Oaths Modernisation Bill

I move, That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. Members of Parliament, as well as many other public office holders in New Zealand, are required to take an oath that asks them to acknowledge who they undertake to serve, or give loyalty to, and to make promises about how they will behave and conduct themselves when they are performing their duties. Oaths in New Zealand have not been reviewed for nearly 50 years. Ad hoc amendments to the law applying to oaths over the years have led to the situation where many of the oaths are now outdated, are inconsistent, and use language that is old-fashioned and difficult to understand.

As oaths are a matter of public record it is important that they are easy to understand by everyone, are relevant, and reflect the values and beliefs of all New Zealanders. Most of the oaths in New Zealand are set out in the Oaths and Declarations Act. However, several other pieces of legislation also contain rules about particular oaths, such as the Citizenship Act, the Constitution Act, the Education Act 1964, the Police Act, and the Local Government Act 2002, as well as the Summary Proceedings Regulations and the Defence Regulations, all of which are amended through this bill.

The bill updates and modernises the language of a range of oaths set out in statute, as well as one declaration, and the words of affirmation that may be used instead of an oath. The bill inserts a new Parliamentary Oath, and substitutes modernised forms of the Oath of Allegiance, the Judicial Oath, the Executive Councillor’s Oath, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath, the armed forces oath, the citizenship oath, the local government member’s declaration, the police oath, and the special constable’s oath. Some people choose to take an affirmation instead of an oath, and the bill amends the Oaths and Declarations Act to make the wording of written and oral affirmations consistent. Some oaths are not set out in legislation, for example the Governor-General’s Oath, which is set out in the letters patent. That oath and other non-legislative oaths are being amended separately in line with the changes in this bill.

The bill provides Māori language versions of the oaths set out in legislation, and ensures that an oath or affirmation given in either English of Māori is acceptable. The bill also prescribes a Māori language version of the words that an affirmation must begin with. Setting out Māori language versions of the oaths in the bill acknowledges the official status of the Māori language. Members in this House can choose to take their oath in Māori in order to reflect their identity. The process of modernising and updating the oaths has been achieved by removing archaic language and redundant words or phrases, simplifying the language, removing or replacing words that lack clear meaning, and ensuring consistency of language where appropriate. Currently particular references and ideas are expressed in a variety of ways across different oaths. For example, there are several permutations of the reference to the Sovereign, which the bill replaces with one consistent reference.

Oaths symbolise tradition, history, and continuity, as well as loyalty and commitments. This should not mean that the language and values cannot reflect modern society while retaining the traditional and historical aspects of the oaths. This bill does just that. As far as possible, the essential meaning or substance of each oath, and the formality and solemnity of the oaths, are retained.

An important part of the process of modernising and updating the oaths was to ask members of the New Zealand public, through a discussion document released last year, whether they felt the oaths reflected the values and beliefs important to New Zealanders in the 21st century. The views of the public were also sought on whether the language of oaths required modernising, and on various options for changing, modernising, replacing, or removing the oaths under review. Although there was a limited response, there was clear support from public submissions for retaining the current values and beliefs, particularly loyalty to the Queen, reference to religious belief, and promises as to how an office or role should be carried out.

Additional values and beliefs have been incorporated into two oaths. A new Parliamentary Oath and the citizenship oath will include loyalty to New Zealand, respect for New Zealand’s democratic values, and respect for the rights and freedoms of the people of New Zealand. The new Parliamentary Oath better acknowledges the actual role undertaken by members, and more accurately reflects that members owe loyalty to New Zealand and that they will respect the rights and freedoms of the people of New Zealand. This change is consistent with the desire expressed by many members of Parliament over the years that the oath we take should better reflect that we serve the people of New Zealand. The new Parliamentary Oath also includes promises to uphold democratic values that are fundamental to our duties and responsibilities as members of Parliament. The same elements that are included in the new Parliamentary Oath will be incorporated in the citizenship oath. This will allow new New Zealand citizens to better express their loyalty and commitment to their new country.

It is important that the public can have confidence that when those people holding public office take an oath, the principles and expectations that go with the promises being made in the oath are understood by everyone. This can better be achieved if the oaths are easy to understand, use modern-day language, and reflect the values and principles of New Zealand in the 21st century, all of which this bill provides for. This is a straightforward bill. It reflects common sense, and I believe that it should win a consensus of support across New Zealand and this Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

National opposes this bill. Let me explain why. When there is legislation of merit, then National’s support will be readily forthcoming, but as Minister Philip Goff has said, oaths reflect tradition, history, and continuity—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: This Government betrays that.

—and this Government betrays that. It is very interesting to reflect on the history of oaths. In the fifth century BC we had the Hippocratic oath. I do not think that any doctor today would say that that historical oath should be changed. It does not need modernisation. It contains in itself an oath that those who follow the tradition of medicine, although they are not asked to swear to it, believe that it still contains the quintessence of the medical obligation.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: They don’t take it any more.

If Lianne Dalziel had listened, she would have heard me say that they do not take it any more. She quite clearly did not hear those comments and chose to interrupt.

These are timeless oaths, and in a country like ours with a short history we should not move to change them without good reason. I would say that political correctness is not a good reason. I would say that those in the Labour Government who are hell-bent on a path to republicanism should not, under that guise, seek that these oaths be amended. I just note the opening words of the Hippocratic oath in the 5th century BC: “I swear by Apollo the physician, by Aesculapius, and Health, and All-Heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and my judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation:” There follows, then, the substantive wording of the oath, which concludes: “While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life in the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!”

I do not think it was without significance that when the planned provisions of this bill were made known, members of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand were quick on their feet, and they strongly endorsed this modernisation. And why did they? They did so because they saw in it a change they substantively seek to secure. So they said in their press release of 10 May 2005: “We wish to support the Government’s move to modernise the oaths and affirmations.” They were referring to statutory legislation, the Oaths and Declarations Act, within which a framework of law is set out both in respect of oaths and in respect of affirmations. We see in this Parliament, as old members go and new members come, the form in which an oath may be administered and the right to make an affirmation instead of an oath. We also see, as part of the words associated with an oath, the phrase: “So help me God.” That may be uncomfortable for Labour members, but it is retained in this oath. I think the next step we see will be the removal of those words. I think—to advance that argument just one tad further—we will see the removal of the Speaker’s prayer, because these things are uncomfortable for a Government driven by political correctness, driven by a need to make change where no real change is required.

Let me give a very simple illustration of that. One of the things that this legislation does in pursuit of the claim for modernisation is that the words “honestly and impartially” are to be replaced by the words “faithfully and impartially”. Does that represent modernisation? I do not think so. Why are we making that change? Here is another example. The plan is to replace the word “divulge”, which most people know, with the word “disclose”. That is somehow, in some curious way, seen as an advance. It is not an advance at all. It is playing around with our language for no good reason, except in pursuit of what some have called the “Goff agenda”. I have hesitated to use those words, but the Goff agenda is not an agenda that leads to better outcomes, nor is the Oaths Modernisation Bill.

It is quite interesting, actually, because within the legislation has been produced a comparative table, under a number of headings. There are changes to be made to the Oath of Allegiance, which is misspelt, but that does not matter; it is just a little technical slip. Changes are to be made to the Judicial Oath, Executive Councillor’s Oath, the current oath, the armed forces oath, and the citizenship oath. I shall just take an example.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What part does the member object to?

Phil Goff is calling for an example, and what an invitation that is to accept readily, because there are multiple examples. Here, to meet the special needs of that particular citizen, is an example. It is the Oath of Allegiance, which is one we will all be familiar with. The current form of the Oath of Allegiance is: “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” That is to be changed. This is priority legislation! As this Parliament moves to a dying close, Minister Goff has decided that this is important stuff, and we must get it through. We can abandon the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. If members watch the place of that bill on the Order Paper, they will see that it has slipped down to No. 15.

However, I was comparing the Oath of Allegiance to the proposed oath. It is interesting, and we are looking at the English version, which is helpful. I will not be dealing with the Māori version unless there is a proposal that I have extended time to speak in this debate. The proposed oath is: “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” Is that a really important change? Is it not something that some might say is not deserving of the priority?

That is why so many of us see in all this unnecessary legislation—[Interruption]; with the constant interruptions of Mr Goff—the stealthy march towards republicanism. We saw it when they scrapped the Privy Council. We saw it as Minister Goff, who will fail in this quest, sought to abolish Queen’s Counsel, and now we see it here. That is a tragedy, because Parliament should be focused on real things and real issues. As this Parliament runs down, what are we spending our time on? The Oaths Modernisation Bill. We are fiddling around with the Oaths and Declarations Act, which is, in fact, in really good order. The interesting thing that is also relevant is that the Government has decided not to deal with some of the more abstruse oaths. Maybe it has not discovered them. Maybe it does not know what its obligations are in respect of particular society sectors. We oppose this bill. Who on earth would support it?

Members will have been interested to hear from the shadow National Party spokesperson on justice, who has just resumed his seat—a man, of course, who sits at the lower end of the National Party shadow Cabinet. After that speech, it will be very clear why he is at No. 14, and bound to sink even further than that. The irony of Dr Richard Worth—a man who likes to use his title, which comes from a wānanga in a certain country other than this one; he did not quite qualify for the acceptance standards in this country, so he raced off to another one—complaining about an oath to the Queen is that no sooner had he sworn allegiance to Queen Elizabeth in this Chamber than he scuttled off across to Europe to find another monarch to pledge his allegiance to, in the form of the principality of Monaco. Of course, it was not enough for Dr Worth to be loyal to only one monarchy; he wanted to make sure that he could find another country that he could cosy up to in that regard.

The Minister of Justice introduced the Oaths Modernisation Bill by saying that it was needed to make sure that words that were redundant, that lacked clear meaning, or that were antiquated were changed, and I thought that he was giving a dissertation on the National Party manifesto for the current election. There could be no better example of words that are redundant, that lack clear meaning, or that are antiquated than the kind of flip-flop 1980s nonsense members get from that side of the House. Finally National has put out a policy position. It is very difficult to get a policy on tax, and it is very difficult to get a policy on education, but it is easy, it seems, to get a policy on oaths and allegiances. I thought so, except that on 18 February 2004, Dr Richard Worth, fresh from his holiday—no, actually on 18 February he still would have been on his holiday and this release would have been sent by remote Internet access from the principality of Monaco—put out a statement entitled “Oaths and affirmations: the march to republicanism”. It carries a photo of him from his graduation from Auckland University’s law school, circa 1967. Dr Worth stated: “The removal of old and archaic language from the wording of oaths and affirmations is one thing …”, but added that the removal of references to the Queen in such oaths was another.

In the bill presented by Mr Goff, how many oaths remove references to the Queen? One? Two? Three?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Not one.

Zero oaths remove any reference to the Queen. Furthermore, the Hon Phil Goff has made sure that it is very clear that we refer to the Queen of New Zealand. That is the very point, if one can bear to read further down Dr Worth’s media release, that Dr Worth makes when he states Mr Goff “needs to be reminded that she is not only the Head of the Commonwealth but Queen of New Zealand.”

💬 Hon Phil Goff: But didn’t he just say that was a change that wasn’t needed?

He has just said in his speech that that was a change that was not needed.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: He flip-flopped!

He has flip-flopped on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. The New Zealand National Party is now flip-flopping on the bill. This is an extraordinary development in New Zealand politics. It is an election year, and National cannot hold itself together even on these matters.

The Labour-Progressive Government has done all the things “Lord Worth” said we should do in the four paragraphs of the media release that he put out at the midpoint of his summer holidays on 18 February 2004. Yet he was forced to come down here tonight, after having been rolled by the conservatives in the National caucus like Simon Power, to oppose the bill. He himself said that we should be making it clear that Her Majesty is the head of the Commonwealth. Dr Worth had the audacity to start off by quoting the Hippocratic oath and talking about the 16th century—which was, I understand, the time of Dr Brash’s original dissertation. He mentioned the Hippocratic oath, and Lianne Dalziel pointed out that no one actually physically says it any more. No one verbalises that oath. So all National’s arguments were quite wrong. The arguments that it has used to attack the bill are wrong. The arguments that it has used to counter the arguments it originally put forward as its policy in the middle of its summer night’s dream in 2004 are wrong. The situation is an absolute farce.

For Dr Worth to criticise the Government for bringing this bill to Parliament to modernise the oaths and make it clear that the Queen is the head of New Zealand is a little bit ironic, given that he is the man who, when we debated the Civil Union Bill last year, put up 7 hours’ worth of amendments in the Committee stage. I am not allowed to refer to the absence of members from the House, so I will not, but I will say Dr Worth did not take the call on any one of the amendments during the 7 hours of voting that he put New Zealand through. I know Dr Worth is a man on the move in the National Party, because every week in the Independent newspaper he is quoted as the next deputy leader. Of course, in a caucus of 27 that does not say much. I know that he is a man on the move, and that is why he needs to get up in caucus every Tuesday and defend his position on these oaths. He cannot have the classical laissez-faire conservatives like Simon Power doing him over every Tuesday. Richard Worth is an endangered species in Parliament. The Labour Government is prepared, once it has passed this law, to try to protect him as well, because antiquated things like him have a role, maybe, after all.

Let me make it quite clear: New Zealand First will support the Oaths Modernisation Bill going to the select committee.

💬 Hon Members: Oh, no!

Yes. When we first saw this bill, we thought that if the Government were mucking around with the oaths, then the Queen would have no chance of surviving, and God help God. But they both survived. In many ways—and I have to agree with the honourable member—the Queen’s position in terms of her role has been strengthened, if I have read this correctly.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Absolutely. She’s enshrined in her present position.

We are grateful for that, because New Zealand First is a keen supporter of the monarchy, and we certainly believe in God. We think that by even introducing a bill like this, that position is strengthened for some time to come. The next thing will be to keep our flag, and we are working on that, too.

I have read all the current oaths and the proposed oaths—in the English version; I have not managed the Māori version, as yet—and to a very large extent I personally believe that this bill has simplified the oaths and made them clearer. I cannot readily find fault with any of the proposed oaths so, speaking personally, I cannot find anything particularly wrong with the Oaths Modernisation Bill. That is not to say that my colleagues totally agree with me, but by and large we are supportive of this bill going to a select committee.

When I am looking at the citizenship oath, I am reminded of the time I sat in a little TV studio a few years back with the honourable Lianne Dalziel, the Minister of Immigration as she was at that time. We were debating the issues of immigrants and people who come to this country and get citizenship. I, being a blown-away Englishman, outlined my concern about this country going down the same road that the English have gone down—that is, of providing legal access for people to go around wearing burkas and hiding their faces. That situation is occurring in the UK, to some degree of concern. But the Minister, as she was at that time, assured me, and she assured the people who were watching that TV station, that that was not occurring. I ask the member whether she remembers.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Some people’s appearances might be improved by wearing a burka.

And I might be one of them.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: No—I’m one of them.

Oh, the member is one of them! The point I am making is that that practice is creeping into this country. Yet I recall that Stephen Franks tabled a letter in this House a few months ago from the Land Transport Safety Authority, as it was at that time, stating that not many people have had their photograph taken for their photographic licence while wearing a burka.

I think the citizenship oath as it is now written strengthens New Zealand First’s case. The second part of the oath—stating allegiance to the Queen comes first—states: “I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God.” That will be replaced with the words: “I will be loyal to New Zealand, will obey the law, and will respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people. So help me God.”

The law in this country states that if a person is going for a photographic licence, that person does not cover his or her face. The law in this country is based on my having the right to see someone without anything covering his or her face, and that citizenship oath strengthens that. I can see that the honourable Lianne Dalziel feels a little bit uncomfortable, but it has strengthened the case—

💬 Lianne Dalziel: I haven’t heard you argue against the oppression of women for a long time. It’s great!

If it comes to women being forced to wear burkas and covering their faces at the demands of men, I will join that member any day of the week in arguing against that, and against various other things that some men in some countries compel women to do. My wife will tell members that I am a very fair-minded person when it comes to women. She says “Jump!”, and rather than say “How high?” I say, “Will you tell me when to come down?”.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Keep it clean!

I do not want to give members any ideas, because they might bump into my wife one day and give her a few clues on how I might react. I do not want that to occur.

💬 Darren Hughes: The microphone is live—

PETER BROWN:—and she might be the only listener!

We do not see the harm in this bill that the National Party does. I regret that that party sees it as harm. I do not share that view, at all. We think that the bill might need a bit of tidying up, but it is a move in the right direction.

We also ask why the bill is being brought in now, only so many weeks before an election, but I suppose there are reasons. If there are any concerns, though, New Zealand First will be back, much stronger than currently, and we will tidy them up then.

In closing, I want to correct the honourable member about the Hippocratic oath. It is now totally voluntary in this country. Some universities, I believe, do not have the Hippocratic oath, but it has been modernised immensely from what it once was, so it is not a good example—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: No, the member was wrong on everything he said.

The member was wrong in everything, I have to say.

New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee.

I want to take a very brief call to congratulate my colleague the Hon Phil Goff on introducing legislation that I think is overdue in many respects, but it is welcome indeed, and it will be welcomed by people who make submissions on it at the select committee.

I wrote to the Prime Minister about this subject a few years ago, because I had visited Australia and had seen the Australian oath on the wall. In fact, new Australians take a pledge of commitment now, and I want to read to the House the pledge of commitment that they take when they are becoming citizens: “From this time forward, under God, I pledge my 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.” I asked the Prime Minister to compare that with the existing oath, and Phil Goff has managed to combine the existing oath with modernised words that mean something to people who are becoming new citizens of this country.

I congratulate that Minister on finding the balance that most ordinary New Zealanders are looking for. They are looking for a reflection of the old oath that maintains that commitment and allegiance to the Queen. The bill maintains those aspects, and retains the element of making reference to God, obviously, if one is swearing the oath. It maintains all the elements of the old oath but, in addition, it modernises it and brings it up to date. I congratulate the Minister on a job well done, and I look forward to being on the select committee that reviews the detailed submissions I am sure we will receive.

National has chosen to vote against this bill for quite deliberate reasons. The circumstances in which this bill is now introduced are those where the Government has had a complete agenda culminating in the establishment of a special select committee on constitutionalism. National deliberately chose not to be part of that select committee, and there is a reason for our having done that.

💬 Stephen Franks: Why?

Mr Franks, who is on that select committee, knows the conspiratorial theories that are abounding there to drive New Zealand down the road of republicanism without the consent of New Zealanders.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Oh, nonsense!

That is the truth of it, and the Government—particularly Lianne Dalziel—hates hearing that fact.

I am disturbed, in fact, that New Zealand First has chosen to be duped by the Government with its plans. Those members stood out from that particular select committee, knowing full well that it had the intent of republicanism. So right now, when that select committee is deliberating and considering, what has the Government done? As part of its agenda, it has introduced a bill on oaths and declarations—ostensibly to modernise and to make a minor titivation, but really to condition and get New Zealanders used to change in their constitution and on the fundamentals. That is the truth of it.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.