Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Go Obama! I am sorry. I move, That the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

I came here tonight thinking that all the stars are aligned. Earlier today we got a bill in my name to restore land to the people of Tauranga Moana, Ngā Pōtiki. Yay-ya! Just not long ago I would have been out watching Barack Obama coming to the fore to talk to the people. I knew I would then come to this House to talk about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and for members of this House to make an affirmation about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and affirm a commitment to that document, but it may not all pan out—it may not all pan out.

This bill, I think, is an extremely important bill. For the whole of the country listening in tonight—at least those who are not looking at Barack Obama—at least let me tell them what this important bill is all about. This bill in my name will provide the means by which any “person taking any oath set out in statute may, in addition to the words of the oath, elect to state that they will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi.” The bill will insert the optional additional words: “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi”; or … Ka whakaūngia e au te Tiriti o Waitangi.”, across a range of oaths and affirmations.

These simple statements on their own reflect a much broader principle. The principle is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document and the Government is committed to fulfilling its obligations as a Treaty partner. So the question tonight that this bill might provoke is: how committed are the political parties around this Chamber to a vision of this nation in which Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides us with the basis for living together and creating a positive future?

As some background, 10 years ago, in August 2002, Queen Elizabeth gave a Speech from the Throne. She stated: “The basis of constitutional government in this country is to be found in its founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.” The Māori Party considers that our collective commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi as this nation’s founding document should be expressed in all oaths and declarations included within the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. We did think that the National Party shared the same commitment. Indeed, right up front in the opening paragraphs of the relationship accord we signed in December 2011 is the statement: “The National Party and the Māori Party will act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi.”

The Treaty is our country’s founding document. The key political question between signing the accord a year ago and this bill today is: what has happened to cause the National Party to back down from what was considered to be a statement of honour, a statement of promise for our nationhood?

💬 Brendan Horan: Well, you would get into bed with them.

We will come back to you. I could expect it from a party like New Zealand First, because it does not believe in things like New Zealand Māori teams, even though one of its family members might be the head of the New Zealand Māori Rugby Board. I could expect it. And I could expect, in a sense, reflecting on the Prime Minister’s actions at the very start of getting together, that he gave the invitation to the Māori Party to join this agreement. So I ask myself what is going to happen. Let us just take a look at simple things.

Ultimately, our bill is to enable all New Zealanders a simple choice to express a commitment if they wish—a simple choice—to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I have got to ask myself: what is the problem? What is the problem? To express this commitment, clause 5 introduces new section 4B into the principal Act, which will allow for any person taking an oath under any statute to elect, in addition to the words of the oath, to state that they will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi.

I want to make the point quite clearly that this is an avenue for New Zealand to elect to take up. There is no compulsion. It is entirely up to each individual. If there are 121 members coming into the Parliament of this land at the next election and if one took it up, surely it is a matter of choice, an ability to make an affirmation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is entirely up to each individual to decide whether they want to elect to take up that commitment or not.

I want to return to my opening statement about the significance of this bill. It is our view that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the cornerstone of the constitution of Aotearoa. We believe that central to our maturing as a nation is a need to increase New Zealanders’ exposure to, and acquisition of, sound knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the history of our nation. So it is perfect timing—almost, almost a three-peat—today that this bill is going through the House at exactly the same time as a nationwide conversation is occurring about the country’s constitutional arrangements. That deal was a part of our relationship accord with the National Party. Again, I ask the question: what is the problem?

This is a conversation being spearheaded by the Constitutional Advisory Panel, which is one of the key milestones anticipated in the last term of Parliament, and is a central gain in the relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party. Again the question must be asked: what has happened over the last 12 months to cause the National Party to rethink its enthusiasm for encouraging all New Zealanders to think about our national identity, and, in particular, the crucial role that Te Tiriti o Waitangi plays in our history and our future?

As we speak right now, we know that the Constitutional Advisory Panel, chaired by Sir Tīpene O’Regan and Emeritus Professor John Burrows, is in a full-steam engagement strategy with a wide range of New Zealanders. In the conversation so far, on a document that the Constitutional Advisory Panel has been consulting on, it has concluded that the Treaty’s accepted position as the founding document in New Zealand is the result of decades of back and forth between the iwi and the Crown. The panel goes further and makes reference to New Zealand’s Government statement of support for the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which sets out a strong preference to the influence of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In that statement, the Government acknowledged that Māori hold a distinct and special relationship as the indigenous people of New Zealand, reaffirming the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi as a unique feature of indigenous rights in New Zealand. So the stage has truly been set for this bill. Indeed, we had a youth forum a couple of months ago. Therefore, I am looking forward to hearing some of the discussion. The time could never be better for exploring all the possibilities for New Zealanders to pledge allegiance to the Treaty. We see the Treaty, as I say, as a fundamental basis of our identity, not only as Māori but as a nation. People who hold public office should not, from our perspective, be deprived of recognising that.

Today in this first reading I am conscious that we in the Māori Party have finally achieved a goal that we have been pursuing for the last 8 years at least. The Māori Party is also proud that we were the first party to take the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance in te reo rangatira. On 27 July 2004 Tariana Turia was sworn in as an MP for Te Tai Hauāuru and as co-leader of the Māori Party. This is now an established part of parliamentary protocol.

Two years on—19 July—Dr Sharples signalled that the Māori Party would introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi in oaths and affirmations. That Supplementary Order Paper has now turned into a fully fledged member’s bill. What it does is create an avenue for New Zealanders to declare an allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our founding document. I will repeat that it is about a choice to honour the Treaty, to provide people with the mechanism by which they can testify their beliefs in our constitutional framework.

The Treaty was never about division. It is about establishing a foundation for unity and diversity—hence Governor Hobson’s statement: “He iwi kotahi tātou.” We are greatly disappointed that some parties lack the courage or the commitment to come together, united in our nationhood. We want to acknowledge all of those parties that do share a vision in which we can see the value of the Treaty and adding value to building unity in a diverse nation, helping us to acknowledge our shared past and move forward to the future. I look forward to the kōrero tonight, to see exactly where everyone sits, and the opportunity to respond at the end. It is under those conditions that I commend this bill to the House.

I am torn about this bill, the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. I support absolutely and totally the thoughts, the words, and the emotion of what my colleague has put before the House. Unfortunately, the whipping system says that I cannot vote for his bill. I want to say—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: We don’t need to hear from you, then.

Well, actually you might not want to hear from me, but I tell you what. You had better listen, and it is for this reason. We had an opportunity to say to the world that we were different from every other nation in the world. By not doing what my colleague has suggested, even by putting it into the select committee, that says to the rest of the world one thing and only one thing—that we are just the same as Canada, that we are just the same as Australia, that we are just the same as the United Kingdom, and all the other colonial, conquering nations around the world.

I do not want to go over the old history of who fought whom, and who won, and who lost. But at the end of the day, this country had an opportunity, this House of Representatives had an opportunity, to say to the world: “Yes, there are different cultures. Yes, there are different people in our nation.” We could have said to the world that if you wanted to—not that we are going to make you, but if you wanted to—you could have sworn your allegiance on the Treaty of Waitangi.

It is a bit more personal to me than some of my colleagues across the House think it is. It was 70-odd, 80-odd years ago that my great-grandfather stood in this House and espoused the same sorts of issues that my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has spoken about tonight. So it is with a heavy heart that I have to inform my brother, taku tuakana, that I will be voting against this bill. I will be voting against a bill that I think is non-violent, it does not threaten anybody, and it does not tell anybody what to do. I will be voting against a bill that gives the opportunity for New Zealanders to be able to feel unique in the world.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Cross the floor.

Yeah, I would like to cross the floor. But if we have that sort of scenario going on all the time, then you do not get stable government, unfortunately. Like I said, it is with a heavy heart that I inform my mate that I will not be voting for this bill.

Two weeks ago I was in front of some other members of Parliament from around the world, up in Quebec, where I spoke about indigenous peoples’ rights, and indigenous people and their culture and their language. If this country does not have a shared vision, does not have a shared goal, then none of us, none of our mokopuna, none of our kids yet to come, can share in the spoils of that shared vision. We are always going to be on one side of the fence, and somebody else is going to be on the other side of the fence, and we are always going to be arguing about what our vision, what our shared vision, should be. We should at least have taken the opportunity tonight to send this bill to a select committee where we could have heard some of the arguments. In fact, I will be out there and say that sometimes I think all members’ bills should go directly to a select committee, but that would be a bit of a hard call. It would be a bit messy.

I will be voting against this bill for one reason, and one reason only, and that is the system that we have. I know my colleagues across the House, and especially in the Labour Party, if they were in our shoes and they were voting against a bill, it would work out the same. This is not about me having more morals or principles than the other side. It is actually just a matter of following what the process is. People get whipped and people follow their whip.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Good on you for owning up.

Absolutely! I own up to it. I do not like it, but I signed up for the National Party knowing full well that I might have to vote for something that I did not like. I think a lot of people around this House have that conundrum as well.

💬 Kris Faafoi: You more often than not.

Oh, no, not really; not really. When it comes to matters of this magnitude, when we are talking about the soul and the humanity of our nation, then not really. I am yet to meet a member of Parliament who does not feel like me when we are discussing issues of this nature. I want to say sorry to my colleague, my erstwhile colleague, on the Māori Affairs Committee and to the Māori Party as well.

This bill is not some sort of procedural motion that we are talking about. We are not talking about some minor procedural motion. We are talking about something that goes to the heart of the identification of this country. Walk the streets of any other country in the world and ask other people: “Where do you think I come from?”. They might say England, they might say Australia, they might say Canada, or they might say the best parts of America. But I bet you my last dollar that without too much thinking, they would not be able to say New Zealand. Why? Because we do not have an identifier. We do not have an identifier that puts the nation out there. I am not talking about only Māori. I love the fact that my ancestors fought each other for this land, and both of them won. I love the fact that this country should be patting itself on the back, in terms of its treatment of indigenous people. OK, we have got a long way to go. You shrug your shoulders, but look around the world and see how far we have come as a nation. And we have come far—we have come far. I do not mind getting up and patting myself on the back, and patting this nation on the back. Of course we have got issues—every nation has got issues—but, boy, I feel glad that I live in this country where I can send my kids to a total immersion school, and where I can get up and speak my own language in the House of Representatives. There are three languages in the House of Representatives. What a great democracy. What a great place. And we could have gone just that little bit further tonight by saying that if you want to, you could swear allegiance not only to the Queen, not only to the nation, but also to the founding document of our nation, the Treaty of Waitangi. Kia ora.

E mihi kau ana ki a koe mō tērā kōrero e te whanaunga, e Tau. E rekareka atu ki te rongo i te taumahatanga. E Te Ururoa, tēnā koe. Tēnā koe mō tō kaha ki te whai atu ā muri i te kawenata mō tātou mai i Aotearoa.

[To the relative Tau, I acknowledge you for that statement. It was really pleasing to hear how serious it is for you. Well done, Te Ururoa. Your efforts to follow this up as an agreement for us here in New Zealand are appreciated.]

I have 5 minutes. I could talk for 5 hours on this matter; it is something dear to my heart. I revel, having just come back from Australia and seeing indigenous people who struggle and do not have the base—and I can accept some of the things that my learned friend Tau Henare has just finished saying—but we can do better. This is a real test for this country. It is fascinating that we preach nationhood, but we dare not play the full game, and that we do the haka as the All Blacks and we will play that game, but we will not dare let the indigenous people have their say.

I want to commend Ururoa Flavell for this bill, the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill, and for recognising that it is something that is dear to our people’s hearts—the tangata whenua of this land. It was 172 years ago when the ancestors of people in this room promised unification, promised nationhood, promised joining together, promised a better life and rights recognised. What a whole lot of teka; that is what is was. And then we get to this stage, and there is no compulsion in this bill.

This is not like these new ideas that he has on the warrant of fitness. It is not like a whole lot of stuff that is coming out of the Government benches. There is no compulsion in this; it is choice. We have gone so crazy that we want to even deny choice. That is really out of the fear of the unknown. When people do not know about certain things, they play the best card that they have inherited. I think it comes through their genes—that we have been conquered and things have happened in the past—but you have to have a smarter brain to recognise that internationally indigeneity has a real place in people’s hearts, and that in this country it is growing, because of not just the tangata whenua but also the rest of the cultures that we have mixing into our nationality.

It is fascinating that I am seeing a real rev up by this Government and other organisations taking trade visits overseas and using Māori as the front end to that. Whether it is to sing a song or throw a taiaha around, they are using it. So you cannot deny, even in the macro, in the economic sense, that Māori are starting to utilise their assets better. I really wonder why some people are struggling to support this simple and decent bill. It is the way forward. It is about nationhood. It is not just about standing under the Union Jack, because that stance was forced upon us by other people. We recognise all of that, and we have taken the benefit out of it.

We will be supporting this bill, and it is certainly important to say that, because at the end of the day there are some things that politicians should learn—that they do not use their vote because it may make the majority happy and vote for them. If you want to live in a decent society, if you want our children to revel in and understand what nationhood means, then surely to goodness, simple support for this non-compulsory bill is something that could happen.

Māori are great people. It has been 172 years since the Treaty was signed. It is fixed in other areas. We have a Treaty commission. We have a Treaty process, and we are resurrecting and putting right what was wrong. Why cannot we have this bill recognised because it is about choice? A lot of Māoris go to the churches that they never knew anything about. They swear on the Bible, because they believe it is good for them. Somebody else taught them that. This is a learning curve and a teaching curve for the rest of the nation who want to stick their heads in the sand. I do feel sorry for people like Tau Henare, who really should follow his great-grandfather’s efforts, and I would suggest to you that it would be good to cross the floor and vote in favour—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.

I am pleased to rise and offer a contribution in the debate on the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill in this first reading. I want to start by acknowledging my parliamentary colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for bringing this bill to the House. Earlier today he successfully—unanimously, actually—had a bill passed in this House, so I do want to acknowledge his efforts.

I want to say, though, that one of the reasons that National will not be supporting the bill today is that I believe in this instance the Māori Party has the cart before the horse. I want to explain that, because there has been a conversation tonight about this being about national identity. Well, the appropriate place for a conversation around national identity is with each and every New Zealander, and that is a conversation we are having as a result of the partnership with the Māori Party, with the constitutional review. The place of the Treaty of Waitangi is a key part of the constitutional review. So I think it is appropriate that we do not jump ahead too quickly in this instance. I know that this idea seems like quite a simple idea, a simple fix to a problem, but actually it is a much broader conversation around our national identity and around the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our overall constitution. That is not something that should be rushed.

I recently spoke in Australia—I jointly presented with Charles Chauvel—on the constitutional review that we are undertaking. It is so, so important that New Zealanders engage in this conversation and that we do it properly and we do it fully. So the aspect of the constitution is the first sort of area where this bill creates some problems. I am somewhat frustrated at the suggestion that the National Party choosing not to support this bill indicates a wider issue in terms of our commitment. For anyone who has heard the speeches in this House from members all across the Chamber, but in particular from the National Party, and the commitment we have to settling Treaty settlements, I think that that is quite an unfair comment.

We are progressing settlements because we know—because we know—it is the hurt, and the injustice, and the disagreements of the past that continue to divide this nation. We are the party that is driving ahead at a pace to get those Treaty settlements resolved. I very firmly believe that it is the most significant thing we can do as a country to bring us to the place of unity. Some of my colleagues have spoken about challenges and the fact that we have more progress to make. Well, our priority should be Treaty settlements. Our priority, Mr Flavell, should be the constitutional review. It should be engaging each and every New Zealander in this conversation.

Although the idea in the bill seems like a good one, I think the impacts of it are too—there are some other complications. I want to raise a couple of them. One, of course, is the issue of consistency. The bill talks about oaths and declarations of some types, but has not actually explained each opportunity that an oath is taken in New Zealand. So, for example, in terms of the Citizenship Act, is it expected through this bill that also new citizens would take an oath to the Treaty of Waitangi? What about the Ombudsmen Act? So there is an issue of inconsistency in the bill as it is drafted.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Optional, Louise.

The member Te Ururoa Flavell, who has brought this bill to the House, quite rightly has said that it is optional, but the fact that the oath is optional creates other complications. What does it mean if somebody takes an oath to the Treaty of Waitangi and someone does not, and yet they are doing the same job? So the inconsistency in it potentially creates some other problems where someone holding the same office has made one oath and another has not. So you are getting an inconsistency with the same people holding office.

The spirit of the bill I applaud, and I commend the member for bringing it to the House, but actually the commitment is having a much broader conversation about the national identity and the Treaty’s place in the constitution. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I would first like to acknowledge the leader of the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, the Māori Party, those who have spoken in favour of the bill, and, indeed, those who have spoken against it, because Te Tiriti o Waitangi embraces all of us. It is just unfortunate that some parties in this House cannot embrace the concept of choice, which is kind of interesting because the National Party has always gone on and on about choice since I have been in this House. Here is an opportunity to create more choice for the citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand, and National is not going to support it, which is incredibly disappointing.

However, I want to say something about this bill because the Green Party is very, very happy to support it. We believe that if it could be passed to the Māori Affairs Committee, it would herald a new age of respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi not only for Māori but also for tangata Tiriti, for Pākehā like me who tried when we came into this House to swear and affirm on both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the other oath—and I was not the only one. This bill reflects what many of us have held in our hearts for some time, and we are grateful to the member who has brought it, because when we came here we wanted to take the oath based on an affirmation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was not that we were rejecting anything else; it was what we wanted to affirm as a critical part of our nationhood.

This bill is very generous and is designed with key words like “allow”, “in addition”, and “may”. There is nothing in this bill that uses compulsion or force or denies the respect that others may wish to pay to the other oath, which is the normal one at this time. It is generous, it creates space and opportunity, it is gentle and offers choice, and it is fundamentally positive and symbolic about an issue that we all claim to recognise symbolically in recognising the founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And what does it commit us to? Is that the real fear? It commits us to recognising what Te Tiriti o Waitangi stands for, which is a great opportunity for Pākehā and tauiwi katoa because, as the Hon Tau Henare said, it is our unique identity. It is what makes us wonderful in the world, and it is what makes us hold our heads up and say that we are not at war. Since 1840, when Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, it has been a commitment to negotiation and dialogue. I do not know what people would prefer, but I know that the Green Party would prefer that we were not at war, and that what happened in 1840 was a declaration of peace and a declaration for continuing dialogue and negotiation. Otherwise, what have we got as a nation? We have not got anything. What we have got is unfinished business and unfinished battles.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori text—and that must be recognised. There is a principle called contra proferentem that recognises the Māori text—I always thought it sounded like “contraception”; I was not quite sure what it was—and it is an international way in which we recognise indigenous language texts. That is what Te Tiriti stands for. What this bill would do would be to allow some of us who have learnt about this—not sufficiently through our education system, because it has failed to educate successive generations on this issue—to uphold what we truly believe is an opportunity for harmony, peace, and justice, not only in this Whare but in every place where New Zealanders or new citizens or representatives take an oath or make a declaration. It is not threatening the foundation of the Crown.

Many people are afraid that if we recognise Te Tiriti in this way, it might somehow undermine the Crown, and in no way does it do that. Many people who believe in republicanism think that we do not need the Crown, but, actually, what Te Tiriti does is far more fundamental. What is disturbing about the rejection of this opportunity is that we should be applying this to all our work, because it is a spirit that enriches us all as a nation, and if we believe in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the National Government upheld in theory, it has to be seen in practice. It has to be implemented in reality.

I have a bill that complements my colleague’s—it is the Citizenship (Acknowledgement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi) Amendment Bill, which is in the ballot—which would ensure that all new citizens, when they come to the ceremony, have an opportunity to learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to understand whose rohe they are in and who are the tangata whenua. It would allow mayors to decide how they do it and to actually acknowledge that. My bill is complementary to my colleague’s because, rather than wait for the constitutional debate to reach whatever conclusion, every day and in every way we need to stand up for Te Tiriti. This opportunity should be upheld, and I want to honour Te Ururoa Flavell tonight. Kia ora tātou.

New Zealand First opposes the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. We think it is a piece of legislative nonsense. It would make no substantive contribution to actually upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. New Zealand First understands the sentiments and why the Māori Party has proposed this, but we suspect that it is not much more than a political stunt. It is not a bill to be taken seriously, and we do not think for a moment that many New Zealanders would. However, New Zealand First does believe that the Treaty itself certainly needs to be taken seriously and performed as a contract by the Crown. This bill will make absolutely no contribution to that concept whatsoever.

I read the purpose of the bill and it states: “The purpose of this Act is to: (a) provide for any person taking a statutory oath to, in addition to repeating the words of the oath, elect to state that they will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi;”. The first thing that you note about that is that it is in addition to the oath. So this is something in addition to the oath. What is in addition to the oath? It is an election to state. So there is something different between the words of an oath and a simple statement. Is that intentional? It certainly is, we think. What it means is that it is something less than the oath itself, and that does not seem to be appropriate in an oath. People can of course, and do, make statements of support any time they wish, and so they should, but there is absolutely not one iota of reason why such a statement is appropriate in this particular oath.

The oath is about upholding the laws of New Zealand, and it is about loyalty to the head of State of New Zealand as a whole. It has got nothing whatsoever to do with contracts such as the Treaty of Waitangi or any other document. The point is this: in the law the Treaty is a contract between the Crown and the united tribes of New Zealand. So you would have to ask, as a result of that, how an individual person can uphold the Treaty when they are not individually a part of it anyway. It is utterly illogical for a person to swear an oath to uphold something that they have no power themselves to do. It is utterly ridiculous to put in such a thing when swearing an oath of this kind.

Another point is this: it would be utterly meaningless for a person to do so, because we do not even know what these principles of the Treaty are. We had one judge, Justice Cooke, who defined some principles, then we had Sir Geoffrey Palmer, while he was Prime Minister, define another five principles, but nobody yet knows which of these are—or whether others are—the principles of Waitangi. How can an individual in that circumstance swear to, or make a statement to—and that is what they would actually be doing—uphold the principles of the Treaty when they do not even know what they are? So in practice it is unacceptable to add this even as an election. If it was appropriate to do so, then why would it not also be appropriate to state that a person wished to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Magna Carta, the United Nations Charter, or even the constitution and rules of the Waipukurau rugby club or any other thing that somebody held dear?

Finally, this bill would degrade the oath itself. It would mean that we would be introducing extraneous and inappropriate words to the oath. It would take attention away from what the oath is really about, and we think it would be disrespectful to New Zealand and to the head of State. This bill should not pass.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ka whakaūngia e au te Tiriti o Waitangi. What is so hard about that? What is so hard about having that choice as a member of Parliament, elected by your constituents? In particular, I want to draw reference to my constituency of Manurewa, which has 28 percent Māori. What is so wrong about me being able to make an oath to uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

In fact, being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to acknowledge its chair, the Hon Tau Henare, I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell, I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia, I want to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene, and I want to acknowledge Louise Upston. We have just come back from a trip to Alice Springs. In Alice Springs we talked a lot about indigenous issues, about indigenous peoples, and about the status of indigenous peoples not only in their country but also in our country. We have a Māori Affairs Committee that actually acknowledges that we as the indigenous peoples of this country have a very special and sacred place within the institution of Parliament. Where does that come from? Where does that authority derive from? I would say the Declaration of Independence in the first instance, which was our assertion of sovereignty. Māori are the first sovereigns of this country. We cannot change our history. The reality is that we have a Treaty of Waitangi, and, as a Māori Affairs Committee, we are working to address the grievances of the past.

To come into this House and say that there is no status of the Treaty of Waitangi is ridiculous. It is ridiculous, given that we have a Minister of the Crown—the Hon Chris Finlayson—who is working through an incredible process of truth and reconciliation, and that we can have a process that so far has expended $1 billion of Crown money to say sorry to our indigenous people. To then say that it is irrelevant and it is not already a constitutional document of this country actually is pretty immature, I believe, in terms of the debate we are having tonight. What I want to say is that Matthew Palmer, in his book The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s Law and Constitution, has said that “the Treaty of Waitangi is best understood as representing an explicit commitment to the health of the relationships between the Crown, Maori, and other New Zealanders.” I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell’s Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill enables us to actually realise this explicit commitment.

I do not see anything wrong with us as members of Parliament being able to swear an oath on the Treaty of Waitangi, our founding document, when we have the honour of representing the people of New Zealand in this House. I do not understand why there is such resistance and why we have to wait for a constitutional review process to take place before some of us, as adults, as people who recognise and understand the history of this country and who want to acknowledge that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand, can do that. And we do want to uphold. What does that mean? We want to maintain, we want to affirm, we want to defend, and we want to give moral support and inspiration and lift up the Treaty of Waitangi to its rightful place. So I am here in support of this bill. I want to congratulate and thank my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for bringing this bill to the House and for providing us as members of Parliament with an opportunity to actually recognise that we have a founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand.

I also want to highlight that earlier this year there were 50 of the country’s brightest young people involved in the development of a draft constitution. They were law, history, and communications students. There was a forum facilitated by Dean Knight from Victoria University Law School. The group made it very clear that the Treaty of Waitangi should be central to a new constitution. There is a recognition already in our country about the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, and all this bill seeks to do is to enable individual members of Parliament to affirm and to commit to upholding it. I note that the students wanted the constitution to be more visible, modern, bold, and unique to New Zealand. Evident was the emphasis on Treaty values. They also wanted to rename the Prime Minister as Tumuaki. I have risen to support this bill. I want to again congratulate my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing it to this House. Kia ora.

This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in this House on a member’s bill. It has taken me nearly a year to get this far, so it is a pleasure to be able to get up and speak on the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill.

When doing a little research on this, I went back to the original Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. When you go back to the original Act and then you read the member’s bill in Te Ururoa Flavell’s name, it really simplifies something that is quite complex legislation. I think that to move to a change like this needs a lot more discussion and a lot more planning than has gone into this process so far.

I support the view that the constitutional review is the proper place for this type of discussion to take place. It allows us to chart our future. It allows us to do it in an orderly manner. I think that if we are going to make a change of this magnitude, then the change needs to be made in a general discussion undertaken by all New Zealanders. I also think that if we are to get unity in this sort of approach, then the voluntary or the optional approach to this is not the correct one. If you were to take this bill forward, then I do not think it is right that we should necessarily have an option, because I do not think that achieves the objectives of this bill at all, or even the objective of the mover of this bill. So I think that if this bill is all about inclusiveness and unity, then there should be no choice in this. This bill clearly gives a choice. Catherine Delahunty, the Green member who spoke earlier, talked about unity. I do not think there is unity when we give people the option to do something or not to do something.

It has taken us many years, from moving even from swearing on the Bible to the option of simply making an affirmation in the—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, so we have a choice.

We have a choice in that, but that is a very different choice from some people being able to take it with them or some people not being able to take it with them. I think they both achieve the same thing. This does not achieve the same thing. It certainly achieves something—

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Why not?

Because it allows people to be either in or out. I can imagine my wife swearing an oath using the Treaty of Waitangi, and I can imagine me not doing that, and I do not think that is how this thing will be planned properly at all. I do not think it makes any sense to proceed down this path. I think that as a country we need to have a much greater discussion on this, and I think we need to do it in a manner that includes everyone’s opinion.

The country has changed much in the last 160 years. I must say that some of the sentiments expressed in this House tonight point to that fact, that the country has changed much. The make-up of the country has changed significantly in the last 160 years, and I think that in dealing with these sorts of issues we need to account for the very different make-up that this country’s population has now from the make-up it had in the past. I look forward to that discussion. I think it is a great opportunity for us in the future.

The last thing I want to talk about is the Treaty settlement process that has been undertaken and is currently being progressed, in my view, very satisfactorily under Minister Finlayson. It is making really good progress, and I think it is probably the first time in 160 years that we have moved forward in a manner that I think is doing a lot of good for this country. In my own electorate, in the Rangitīkei, I look forward to the Treaty settlement process being concluded, because I think it will give rural New Zealand a significant boost. In saying that I look forward to the Treaty settlement process moving on with pace, I also have to oppose this bill because I do not think either that it is inclusive or that it completes or gives us an option to achieve this in a manner that I think the country wants to move on. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Mihi atu ki a koutou e te Whare. I am very proud to stand and wholeheartedly support this bill, the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. I would like to at the outset mihi to Te Ururoa Flavell for bringing this bill to the House. Ka mihi atu ki a koe e te rangatira. This bill gives everyone the choice to add the words to their oath or declaration: “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi;” as an alternative ending. It is such a small measure, and that is why I cannot understand why people do not want to support this, because this is actually part of who we are as Aotearoa. This is what all of us Māori parliamentarians have been striving for, mai rā nō. To have these seven words added at the conclusion of our oaths and declarations should be a given. It should be inclusive of everybody. I would encourage everyone to really support this bill. It is disappointing to hear the remarks from New Zealand First and from certain members opposite, because this is not denigrating or degrading the oath. It is definitely not a stunt. It is not about demeaning or not having any substantive merit. If anything, it strengthens the conviction that we should all have when we come into this Parliament.

I remember—well, we are just coming up to our first anniversary shortly for us new members of Parliament—the excitement that we all had when we filed through here to deliver our oaths. We could elect to do either the oath or the declaration. We could also do it in Pākehā or Te Reo Māori, so that has been progress. There has been choice in those two aspects. That is why I just say that this measure, which gives the additional choice to add those additional words, should be commended by this whole House. It is disappointing. I feel for my whanaunga there, Tau Henare, for being whipped into the position that he has to take with voting with the opposition. That is the nature of this place, but it in no way demeans anything that he does because we know where his heart is. We know where his heart is and his conviction for our people and for the Treaty in terms of his whakaaro and his ngākau. So I mihi to him for his kōrero.

I would just like to add: what do we mean by an oath? If I go back to my Sunday school days when I was a child, the oath was a solemn agreement. It is important that when two people come to an agreement, if you put an oath behind it you are witnessing and sanctioning that you are committed to do what you are saying you are going to do, and you call on God to judge and avenge, to dish out some punishment or a sanction, if you do not do what you say you are going to do. That adds a bit of fire and brimstone to what you are agreeing to do. Likewise, for those who do not want to go for the religious sanction, well, they can always opt for a declaration. But the main thing is that oaths and declarations are very important personal commitments that people make. The most important commitment you can make is to swear an oath. If we could broaden the oath to include the Treaty, it would be great. It would show the progression that we have made as a country over the past 30 years.

Eighty years ago in this very House my grandfather, when he was an independent MP—he came in representing Southern Māori—presented a petition signed by 40,000 Māori and Pākehā right throughout the motu seeking to have statutory recognition of the Treaty. We have seen great progression over the past 80 years, and especially in the last 30 years with the modern-day Treaty settlement process. That is why it is very disappointing that the Government has signalled that it will not support this measure to give people the choice to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi when giving their oath and declaration. I would just like to say one thing: Treaty settlements do not mean that Māori are going to go away. If anything, it is strengthening Māori right throughout the motu, and so maybe this bill might not be passed this time round, but I can tell this House that in time progressive steps will be made. I tautoko this bill. Kia ora anō tātou.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. As previous speakers have already stated, the purpose of this bill is to commit a person taking any oath set out in statute to elect to state, in addition to the words of the oath, that they will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. The bill will insert into the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 a new section 4B that will be, in essence, applicable to every person who takes an oath. This bill is flawed in that the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 does not cover all oaths. Therefore, it is not clear whether the provisions in this bill will affect other oaths that are not specified in this Act.

Taking an oath or declaration is an important part of this country’s legal framework to which a standard national approach needs to be taken. This bill is not the right platform, as the status of the Treaty of Waitangi is still evolving. A wider discussion should involve all New Zealanders.

There will also be an issue of enforcement and confusion about what “upholding” would mean in practice. Making part of the oaths optional departs from the principle of uniformity that currently applies to oaths. The status of the Treaty in New Zealand’s constitution and the duties flowing from it are a matter for Government policy, and so should be addressed in a Government bill and not in a member’s bill. Because of all these issues I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Can I firstly thank those members who contributed to the discussion on the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. I have got to say that the arguments that I have heard tonight—my gosh, they are wimpishly weak. I want to acknowledge Tau Henare for his courage in putting his kōrero out there tonight. I think he made an important statement when he said this is an opportunity to be different in the world. I support that and I appreciate his comments. He also said it is non-threatening—non-threatening. It is an option. You do not have to do it. You will not get banged on the head, nothing like that. No, no, if you want to you can take it up. So I struggle with some of the discussion that has been made tonight. We can talk about the Treaty, history, all that sort of stuff, but let us cut to the chase: that argument will always be there. What we are talking about tonight is a small statement, allowed to be additional to what is already stated in our oaths and declarations—if a person wants to. Nothing more, nothing less. The statement is: “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi;”.

Some of the discussions that we have had tonight, with respect, are way off the mark. I talk to my colleague Louise Upston talking about the notion of having a constitutional discussion beforehand. That is happening, but it does not have to be one or the other; it can be both, and tonight’s opportunity would have been that. I appreciate the comments from Parekura Horomia and Catherine Delahunty in supporting this. Talking about New Zealand First, well, probably I will not spend too much time talking about those members, because they do not do Māori very well at all—they do not do Māori very well at all. They do not do Māori seats even though they got in on the back of Māori seats. Sorry, they do do Māori All Blacks. That is all right. I wonder why. So that is them.

Mr McKelvie talked about needing discussion and planning. Goodness! This is a simple statement that allows a person, if they wish—if they wish—to make a statement. Actually, I would say this. In their heart of hearts, from the discussion I have heard tonight, members actually believe in their heart of hearts that there is no problem with this, but they are bound—like Mr Henare—by the whole notion of being whipped. Planning and discussion around a five-word statement to be added to a statement that we have in this Parliament—I mean, what is the big deal? Somebody is talking about magnitude of change. My goodness! Five words, for goodness’ sake! Somebody else talked about the notion of choice. Well, this is choice.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: It’s nonsense.

It is choice. It is nonsense when you talk. We talked about Mr Tirikātene-Sullivan—Mr Tirikatene. I am sorry, e Rino, e taku hē. I appreciated his comments, as well, about the historical nature of a desire from our people to have this statement, and similar statements of it, in this House. Mr Yang, you talked about uniformity. There is no uniformity already. You have got a choice—oath or declaration—and within that, here is another choice that you could take a part of, if you wished. No compulsion—that is it. You talked about enforcement. When we come into the halls of Parliament we are already part of an enforcement regime, which is why Hone Harawira could not go through this process this year. By adding five words, he would have been—along with many others who wanted to follow this line—able to take up that opportunity. So we talk about consistency, and yet we have oaths to the Queen, to God, and whoever else, and yet, on a constant basis, we contradict that. We contradict that in this House.

This statement, if there was fear about there being a political motive to this, I do not get it. There is no political motive to it. There cannot be, because it is for those people who choose to take it up—no political motive, pretty straightforward, to allow some of us to take up that option. Sure, there is a discussion to be had about the bigger picture about Treaty statements, but I have got to say that it is with an element of heavy heart that I listened to the discussions tonight. For all the rhetoric about the Treaty of Waitangi in this country, for us not to be able to have the courage and the commitment to add five words—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: It’s nothing to do with courage.

—New Zealand First aside—to the declaration and oaths in this country is a sad day. It is a sad day when we cannot take up an opportunity even to take it to a select committee to allow the debate to happen. Surely—surely—at this point in time, with the commitments made between political parties and, indeed, the founding document of our nation, that we could not find the space to take it to a select committee of this Parliament, it is a sad day for us. The balance is that Obama got in. The balance is that Tauranga Moana Māori are happy. The downside is that today, tonight in this House, at this point in time, it is noted down in history that some people did not have the courage to follow it through for this bill.