Oaths Modernisation Bill

Tonight National will vote against the Oaths Modernisation Bill. We do so on three principal grounds. The first is that it is unnecessary, the second is that it is part of the Government’s surreptitious agenda, and the third is that it is designed to lull the public into accepting a process of incremental change. There is no compelling reason to change our oaths and affirmations. I will give an example of that. The explanatory note of the bill states that the Government is doing important things—so important that it intends to replace the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. That has huge significance, I imagine! Further, the Government intends to replace the word “divulging” with the word “disclosing”. It is extraordinary that the Government is spending hours of the House’s time to do something that is pointless and unnecessary.

Now, I know that the Government will say that the bill is just a modernisation bill and that the National Party is opposing it just because that is what that party does to Government measures, but our second reason for opposing the bill is also important. This bill is clearly part of the Government’s agenda of creeping republicanism. Government members know that—they know precisely that. Let us look at the record of creeping republicanism. First, this Government dropped the Privy Council and established the Supreme Court. I ask my colleagues whether a referendum was held on that.

Hon. Members: No!

There was no referendum. Second, this Government replaced photos of the Queen in our embassies and high commissions with photos of the Prime Minister. Third, it has made the change from the Governor-General taking the general salute at military parades to the Prime Minister taking the salute. Who else takes a salute? The person who usually does that is a president. That is the usual name for such a person. Fourth, the Government is changing the term “Queen’s Counsel” to the term “Senior Counsel”.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: You’re joking!

That is right. Fifth, the Government has abolished knighthoods. Finally, as part of the Government’s plot with the United Future party, the lapdog party that surreptitiously supports the Government whenever it can, the Government has created the Constitutional Arrangements Committee.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member that he cannot refer to members or parties in that way. The member will withdraw that remark.

Well, if anyone would take offence, I would withdraw that remark.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for the remark.

I withdraw and apologise.

At no stage has the Government set out its real agenda. It clearly does have one, and it is an agenda of republicanism. If we compare, for instance, former Prime Minister Jim Bolger with Prime Minister Helen Clark, we see that former Prime Minister Bolger was perfectly clear to the public of New Zealand about what he intended. He is a republican. He is proud of that, he put it clearly on the public record, and he wanted to have a debate on precisely that. When the current Government is challenged on the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic, its members say: “Oh, no. This is nothing to do with that. It may happen 50 years from now or something like that, but it is not part of our agenda.” That is the difference, is it not? On the one hand there was Jim Bolger, with the courage of his convictions, standing up and being willing to debate the issue with New Zealanders—he actually shifted people’s beliefs; the figures went up from 35 percent to 45 percent in favour of republicanism, simply because of his advocacy—but on the other hand it is clear that in contrast the current Government is moving towards republicanism secretly and covertly, and with the help of its ally and stooge, United Future. So we say that this Government has a surreptitious design, and that this bill is all part of that agenda.

Our third ground for opposing the bill is that the bill is intended to get people used to the idea of change, and to change to long-held traditions. There is no particular reason to do so, but the Government is doing it anyway simply to set the pattern of change, so that for each and every case—or at least, certainly in this kind of case—it can say the change is just a minor thing, and ask how anyone could object to it. Last night I heard Mr Goff say precisely that. But the purpose of the bill is quite different from its stated purpose. The purpose is designed to get people used to the idea of change. A few minutes ago I set out a pattern of behaviour. This bill conforms to that pattern of behaviour. The bill is, of itself, a device, a fiction, a transparency, and in fact it is so successful that the New Zealand First members—members of a party that actually supports the idea of New Zealand’s arrangements remaining as they are, unless there is a clear plan—have themselves been brainwashed. They are supporting this bill going to the select committee, so, unwittingly—and I acknowledge that it may be unwittingly—they themselves have embarked on allowing the process of creeping change, and of allowing small components of change at various points along the way.

I conclude by saying that I could respect the Government if the Prime Minister and others on the Labour benches came out with their agenda and were prepared to have an open discussion with the New Zealand public. But they are not prepared to do that. Instead, they are going through a process of conditioning and grooming that is intended to change the public mood. That is the real purpose of this bill. It is not to alter the wording of the oaths, but to encourage the idea of change. For that reason, National opposes the bill. We do not trust the Government. We have ample evidence as to why we should not trust the Prime Minister. Her statements in this House show an untrustworthy nature, and on that basis we say to New Zealand that this Government cannot be trusted with regard to these kinds of bills. The Government is trying to dupe the citizens of New Zealand. Therefore, this bill should be opposed.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We hear many rubbishy speeches in the House. Tonight we have heard a speech of real excellence, and I would like to say, on behalf of myself and of the member of Parliament for Invercargill, what a great speech we have heard.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows very well that that is not a point of order. I just warn him about points of order.

I first of all say that I agreed with Dr Cullen earlier on today when he said he could not guarantee that all Government spending was worthwhile, because it was hard to say that the money spent on the Opposition was money well spent. That was actually amply demonstrated by the member who preceded me, the member who praised Mr Bolger but was one of the colonels who led the coup against him.

💬 Hon Member: Shipley’s man.

Yes, Shipley’s man.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Very short-term memory.

Yes, very short-term memory. This debate is interesting. I support the bill—surprise, surprise. It is very interesting—

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Don’t ruin it, Mr Peck. It’s good stuff and you’re going to blow it.

No, I am not. I am going to quote the member’s own words back at him. I am going to remind that member what he challenged the Government to do.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Are you talking about Richard Worth?

This is Richard Worth, and it is before he became a doctor, by the way. Now that he is Dr Richard Worth, I am sure he stands by his words. This is what he said we must do: “We need to make our agenda clear in a review of the oaths and affirmations.” And this is what he wants us to do: he wants the removal of old and archaic language from the wording of the oaths and affirmations. We have done it in the bill. It is a very, very good bill. And he said: “We have to make sure we have references to the Queen.” We have done that, too. They are there. I say to the member that he said this about Mr Goff: “He needs to be reminded that the Queen is not only the head of the Commonwealth but Queen of New Zealand.” Well, we know that, too—check, check, check. It is a check, check, check bill. Three out of three ain’t bad!

💬 Hon Member: Meatloaf!

It is better than Meatloaf. So why is the member not supporting the bill? That is what I would ask him.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He should be.

He should be, but he has been rolled by Wayne Mapp. Wayne Mapp got him, despite the fact that we have Dr Richard Worth, Mr Wayne Mapp rolled him. I have to say to the member that he has to get a little bit fitter—I see him in the gym from time to time—so he can take on Dr Wayne Mapp, who is not that much of a specimen. He was defeated resoundingly by Phil Goff when he tried to get the Labour Party nomination for Mt Roskill. So, not being able to be a Labour Party politician, he did the next best thing—as far as he could see—and became a Tory.

This is a good bill and I support it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether the honourable member was referring to me, but his comments are a gross misrepresentation of my political career, which has been star-studded, as the member well knows.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that that was not a point of order.

The Green Party will be supporting the Oaths Modernisation Bill at its first reading so that it can be referred to a select committee. We are all in favour of having some of the archaic language in the various oaths modernised, as they have been in the proposed texts. It is good that the oaths now have a Māori version. However, we should not exaggerate the importance of oaths. In most cases, uttering an oath does not change people’s actual behaviour all that much. That fact has been recognised, in one respect, in the proposal to drop the teachers oath, which is no longer necessary.

Oaths have a use in marking the beginning of a person’s new responsibility and his or her dedication to it, such as when becoming a citizen of New Zealand, a lawyer, or even a member of Parliament. For an oath to have real effect, the person uttering it should feel as comfortable as possible with it so that it really means something. For years we had people utter a religious oath, even when many of them were atheists or agnostics. Now we at least have in the system affirmations for the non-religious, and those people can now feel truer to their pledge.

Unfortunately, the same principle has not been applied to the question of whether a pledge to the Queen should be included in the oath. The explanatory note of the bill states that among those who submitted to the review group, there was clear support in favour of retaining loyalty to the Queen in the oath. Of course, that support was not universal in the submissions. For a start, the republican movement opposed its retention. However, it is not how many of the limited number of submissions were for or against the retention of loyalty to the Queen in the oath that should count. If we apply the same principle that we have been applying to religion and religious belief—that of not wanting people to swear to something they do not believe in; like not swearing to a god if they are atheists—then we should not make republicans swear their loyalty to the Queen. It only demeans the oath. It devalues the oath when we all know that 35 percent, or more, of the population are republicans and another big chunk of New Zealanders do not really support the monarchy as an institution but cannot really see that this is the right time to make a big constitutional change in that respect.

So all those people who are not really for the monarchy will be reluctantly swearing an oath to Queen Elizabeth, a woman whose office they do not really believe in. To take “loyalty to the Queen” out of the oath is not to deny that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy. We just need to look at countries that have a similar constitutional situation, like Australia—particularly Australia—which is also a constitutional monarchy. That country has a new citizenship oath that does not mention the Queen. It reads as follows: “From this time forward 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.” There is no mention of the Queen. In other countries, new citizens pledge their loyalty to the State or the nation, or to its laws, its constitution, its people, or some combination of those. The United States, for example, is big on citizens pledging loyalty to its “constitution and laws”. In Ireland, a new citizen declares himself or herself to have “fidelity to the Irish nation and loyalty to the State”. In Jamaica, people pledge to “the constitution and the people of Jamaica”.

The Canadian Parliament has before it a bill that represents a compromise in terms of changing the oath away from being an oath to the monarch. It is proposed to remove the reference in the oath to the Queen’s “heirs and successors”. Unfortunately, that term is still in our oath. I think that the reference to “her heirs and successors” helps to get to the heart of the problem we have in keeping the monarchy as part of the oath, because it reminds us that the Queen is not our head of State as Queen of New Zealand because of any democratic procedure but because of an accident of birth—she was born into the right family. We as New Zealanders, under this constitutional arrangement, are stuck with her “heirs and successors”, because heredity rules in that respect.

From a republican perspective, and even other perspectives, this leads to an inbuilt contradiction in the new oaths proposed in this bill for the people of New Zealand, be it the new citizenship oath or in the Parliamentary Oath that we as members of Parliament have to swear. Under the new and, I believe, improved oath, I am supposed to swear that I as an MP will “be loyal to New Zealand and will respect its democratic values and the rights and freedoms of its people”, which I am happy to do. But as far as I am concerned, this makes the oath internally contradictory. How can I possibly pledge loyalty to democratic values and at the same time declare loyalty to the Queen as a head of State, whose selection process is a complete denial of democratic values? There is simply no democratic selection process for our head of State. Queen Elizabeth is there only because she is the daughter of a particular human being—George Windsor.

Democracy should also involve public accountability, and there is no democratic public accountability system for the Queen or any proper democratic means of dismissing her. She is there for life, as are her heirs and successors, without there being any means of removal. Of course, the existence of this contradiction in the oath does not mean that all Greens would object to swearing allegiance to the Queen. Not all Greens are republicans, and we do not have an official party policy on republicanism or the monarchy. But we could easily have an oath like Australia’s in order to get out of the problem of making people swear to something they do not believe in, and devaluing the oath accordingly.

As members may know, I have a member’s bill, the Head of State Referenda Bill, in the ballot. If that bill is selected and we have the appropriate referenda and the monarchy is dispensed with, then that would remove the contradiction in the oath, as clearly that would have to be removed from the oath.

The essence of oaths should primarily be a loyalty to the people, the nation, and the law of the country. That is why I quite like the Australian and Jamaican oaths. In this respect I am a little concerned about the proposed police oath and armed forces oath in the bill. The police oath should be focused on the police upholding the law, whereas the emphasis is on serving Her Majesty and the reference to the law is a little too indirect—that is, to “perform all the duties of the office of constable according to law.” The armed forces oath emphasises loyally obeying “all orders of Her (or His) Majesty, her (or his) heirs and successors, and of the officers set over me, …”. This is all about obeying orders, with no reference to loyalty to the people, nation, or laws of New Zealand, let alone to the “democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people.”, which is rightly in the citizenship oath and the Parliamentary Oath before us.

I think the select committee has a fair bit of work to do to remove the contradictions and the weaknesses in the oaths before us. We have made a step forward in the proposals, in getting away from some of the archaic language of the old English tradition, but I think we should have a simpler citizenship oath, along the lines of the Australian oath.

McCarthyism is alive and well in New Zealand. Who would have thought it? Instead of reds under the bed, we have republicans under the bed. National Party members are searching for them, anywhere they can find them. I listened on the radio to the speeches given last night. I must say that the quality of the speeches was reflected in the fact that there was a bit of slurring, indicating that well-lubricated speakers were making speeches on this bill.

I know that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has an important obligation to oppose anything the Government wants to do, but sometimes it goes to a ridiculous extent. I must say that the repetition I have been hearing, in speech after speech made by National Party members, shows the shallowness of their arguments in regard to this issue. Is there anything in this bill that we should be concerned about? United Future does not put it past the Government to be introducing PC changes, social engineering, and doing it underhandedly and surreptitiously. I looked at the words in the bill quite carefully, to see whether I could find anything there. I just cannot see it. There is nothing in these changes that could ever lead one to believe that somehow this is a big plot on the part of the Government to destroy the fabric of New Zealand society.

What objection can be taken to words like “I will be loyal to New Zealand.”, or I “will respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people.”? Yet somehow National does not want to see those new words added to the text. What is wrong with adding after the words “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” the words “Queen of New Zealand”? For 150 years effectively that has been the situation. Although our oaths refer just to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” I think it is quite appropriate, 150 years later, to recognise that when we are talking about the Queen we are talking about the Queen of New Zealand, when we have a Queen who is Queen of other countries as well. I think it is important that we make it clear to people who are taking oaths that effectively the Queen they are providing loyalty to is the Queen of this country, not of England or other countries in the Commonwealth. So what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with a phrase that states: “I will be a faithful and diligent Councillor.”? How do National members see any problem with that, in terms of some sort of hidden motivation? Instead of the words “well and truly serve Her Majesty” we have the words “faithfully and diligently”. That is only modernising the language. The citizenship oath states: “I will be loyal to New Zealand, … and will respect the democratic values …”. Is not that what National Party members stand for? Or are we led to believe that they believe that pledging loyalty to democratic values is some sort of sinister plot? We are changing the wording, to say “faithfully and impartially serve”, and referring to the “people of the realm of New Zealand” in the Governor-General’s Oath. Certainly that is what we should be doing.

The Judicial Oath now asks judges to say that they will “act fairly and impartially, and do right to all people, without fear or favour, affection or ill will, …”. What is wrong with that? What hidden motivations are there in an oath that states that our judges will pledge themselves to act fairly and impartially, without fear or favour, affection, or ill will? In fact, one could argue that that should have been in the Judicial Oath years ago, because that is certainly what New Zealand citizens expect of their judges.

So all we see is a modernisation of the language. There are no hidden agendas. There is a modernisation, and a consistency of language across the various oaths. The problem, it appears, is that National members would have us believe that they do not like change. They like the archaic language. Richard Worth, in particular, likes the archaic language. Why should we not keep language in modern society that people do not understand, instead of replacing it with something that people will readily understand!

It is the same sort of approach National members took when we were speaking on the Evidence Bill. When I spoke about the need for fundamental reforms in the criminal justice system, to bring it into a form more befitting modern society, they wanted to bury it in the past. They want to clutch to our 18th century system. I admit there were a lot of very positive 18th and 19th century reforms of British justice. But as our society has changed over the years, it is important that we reflect on that and ask: “Is it the best system that we have?”, and that we are bold enough to make changes.

The problem with National Party members is that they are so fixated in their historical perspective, they do not want change, they are scared of change. They are scared of looking at and improving the system we have had, to make it far more acceptable to New Zealanders.

I welcome also in this bill the fact that we are to have te reo text. Māori is an official language in New Zealand. The language is unique to New Zealand, despite also sharing similarities with languages of Pacific Islands as far as Rapanui. But we need to be proud of the Māori language. I think it is very important to have in an Act of Parliament oaths that are in te reo and that are the official version of those oaths. We do not then depend on somebody who wants to speak te reo making his or her own interpretation and Māori version of the oath. It is important that there is consistency and that in so far as we want to promote and endorse te reo, and increase its usage and recognition in New Zealand, it is important we make provision for that. That is what this bill does. It is a very welcome move.

I find that the opposition to this bill is far-fetched, to the point of being ridiculous. Trying to find republicans under the bed, in this McCarthyism that I see happening in National’s vain attempt to try to make some sort of logical opposition to this bill—simply because it has a duty to oppose anything the Government does—is being taken to poor extremes. United Future is very happy with the changes that have been made. We are quite happy to support them. We are not lapdogs. We are guide dogs.

I am very pleased to take a call on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. I think that the speaker who has just resumed his seat has totally lost the point. It is all very well for him to stand and say that United Future members are not lapdogs; he should say that to the country. Where are that member and his party registering in the polls? In the zone where people see that party as the lapdog of the Government. So he should think about that.

I do find, though, that I am in total agreement with my colleague the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp, of course. This bill is totally unnecessary. The speaker before me started to go through the various oaths, and asked what on earth can be wrong with this, that, and the other. I ask him what the point is. Why do we need to say Queen of New Zealand, when all New Zealanders know that she is the Queen of England? Formally she might be the Queen of New Zealand, but we do not think of her as that. She is the Queen of England. Māori people, more than anybody, understand that notion. It was the Queen of England whom we signed the Treaty of Waitangi with, and it is still the Queen of England whom we look to if we think we can get some redress from her.

The United Future member can go through all those particular rights that are set out in the bill and ask what the harm is in them, but we ask what their point is.

That brings me to the points that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp raised. First of all, these changes are totally unnecessary. They do not add to, or detract from, anything. There is ultimate meaning in the oaths as they are. There is absolutely no need to change them. New Zealanders will not feel any more or less committed—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Most people out there are crying out for it!

I have to disagree with my colleague Maurice Williamson. I do not think New Zealanders are crying out for the oaths to be changed. By and large, most New Zealanders rely on tradition. There is nothing like tradition to provide stability in a democracy. Again, Māori certainly realise that. I cannot say that for anyone else, because I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but I certainly know what it is that Māori deem important. Tradition is totally important, and tradition is vitally important in oaths and allegiances. So there is the fact that this change is totally unnecessary.

The second issue is that this legislation is part of the Government’s agenda for creeping republicanism. I agree with Dr Wayne Mapp—again—when he says that at least Jim Bolger, an avowed republican, put republicanism on the table in 1995. He did so, much to the unhappiness of a lot of National Party members; he put it on the table and said that one day we must start debating the issue. That was the right thing to do. Mark Peck is absolutely wrong when he says that it is not the right thing to do—that the point of the process is not to put the issue on the table. It absolutely is the point. These things must be put on the table. They must be discussed by New Zealanders, not just by a coterie of Labour Party left-wing socialist people who have their own little discussions in their own little rooms and decide that New Zealand will go down the path of republicanism, and that they do not need to tell the public of New Zealand. That is the difference between Labour and this side of the House. We have put things on the table. We recognise when it is the right of New Zealanders to discuss these things—unlike the Government, which, as a typical socialist Government, thinks it knows best.

The third point is that, as my colleague said, this bill has been put forward to condition the people to, and groom them for, the idea of republicanism. I have to agree with him totally—absolutely.

💬 Stephen Franks: They are like paedophiles—they groom.

Gosh! I am not going to say that, but there is more than a hint of grooming in this bill. Why would the Government put it forward unless for the purpose of lulling New Zealanders into a sense that it is OK and that they will go along with it? I warn New Zealanders who may be listening tonight that if they give this Government a third term—[Interruption] They are all listening; they love listening to this House. I warn them that if this Government gets a third term, we will be on the pathway to republicanism. This Government—given its conduct in abolishing reference to the Privy Council, and abolishing Queen’s Counsel, knighthoods, and so on—will put us on that pathway because it thinks it has a God-given right to do such things without having the public of New Zealand behind it.

The Government thinks this is a discreet little bill, but, funnily enough, it could be the Government’s undoing. It could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is PC nonsense. What Māori person out there said: “We need you to make sure there are translations of the oath.”? Who said that? Who asked for it?

💬 Stephen Franks: Tame Iti!

No, Tame Iti would not do that. Who asked for it? What Māori person asked for it? Nobody asked for it. Was Tariana Turia—whom I know members opposite love to hear us talk about—debarred from taking the oath in Māori when she was sworn in? I do not think so. Was she? [Interruption] I do not think so, either. And since her taking the oath in 1996, a number of Māori have walked up to the Speaker’s Chair and taken the oath in Māori. So what is the purpose of this PC nonsense? Māori is an official language of New Zealand. [Interruption] Steve Chadwick and Ruth Dyson should listen to this.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Georgina!

Steve Chadwick—a good Māori name, from Tūwharetoa and the Hawke’s Bay. Māori is an official language of New Zealand. We do not need to state in legislation that Tariana Turia can now take the oath in Māori. What a lot of rubbish!

I agree with my colleague totally, for those three reasons. The bill is totally unnecessary. [Interruption] I hear Mr Jim Peters commenting. Does that mean New Zealand First will vote against this bill, too? I know that New Zealand First likes tradition, too. Winston Peters is a traditionalist, so I hope New Zealand First will vote against this bill, as well. Tradition gives consistency and stability. Bringing things up to date? What a lot of nonsense! The meaning is not changed whatsoever. Bowing to Māori? Does the Government think it will hold the Māori seats with this? If so, it can think again, because it will not. It should think on that.

I feel thoroughly inspired after that ringing speech. One does not often come to the House not knowing which way one is going to vote, deciding instead to listen to the quality of the arguments before making up one’s mind. On this bill, I think I will have to leave everyone hanging on my decision.

I will just run through some of the arguments as they appeared. The first thing that struck me is that one simply cannot imagine what possible purpose is served by putting this bill forward. Of all the issues facing New Zealand—of all the matters for which we could use the $80,000 an hour or so that it takes to run this place—we occupy ourselves by replacing the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully” in the oath of the Auditor-General. That is an odd one. Come to think of it, what does the Government mean by taking an “honest” Auditor-General and making him a “faithful” Auditor-General?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It sounds like a lapdog.

I think it sounds like lapdog language. I wonder whether United Future had something to do with that change. One can quite easily be an honest Auditor-General, but to be a faithful Auditor-General one has to be faithful to someone. Faithful to whom? It is a bit of a worry. At first I thought the change was quite innocuous, but now that I look at those words and try to work out what it could mean to use parliamentary time at $80,000 an hour for however many hours it takes to change “honestly” for “faithfully”, I am not so sure. That same change has been carried through to the oath for the environment commissioners. At the moment the environment commissioners have to carry out their duties “honestly”. In future they will have to carry out their duties “faithfully”. [Interruption] It does seem a little sinister, yes.

Another change—and I think it was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who drew this to the House’s attention—is the attempt to curry favour through political correctness by including all these oaths in another official language. I do not know whether members are aware that we are about to have yet another official language inflicted on us. Mouldering in the Justice and Electoral Committee is a bill to make New Zealand Sign Language another official language. Just imagine! How does one take an oath in Sign Language? Who can tell whether one is doing so honestly? I am disappointed in the Government that it does these politically correct things but has given no indication of how one takes an oath in sign language. I am quite sure that if one official language has an oath, then those who use another official language have every right to demand an oath in their language too, whatever it is.

I come back to possibly a slightly more significant point. For us to replace the words “fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen” with the words “respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people” is not innocuous. That is a significant change. When one fulfils one’s duties as a New Zealand citizen, it is perhaps reasonably straightforward to understand that there is a duty to obey the law. There is a duty to turn up for military service, if a law is passed to say that one must. There is a duty to assist the police if called upon, although they so rarely call upon citizens these days. But what does it mean to “respect the democratic values of New Zealand”? I can respect the Catholic church but still decide to pay absolutely no regard to its teachings. I can respect it as a religion, but that does not mean I have fulfilled the duties laid down on Catholics. I think that this is a deliberate attempt to take away what is currently a duty and replace it with words that mean nothing. The Government is disguising that. That oath is a citizenship oath. It is the oath that states to immigrants that they should recognise that they are changing their allegiance and changing the persons to whom they owe duties. Instead, we are taking that concept out of our oath and replacing it with the weasel word “respect”.

I also have a lot of curiosity about what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Let us assume that an immigrant—some poor refugee—has come here from North Korea, and that he wants to know what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Well, the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are, according to Helen Clark, whatever she says they are. That will feel pretty familiar to a refugee from North Korea and to someone who has come from Iraq. Those people will be familiar with countries where the rights and freedoms of the people depend on the ruler from time to time. Why do we not have something that swears to uphold the freedoms we have inherited—the freedoms under the law as it stands at the time—not the rights and freedoms that this Government decides to leave to New Zealanders? We see in almost every Act that this Parliament passes a further erosion or removal of rights and freedoms. The oath is meaningless as it stands, and it has done virtually nothing to increase what it should be increasing, which is the obligation taken on by immigrants. That is the third point.

Why are we tinkering with the words of oaths when this Government does not bother to enforce the obligations that they are intended to create? How many prosecutions are there for perjury these days? How often do we find that someone who has sworn a false oath, borne false witness, or lied on oath has paid a heavy price? The ACT party has had a consistent policy for as long as I have been in this Parliament that it would make the penalties for suborning justice—lying on oath—as severe as the penalties the person has tried to avoid by lying. One of the bills that is waiting on the Order Paper while this drivel is being brought forward tinkers with the penalties for perverting the course of justice. Possibly it will not even get through before the Government decides to call an election. Meanwhile, we are wasting the time of this House in dealing with the form of the oaths without looking at the substance of them. The House should really be considering the consequences of lying by people in official positions, or in positions where they have promised not to lie. I can see why this Government may be a little sensitive about cranking up penalties for lying. It is quite a sensitive issue.

💬 Peter Brown: Tell us about it.

I will not go into that. Others in the House have put plenty of time into it. But I certainly cannot understand why we have an entire bill devoted to the wording of oaths without a word about the consequences of making false oaths. Nothing in this bill states what would happen to an immigrant who, for example, swore a false oath to uphold the democratic values of New Zealand. For example, do the democratic values of New Zealand include the right to maintain allegiance to another power? Many countries in their citizenship oath ask people to make their primary duty to the new country. Some require people to swear that the country is their only allegiance and to give up other allegiances.

💬 Peter Brown: I agree with that.

I say to Peter Brown that I do, too. I certainly believe that when people come to New Zealand and want the privilege of citizenship, then they have to recognise that they become New Zealanders and that New Zealand must be their primary allegiance. There should be none of this monkeying around. I do not know why the Government does not require immigrants to become citizens before they can vote. We treat our citizenship so lightly and cheaply. The Government is prepared to spend the time of this House on tinkering with words to make them more confusing and more vague, and it does not want to look at the substance of the obligations that the words are supposed to create.

I have mentioned the replacement of the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. I am concerned too that nothing in the bill explains just when an obligation is imposed by oath, or why we choose to require oaths for some offices and not for others. For example, the medical profession in this country is laden down with gatekeeper roles. It is given all sorts of responsibilities that can mean a yes or a no to the eligibility of people to get treatments, to get benefits, to stay at home to work, or to get out of trouble. Yet, as I understand it, we have nothing that doctors have to swear to when they accept and get those high privileges, or that onerous duty. Why do we have an oath for special constables when we do not have one for other people, such as doctors? I thank members for their attention.

I come from, I guess, a more moderate view. I truly and openly declare that I believe that the nation will become a republic over time. I am very happy to admit that I think that while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, we should pay the true homage we owe to her. She has been a great lady, and I have no intention of rarking up that debate while she is on the throne. But her time will come to an end, as it does for us all.

It is at that point that I think New Zealanders will turn very quickly to saying that they do not want the firstborn male of a woman from a nation on the other side of the world, which bears no resemblance to our Kiwi nation, to be their head of State. That is my view. I think we will find another way. There is a lot of debate about whether we will have an elected, appointed, or—in the case of Helen Clark—self-appointed president of the nation, but, in the end, I am very happy to say that a New Zealand republic will be the case.

We may need to look at changing some of the wording of oaths, because currently we refer to “Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors,” and, of course, that would change if it became “His”. I am sure that a lot of feminists, especially those on the Labour side of the House, must find it galling to think that three or four daughters in a row could be born and not one of them would qualify, but that, suddenly, if a bloke is born, he is in. I agree with the feminists. I think it is just a nuts system; it is part of an anachronism from the past.

I ask the members of this House, and I ask them to answer me honestly, how many people stop them in the street, run after them, chase them, try to grab the hem of their garments, and say to them: “Mr Williamson!”—or whatever their particular name and electorate is, such as Mr Gallagher from Hamilton West—“You’ve got to change the Oaths and Declarations Act of 1957!”. Honestly? How many times have they had to run through a supermarket door and hide out in the meat section while the crowds gather, demanding that they give them an answer on the Oaths and Declarations Act? There has been not a mutter, not a murmur, and not a whisper from a single member in this Chamber. That is because the general public do not care. This is irrelevant.

If this is the biggest issue this Parliament has to deal with, we should just prorogue it tonight—close it down, shut it up, and walk. Because there are things about delivery of health care, and delivery of education—

💬 Jill Pettis: I had someone from the JPs association saying this was good.

I want to tell the listening audience out there—and I am still talking to my devoted drive time audience in Auckland, because it is only 10 past 9 and they will still be working their way home, because of the roading system—that Jill Pettis, the member for Whanganui heard from one person. So we now know how Labour sets its priorities—according to whether the senior Government whip gets a call from one person. Here is my challenge to all the Whanganui listeners tonight: “Call Jill Pettis with whatever your favourite issue is, and you’ll have a bill in Parliament in no time, because one person in Whanganui is the only person”—[Interruption] Jill Pettis is the only taker I have had from this entire House tonight. I ask members to look at all those other Labour members. They are sitting over there embarrassed beyond belief that this House’s time is being taken up with a pathetic piece of legislation—

💬 Jill Pettis: Sit down, you’ve finished.

No, no, I will not sit down. Jill Pettis wants me to sit down. Actually, is not Wednesday night that member’s night for elocution lessons?

💬 Jill Pettis: It is, but I finished early.

Well, she should be at those lessons. She desperately needs to pick them up.

I want to say that what we have has served us well. One day it will change, but it will change when we have quite a constitutional shift in the head of State, and there is a long, long way to go before we get there—a long, long way. I am happy to can this debate now. I would sit down—take my chair right now—if the senior Government whip would say that we will move to one of the other items on the Order Paper.

Let us look at the Order Paper and see what we think would be something worth debating. Let my colleagues help me on this. Goodness me, when I look at the Order Paper I do not see very much worth moving to.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: No. 19!

No. 19 is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. No, I do not think so. My colleague Richard Worth is from Epsom, where trout is a big issue, but most of us do not “trout on” as much as he does on these matters. I thought he would have pulled up the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill quite quickly. In fact, this whole Order Paper looks full of rubbish—absolute rubbish. But I want to make this clear to just the few people left with their crystal sets tuned in. We are sitting here going through a bill that is to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.

💬 Steve Chadwick: It is called tidying things up.

Oh, well, now Steve Chadwick has just leapt into the fray!

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Who was that?

That was the member for—

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Taupo?

No.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Well, wanting to be the member for Taupo?

Well, whatever—I think she is a list MP. But her name is “Steve”. It is a “boy called Steve”, and she says: “We’re wanting to tidy things up.” This is the tidy-mind syndrome. Do not members just love it? I can tell members that down at the Prospect pub in Howick every night, everybody is saying: “Do you know what the Government has to do? It has to get in and tidy up the Oaths and Declarations Act because I am sick of how messy it is. Every time I go home at night after a few beers, the missus and I sit down and we read through that Oaths and Declarations Act, and we do not know what it means.” So Steve Chadwick has the affront and the gall—[Interruption] We know that Jill Pettis had one person front her.

💬 Jill Pettis: He was a Tory!

OK, even Tories can get things wrong, and whoever this one person was he got it wrong. Steve Chadwick will always be a list MP if she is going to go out there with a tidy-mind syndrome about tidying up an Act that has no relevance and is of no value at all.

I looked through the clauses, and, to be quite frank, I do not think the average Kiwi five-eighth punters out in television land, after reading some of this stuff—especially when they get to each clause and look at the Māori form of it—will have a clue. I mean, how bad does political correctness have to get with some of this stuff? The one thing I find just amazing is our passports. Guess what we did with our passports some years ago? We made one whole page, opposite the English page, in Māori. Here is a question for members. Where does one use a passport? The answer is everywhere overseas—everywhere. So I thought, right! When I arrived at Kai Tak Airport I went straight up to the little Chinaman there and said: “Excuse me, pal, how fluent are you in te reo?”. He looked at me and said: “We’ll put you in jail if you speak to us like that.” He did not have a clue what it was. We have this political correctness. Although I think the Māori language should be honoured in certain locations, and in certain forms, a passport is not it.

It is a little bit like the two-page advertisement I saw for the new Commissioner of Inland Revenue. There was one whole page in English and one whole page in Māori. If a person can be skilled enough, talented enough, and qualified enough to be the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, but cannot speak English, that person should not be getting the job no matter how good he or she is. I know that the Government has even had to wheel the interpreter in here so he can pick up on some of this. But I say to him: “Rest easy, you will not need it.” With every one of these oaths and declarations, and so on, we have gone to lunatic lengths.

This bill will be seen by the public as political correctness gone mad. That is coming from someone who truly believes that one day this nation will be a republic. But it will not be a republic under terms and conditions of the feminist hard-core left socialists who have decided that it will be their view and nobody else’s—and no list member called “Steve” is ever going to tell me that a tidy-mind syndrome is how we should run the Government of this nation.

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee