Wednesday, February 18, 2004
How should we swear to do our duty?
Justice Minister Phil Goff wants to change the oaths and affirmations made by public office holders, some state sector employees and immigrants when they become new citizens.
He says it’s nearly 50 years since there last was a comprehensive review, and we need to check whether the oaths express the values and beliefs of our national values today, or reflect a sense of independent nationhood.
You see, Mr Goff’s unhappy that some of the oaths are more than one sentence long, and no-one’s attention span is longer than that anymore. And people can’t cope with old-fashioned language (ie, anything written more than 30 years ago) because of our dumbed-down education curriculum.
He’s also deeply worried that the oaths swear allegiance to the Queen rather than to New Zealand. He points out that most other Commonwealth countries – even England – are making similar changes.
Pity the poor Queen. Her estate is crumbling around her as New Zealand joins the headlong rush towards republicanism – or in some cases supra-nationalism. Only last October she asked her advisers to compile reports on her status, out of growing fears that a new European constitution will undermine her role as sovereign.
There are some interesting conundrums posed by Mr Goff’s review. Who will decide what our “national values� are? You can bet that the submissions will fail to throw up a concensus.
And what does it actually mean if we pledge loyalty “to New Zealand and the people of New Zealand� (the kind of wording that Mr Goff seems to favour)? Does it mean that we pledge loyalty to the government, or the government plus our other constitutional elements, such as the courts and the Executive? What if the government and the people are in serious disagreement over an issue? – the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council would be a case in point.
Once upon a time making an oath meant that we acknowledged a higher power was witnessing our statement, and stood ready to call us to account. It would appear that the highest power we believe in now is the government, or at a stretch an ill-defined national identity.
Perhaps it boils down to a simple point : we might make these oaths, but nobody thinks they mean anything any more, and they are quickly ignored in the reality of the politics that govern most workplaces.
Justice Minister Phil Goff wants to change the oaths and affirmations made by public office holders, some state sector employees and immigrants when they become new citizens.
He says it’s nearly 50 years since there last was a comprehensive review, and we need to check whether the oaths express the values and beliefs of our national values today, or reflect a sense of independent nationhood.
You see, Mr Goff’s unhappy that some of the oaths are more than one sentence long, and no-one’s attention span is longer than that anymore. And people can’t cope with old-fashioned language (ie, anything written more than 30 years ago) because of our dumbed-down education curriculum.
He’s also deeply worried that the oaths swear allegiance to the Queen rather than to New Zealand. He points out that most other Commonwealth countries – even England – are making similar changes.
Pity the poor Queen. Her estate is crumbling around her as New Zealand joins the headlong rush towards republicanism – or in some cases supra-nationalism. Only last October she asked her advisers to compile reports on her status, out of growing fears that a new European constitution will undermine her role as sovereign.
There are some interesting conundrums posed by Mr Goff’s review. Who will decide what our “national values� are? You can bet that the submissions will fail to throw up a concensus.
And what does it actually mean if we pledge loyalty “to New Zealand and the people of New Zealand� (the kind of wording that Mr Goff seems to favour)? Does it mean that we pledge loyalty to the government, or the government plus our other constitutional elements, such as the courts and the Executive? What if the government and the people are in serious disagreement over an issue? – the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council would be a case in point.
Once upon a time making an oath meant that we acknowledged a higher power was witnessing our statement, and stood ready to call us to account. It would appear that the highest power we believe in now is the government, or at a stretch an ill-defined national identity.
Perhaps it boils down to a simple point : we might make these oaths, but nobody thinks they mean anything any more, and they are quickly ignored in the reality of the politics that govern most workplaces.
