declaration of Barbados’ transition to its new constitutional status.

Guests in the square applauded as Dame Sandra Mason was sworn in as president by the chief justice and took the oath of allegiance to her country. Hundreds of people lining Chamberlain Bridge in the capital cheered and a 21-gun salute was fired as the national anthem was played. Barbadian singer Rihanna also attended the ceremony and was declared a national hero.

Obviously, congratulations are in order. But Barbados also provides a model of how we could do it. They're a "twink republic": twink out old royalist terms ("Governor-General", "Crown") and replace them with republican ones ("President", "State"). The forms change, but the underlying structure remains the same, providing constitutional continuity and certainty. They even appointed their incumbent Governor-General as President, to ease concerns around political appointments and ensure norms around non-interference were continued.

This is the easiest pathway we could take to a republic. It avoids opening any cans of worms around relitigating constitutional norms (or rather, puts it off into the future when we can handle it without the distraction of a foreign monarch and her local personality cult), while making the change that really matters: ending the undemocratic institution of the foreign monarchy.

In Barbados, the shift was seen explicitly as ending colonialism and restoring the dignity of Barbadians. The obvious question for Aotearoa is when we are going to follow them, join the future, and live in dignity?

Barbados elects its first president

Barbados will officially become a republic at the end of November, and today they took an important step along the way: electing their first president. To make things easy on themselves in the transition, they simply elected their current Governor-General to the role:

Governor General Dame Sandra Mason has been elected as Barbados' first President.

Mason secured the support of all members of the House of Assembly and all but one Senator during a joint sitting of the legislature chambers on Wednesday.

Opposition Senator, Caswell Franklyn, walked out of the sitting after objecting to Mason's nomination as Barbados' first President on Independence Day, November 30.

Meanwhile, New Zealand had the spectacle of watching a kiwi being forced to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch to be her local representative. "Our" effective head of state doesn't actually work for us. And that's a good reason to follow Barbados' path, ditch the monarchy, and finally be truly independent.

Ending royal corruption in Scotland?

Earlier in the week, The Guardian reported that England's monarch had been secretly having laws amended to carve out exemptions for herself, using a procedure called "crown consent". Its a corrupt holdover from the days of absolute monarchy, and something which has no place in a modern democracy, or even in the UK. Unfortunately, Scotland can't get rid of it (at least, not until they're independent, at which point they can redefine their relationship with the monarch, or just tell them to go fuck themselves). But as Andy Wightman points out, there are a few things they can do to make this power much harder to use:

First, Scottish ministers should reject any request from the palace to exempt the Queen’s private estates from Scottish legislation. If this means that Queen’s consent is refused, then ministers should come to parliament and make that known.

Second, the Scottish parliament can take the initiative. It cannot remove the statutory requirement for Queen’s consent but it can amend its procedures to require far greater transparency from ministers about which bills require it, when and under what conditions it has been granted, and (most critically for legislative proposals) complete candour about which parts of any bill or any subsequent amendments are being lodged at the request of the Queen.

That an unelected head of state has the power to legislate in their personal interests, with no transparency or accountability, is antithetical to democracy. The Scottish parliament must take a lead in insisting on the openness and transparency it so often claims to champion.

Meanwhile, Aotearoa has a holdover of this in our parliamentary rules. Standing Order 321 provides that "No member’s bill, local bill, or private bill that contains any provision affecting the rights or prerogatives of the Crown may be passed unless the Crown has, by message, indicated its consent to that provision". I'm not sure if this means that there is a similar consent process here for government bills, or whether it is simply assumed that the government automaticly consents on behalf of the foreign monarch to its own legislation. Either way though, seeing member's bills with majority support having to wait for a formal stamp of approval from an unelected foreign inbred who lives on the other side of the world is demeaning to our democracy. I can't recall such consent ever being denied - we're not the UK, after all - but the possibility that it could be, to a bill with majority support, is an affront to our democracy. As for how to fix it, the solution is obvious: remove this odious provision (and until that happens, move to suspend it in any third reading debate on a member's bill).

A republic is demographicly irresistable

Via New Zealand Republic: younger kiwis support a republic (where "younger" is basicly "people under 50"):

There's a bit more on NewsHub here.

This is basicly like the support graph for Scottish independence, which seems to have become demographicly irresistable. Sadly, Jacinda Ardern - who implicitly claims to be the voice of generational change in New Zealand politics - is pushing the Olds' position of "no change", which is going to become increasingly unsustainable. But if she's not going to push for this, then maybe younger New Zealand should get a Prime Minister who will?

This is on Ardern

So, corporate pillager Ron Brierley has plead guilty to possession of child pornography, and there are obvious calls for him to be stripped of his feudal honour (awarded in the 80's for services to his own banak balance). When faced with such calls in the past, the government has hidden behind the foreign monarch, saying that they're her honours, so its up to her whether people keep them. But this is, quite frankly, bullshit.

New Zealand honours may be awarded by the foreign monarch, but they're awarded on the advice of our government right here in New Zealand. There's a special unit in DPMC which considers nominations, makes shortlists, and sends them to Cabinet for confirmation (and of course for the politicians to shoehorn their donors and cronies in). And they're quite explicit that honours can be removed "on the advice of the Prime Minister and with the approval of the Sovereign". There are guidelines for when this should happen, one of which is when it would bring the honours system into disrepute. Which you'd think possession of child pornography certainly would (as well as a whole lot of other things, like defrauding investors and severe corporate malfeasance; that's certainly the standard which the UK applies).

So, the obvious question is "when is Ardern going to give that advice"? Or does she think a self-confessed child pornographer is a fit recipient for a New Zealand honour?

(And, for the curious: New Zealand has stripped a knighthood in the past, from Cook Islands Prime Minister Albert Henry, for electoral fraud. Here's the New Zealand Gazette notice for it. Muldoon was able to do the right thing then, Ardern should be able to do the right thing now).

Update: Well, that was quick. I'd barely finished writing this when news broke that Ardern was doing her job, and moving to strip Brierly of his feudal honour. Good. And now do the others please? (Better yet, abolish the lot, because feudalism belongs in fantasy novels, not democracies like New Zealand).

Who is in charge of our military?

The Defence Force is planning a 21-gun salute on Waitangi Day. But apparently this isn't a reminder of their colonial role in subjugating Māori; instead its a "traditional" celebration of the accession of their foreign monarch, which coincidentally falls on our national day.

Pretty obviously, someone needs to tell them to stop: guns have no place on Waitangi Day. You'd think that would be the job of defence Minister Peeni Henare. But apparently not:

The Minister of Defence's office referred Stuff to the New Zealand Defence Force as this was an “operational” matter.

Bullshit. Who NZDF celebrates is a matter of policy, and it is the Minister's job to decide that policy. If the Minister doesn't think so, then that raises questions of who is actually in charge of our military. And if the answer isn't "the Minister" (who is democratically elected and accountable to Parliament, and through them, to us), then maybe we shouldn't have a military at all.

A Parliament that sounds like Aotearoa

I'm watching the swearing in of MPs today on Parliament TV, and pleased to hear the linguistic diversity in our Parliament. In addition to a good number of MPs doing their oaths or affirmations in Te Reo, there's also been Samoan, Tongan, Dutch, Korean, plus (as best as I can guess) Arabic, Chinese, and Hindi, and no doubt others where I wasn't paying attention. MMP gave us a Parliament that looks like Aotearoa; now we've got one that sounds like it too. Unfortunately, a quirk of procedure means that anything not in English or Te Reo isn't legal, and must be done separately afterwards. Which is pretty obviously something we need to fix. These are all languages of Aotearoa, and it is bizarre that they cannot be used for this basic administrative act. Our law should reflect modern Aotearoa, not the colonial New Zealand of the 1950's.

(As for the ritual grovelling to the foreign monarch, its distasteful and demeaning and needs to change too. Our politicians should serve the people and the country who elected them, not some unelected inbred on the other side of the world who claims their "authority" by divine right).

Barbados to become a republic

Barbados is planning to remove the queen as head of state and become a republic in time for the 55th anniversary of its independence in 2021:

Barbados has announced its intention to remove the Queen as its head of state and become a republic by November 2021.

[...]

Reading the speech, governor-general Dame Sandra Mason said: “The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind. Barbadians want a Barbadian head of state.

“This is the ultimate statement of confidence in who we are and what we are capable of achieving.

“Hence, Barbados will take the next logical step toward full sovereignty and become a republic by the time we celebrate our 55th anniversary of independence.”

This was actually recommended by a constitutional review over 20 years ago, but never implemented. Now, they're finally doing it. Meanwhile, NZ is doing nothing, and continuing under a feudal constitution which embeds inequality and vests titular authority in a foreigner on the other side of the world. We should really do something about that, and not just leave it until the current incumbent dies.

Recognising who we are now

Labour have pledged to make Matariki a public holiday if re-elected. Good. As I said last year when New Zealand Republic launched their petition campaign on the topic, Matariki is a day indigenous to New Zealand, and making it a holiday would recognise who are now: our own place, not a British colony. So this is a policy I wholeheartedly support.

At the same time, though, its not exactly a policy which targets the big issues facing us, is it? I want to know what Labour plans to do about climate change, inequality, housing, and water. And if their answer is just the status quo with an extra public holiday, then I'm just not interested.

For a Matariki holiday

Last week the Republican Movement's petition to Make Matariki a public holiday officially closed. Meanwhile, driven by a much larger ActionStation petition, Stuff has come out in support:

Today, Stuff is launching a campaign to make Matariki a public holiday from 2021.

[...]

The law says public holidays exist to observe days of “national, religious, or cultural significance”, but most of our holidays aren’t expressly Kiwi.

We’re overdue the creation of a unifying holiday that honours Aotearoa’s past and celebrates New Zealand’s future. Matariki is that holiday.

They're agnostic as to whether it should be a new holiday or replace foreign monarch's fake birthday (with which it frequently aligns), but they want it to be a holiday, and they want it to happen by next year. That's perfectly a doable legislative timetable; the question is whether the politicians are keen.

Time for another dismissal?

The "palace letters" between Australia's then Governor-General John Kerr and the Queen were released today by the Australian Archives. From the bits I caught of the original press conference, they didn't sound so bad. But now people have had time to go through them properly, and they show an appalling story of plotting and foreign interference in Australia's politics. Kerr was plotting with Windsor to rid himself of Gough Whitlam for months - and it was the Queen's private secretary who first suggested dismissing him by monarchical fiat:

What is pivotal throughout these letters is that the Queen, through her private secretary, engages with Kerr on these inherently political matters, even advising him on the powers of the Senate and, critically, the existence and potential use of the contentious and contested reserve powers to dismiss the government.

Let’s take just one example, from the first glimpse at the letters, Charteris’ letter to Kerr of November 4, 1975, on the reserve powers: "Those powers do exist … but to use them is a heavy responsibility … I think you are playing the 'Vice-Regal' hand with skill and wisdom. Your interest in the situation has been demonstrated, and so has your impartiality. The fact that you have the powers is recognised, but it is also clear that you will only use them in the last resort and then only for constitutional and not for political reasons."

Charteris followed this up the next day with the clearest suggestion that the reserve powers may need to be used which, Charteris wrote, "places you in what is, perhaps, an unenviable, but is certainly a very honourable position. If you do, as you will, what the constitution dictates, you cannot possible [sic] do the Monarchy any avoidable harm. The chances are you will do it good". He ends with a reference to the "discretion left to a governor-general". These critical letters provided Kerr with the advice and comfort he needed to feel secure that the Palace accepted the existence and potential use of the reserve powers as he moved towards dismissing the Whitlam government.

Coming from his boss, "these powers exist, but its up to you to use them" is another way of saying "you should use them". It sounds like Australia needs another dismissal: of its interfering foreign monarch.

Removing a hateful symbol

The US state of Mississippi has finally voted to remove the Confederate emblem from its state flag. Good. Its appalling that it was put there in the first place, but even more appalling that it took so long to remove it. Its basicly as if a German Länder still had the Nazi swastika on its flag. and that's just unacceptable.

But while we're talking about removing hateful symbols, its long past time New Zealand got rid of the union jack. Its the flag of the empire which built and profited from the slave trade, which colonised, exploited, and committed horrific crimes across half the world, which invented concentration camps to keep its uncoperative colonial subjects under control, and which is entirely unapologetic about any of that. We had a chance to get rid of that symbol in 2015, and (thanks to shit design choices by the government) we blew it. Its time we had another go.