Royal Succession Bill

I move, That the Royal Succession Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The Royal Succession Bill will make three changes to modernise the historic rules of royal succession. The changes better reflect today’s values while still preserving the important traditions of the monarchy.

Firstly, the bill will ensure that royal succession is no longer dependent on a person’s gender. Secondly, it will remove the bars that prevent a person married to a Roman Catholic from possessing or succeeding to the Crown. Thirdly, the bill will remove the rule that all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry. Instead, only the first six in line to the throne will need consent.

The first change will mean that the rules of succession are gender-neutral. An elder daughter will be able to precede a younger son in the line of succession. This will update the rules of succession in a crucial aspect, removing the outdated rule of male superiority in the line of succession. This change will apply to any children born after 28 October 2011. It will, therefore, apply to the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge due to be born in July. This has been agreed by all of the 16 realms that share Her Majesty the Queen as head of State.

The bill will also remove the current restrictions that prevent a person married to a Roman Catholic from succeeding to or possessing the Crown. The current restriction does not apply to other faiths. The heir to the throne may succeed to the throne if married to a person of any other faith or of no faith at all. This anomaly can no longer be justified. This change will apply to all marriages where the person concerned is still alive. Some people will be reinstated into the line of succession as a result.

Finally, the current rule that all descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry will be removed. It will be replaced with a rule that this requirement applies to the first six in line to the throne. The current rule regarding consent to marry applies to many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of descendants. Many of them would not have been aware that they needed the king or queen’s permission to marry. Their marriages may be legally void as a result. This bill will correct this situation. These marriages will be validated for all purposes other than succession, provided they meet certain criteria.

I should note that the changes to the bill do not mean that a Roman Catholic will be able to accede to or hold the throne. The separate rule that the king or queen is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England will remain; so will the requirement that the Sovereign swear an oath to uphold the Protestant religion.

Changes to the rule of royal succession require the agreement of each of the 16 realms, as the Queen is head of State of each of them in their own right. In order to maintain this, the rules of succession must be consistent across the realms. Most of the changes were agreed between the realms at a meeting coinciding with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011. Further changes were agreed through later discussions among the realms.

New Zealand has played an essential role in coordination among the realms, and the Government wants to thank the Clerk of the Executive Council, who has been undertaking this role, for her endeavours in this respect.

A bill changing the laws of succession is currently proceeding through the UK Parliament. That bill will not, however, automatically apply to New Zealand. Separate legislation is needed in New Zealand to achieve the same changes to the rules of succession in New Zealand law. Our Royal Succession Bill is consistent with the United Kingdom’s Succession to the Crown Act.

In closing, it is important that our constitutional institutions, such as the monarchy, retain and maintain their history and traditions. But it is also important that the rules that govern these institutions evolve to reflect the times in which we live, and this bill will allow this to happen. New Zealand has a grand tradition of removing undue discrimination in its underpinning legal framework—most notably by being the first country in the world to give women the right to vote.

This bill builds on this proud history and tradition, as well as meeting our commitments to the other realms. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to talk on this bill, the Royal Succession Bill, and note that of the three things the bill does, one of those is an act of validation. I have to say that it is a pleasure to be able to speak on a bill that validates past actions without upsetting the good citizens of Mangawhai and, indeed, of Tasman district. But that is kind of where the positive aspects of this bill stop and start.

We are dealing, in this bill, with an anachronism, and every citizen in this country who has their radio and television tuned to Parliament this afternoon will be wondering why it is that we are taking the very expensive time of this House and the people who work here on this piece of legislation about the Queen, the Crown, or the Sovereign of England. They will be wondering why it is that in this day and age, in this little corner of the world, in a nation that is reputed—and indeed this Government trades off it, as indeed the last one did—to be a country that punches above its weight and that does extraordinary things all in its own name, with its own identity and with its own culture, we find ourselves on this wintry afternoon legislating for gender neutrality in the succession of the Sovereign. How on earth does that absurd situation arise?

I might hasten to add that Labour will support this bill. We do not want to cause offence to the Sovereign, because there are bigger issues at play when it comes to this nation’s relationship with—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Soft on royalty.

Yes, soft on the causes of royalty as well. There are bigger issues that come into play when it comes to the relationship between the nation State of New Zealand and the Queen of England.

Who would have thought, in this day and age, that we would find ourselves legislating—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Hasn’t been a Queen of England for 500 years until this one.

There is the resident monarchist of the House. He has to chip in. He takes great offence, because here we are, having to legislate against primogeniture. Who would have thought that in the 21st century we would be having to pass legislation about that? Who would have thought that in the 21st century we would have to pass legislation to overcome prejudice against Catholics? Oh, now Mr O’Connor is very silent on that point—very silent on that point. Mr O’Connor needs to be reminded that without this legislation he would have absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near succession to the throne or any part of it, and once upon a time he would have been deprived of public office in the home country. That is how bad it was.

You have only to look at the old Bill of Rights of 1688, which is held up as such an important document around the Commonwealth. What a dreadful piece of legislation that was. Here it is: “Papists debarred the Crown.” That is not the bad thing, actually. That is not the bad thing, because we can overcome that. It is what they said about the papists. Here is what they said about the papists: “And whereas it has been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince,”. That is what they thought of the Catholics in that day and age. And here we are, in the 21st century, having to pass legislation to prevent discrimination against Roman Catholics by the Crown that is meant to be of this country. How patently ridiculous.

The third thing we are doing is we are legislating to validate the marriages, potentially hundreds of marriages, that have not been personally consented to by the Crown. Of course, there is still an issue, in my humble opinion, about why the Crown should be called upon to approve any adult marriage. What is wrong with the autonomy of the individual, and the Queen’s or the King’s adult children being able to decide whom they marry? That has been the cause of constitutional crises as recently as last century but, not so far, this century. It was a cause of constitutional crisis. Poor old Princess Margaret was deprived of her beau and King Edward had to abdicate because of his favoured spouse. Thank goodness we have got past all that. We have got through the age of the charleston, and we have not had the same problem ever since.

These measures will at least give the appearance of modernising the succession arrangements for the royal family. But the reality is that there should never have been, in the modern world at least, any gender or religious discrimination or any discrimination at all. We should ask the question—and Mr Foster-Bell no doubt will be called upon to answer, along with Mr O’Connor, the self-professed monarchists of the National Party—why on earth it is we are being called upon to pass this legislation in this day and age. It highlights, as I said, a much bigger issue of New Zealand’s relationship with the monarch. The question is: how relevant is it? How relevant is it that the time of this House should be spent on this legislation for New Zealanders, who simply want to go about their business. They want this Parliament to devote its time and attention to making sure that life in New Zealand is worth living and is bearable, that the distribution of wealth is fair, that job opportunities exist, and that people can be cared for and looked after and can ultimately be happy.

The constitutional arrangements that we now live under and thrive under, in terms of this Parliament, mean that we have to participate in this charade of passing this legislation, along with 16 other sovereign nations—[Interruption] I take the advice—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: She’s the Queen of New Zealand.

She is the Queen of New Zealand, and that is the point. That is the issue. It is because of those constitutional arrangements that we have to participate in this charade. So we must now ask the question: is this really 21st century New Zealand? I do not want to cause offence to the royal family—never have done—and for that reason, as I said, we will support the bill. But it is not the New Zealand way that we support the idea of status and privilege as a birthright. That is not the Kiwi way. It never has been and never will be.

The good people of the United Kingdom who came out here 180 years ago, or 170-odd years ago, to become the second peoples of this land, the second set of settlers on this land, came here to get away from exactly that cultural aspect. They came here to get away from privilege and status, delivered as a birthright. They came here to forge a new way, to pioneer a new country with new values, and to pioneer a country built on freedom, built on hard work, built on reward for that hard work, and built on getting ahead under your own steam. That is the New Zealand way, not cuddling up to and seeking succour from those sorts of institutions that are outdated and outmoded—interesting as they may be—and producing good music occasionally, as they may do, although not the theme songs that we get from old has-been pop stars like Elton John and others, and Cliff Richard. Of course, that does not necessarily go with royalty, but—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What’s the member saying about Elton? What’s he promoting Elton for?

Well, we are talking about queens this afternoon, so why not? We are not talking just about the Crown. But the thing is—

💬 Hon Member: Shameful.

I do not think there is any offence caused there. He called it himself. The point is that he keeps on being rolled out in every royal gala performance they have. Can we have something slightly more modern?

But this is the question that young New Zealanders are now asking. This legislation will give rise to that question in the minds of even more as to whether we should spend the time of this Parliament priced at, what, $350,000 an hour to debate these important issues—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, the marginal cost is almost nothing.

My learned friend Mr Mallard says that the marginal cost is almost nothing. But the truth is that we have now been compelled to consider this legislation under urgency, as part of this urgency motion. It is a piece of legislation that will not touch the ordinary lives of ordinary New Zealanders or, for that matter, any New Zealander, even those living overseas and even those living in the United Kingdom. It will not touch the ordinary lives of ordinary New Zealanders one single bit, but we are corralled into it. We are driven by it, by our constitutional arrangements, and if this bill does anything, let it be a clarion call. Let it draw attention to the arrangements that we now have and let it attract a real curiosity about whether this is the way we should go forward.

We are a nation State. We are a bold, proud nation State. We hold our heads up proudly around the world. We contribute our people to support our allied nations like the United Kingdom and many others, in the Commonwealth and out of it, but we do that in our own name and in our own right. We should not be drawn into, or be required to spend the valuable time of this House on, issues like this when there are more compelling issues to be dealing with and when we have our own history to celebrate.

I would just conclude by saying that this week is an important week, of course, in labour history. It is the centenary of the second Unity Congress, which led to the formation of the United Federation of Labour and the Social Democratic Party, the precursors to the Labour Party. That is the history that we should be celebrating. That is the real history that has touched New Zealanders’ lives—the lives of all New Zealanders—and has made a difference, not this legislation.

We will support the bill. We do not want to cause offence to the Sovereign today, but it is time we reconsidered, moved on, and stood on our own two feet.

It is a pleasure, as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to stand in support of the first reading of this Royal Succession Bill. I am very much looking forward to the deliberations that the committee will have on this bill. I am looking forward to the submissions that we will receive and hear, because our constitutional monarchy is a rich and proud one. It has tradition and history on its side, and I personally believe that it is a model that has served us well in the past, and will continue to serve us well into the future.

One of the hallmarks of our constitutional monarchy has been its ability to modify itself, to modernise, and to remain relevant over the centuries. For us here in New Zealand, even though we are a young nation, we have a proud tradition of our own in terms of being at the forefront of social change. It is not often that this House debates matters relating to the very core foundation stones of the monarchy that form the basis of our constitutional roots. As one of the 16 realms that have Her Majesty as Queen and Sovereign, we are a member of an elite group of nations. This bill modernises royal succession by removing aspects relating to both gender and religious discrimination. New Zealand supports gender and religious freedom, so as this bill has that as an outcome, we will be in line with the principles we hold dear as a nation.

Later this month New Zealanders will be amongst millions of others from around the Commonwealth and around the world who will welcome the birth of the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This bill will mean that for the first time in the entire history of the monarchy, the child, no matter its gender, will succeed His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge in due course. The bill implements changes to the rules of royal succession agreed to by all 16 Commonwealth realms. Most of the changes were approved in principle at a meeting held in October 2011, and the rest were agreed at subsequent meetings. All 16 realms will implement legislation to ensure concurrent and united change. No longer will royal succession be dependent on a person’s sex. The bill allows for an older daughter to precede a younger son for the first time ever. That is a good thing in terms of where we come from as a nation here in New Zealand.

Another aspect of the bill relates to the removal of exclusions preventing people married to a Roman Catholic from succeeding to the throne. This change will apply to all marriages where the person concerned is alive, which means that it will reinstate some people into the line of succession who are currently excluded from it. The Minister of Justice, in her introductory comments, made an interesting point that was relative to how the ancient law of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which dates back to the time of King George II, relates to the Sovereign approving all marriages of the direct descendants of King George II, and the anomalous and slightly bizarre situation that now exists where clearly there could be hundreds, if not thousands, of people who technically have marriages that are not valid in terms of that law. This bill will change that.

This is a bill that I think helps modernise the monarchy. It makes the monarchy relevant to the 16 realms, and it is a model that has served us well. Our constitutional monarchy is one that we can be proud of. It supports us. We support them. It is a good process. It is a good model. I am very much looking forward to the progress of this bill through the committee stage, and I commend it to the House.

Just before I call the Hon Trevor Mallard, an issue was raised by a member of Parliament, Mr Horan, regarding the right of the House to legislate on this. I just wish to advise the House that under Standing Order 112(1) the House has the ultimate discretion to legislate on any matter, including those under adjudication in a court. This is doubly the case of court proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. The Royal Succession Bill has been subject to considerable thought, including our relationship with other Commonwealth countries, prior to its introduction. The member’s point, therefore, is not valid, and we will proceed in due course to the vote.

I rise to speak on this Royal Succession Bill as someone who thinks that at some stage we will move beyond having a monarchy. It is something that I think is important for our integrity as a country, but it is something that I do not regard as urgent. I also think that there is something slightly unseemly about Parliament taking urgency on a royal succession bill. The idea that we are trying to get something quickly sorted out when there has been so long to have it sorted out is something that I do not think reflects well on us. If people in London look back, if they have any consideration of what we are doing here—and I doubt that they are taking much interest in it at all—they will just ask the question about why this legislation could not have been dealt with properly in an ordinary time rather than as some urgent matter to be pushed through because of a current pregnancy. It does not look good, and it reflects very badly on the Government’s organisation that we do it in what is an apparently hurried manner of this sort. This is especially true because it is now well over 18 months since there was an agreement made between Prime Ministers on the way forward on this.

The next point that I want to make is that I am not one who believes absolutely that the King or Queen of England also has to be the King or Queen of New Zealand. I think that as an independent nation—a country with our own constitutional integrity—it is and should be open to us to choose to have a different set of rules for succession in New Zealand from those the people of the United Kingdom choose to have for themselves through their changes. That is why I think, therefore, it is important that this bill gets a full consideration at the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I understand that that is to be the case; we are not going to have a shortened arrangement at the select committee.

I think that does leave some questions as to what the hurry is all about. If the child is to be born before the legislation is passed, then it is hardly going to be a matter of urgency for Parliament. Of course, there is the terrible possibility of an accident or something that might involve three generations of the royal family, and I can accept that it is important to get this sorted out as soon as possible, but that is an argument for the bill being introduced and proceeded with at first reading earlier than now. So the first point is really a rejection of the need for absolute coordination between nations on the question of royal succession, and the ability of New Zealand to assert its own rights in this matter.

I do not think that any reasonable person will have an argument around the core part of this legislation, and that is the abolition of precedence of younger brothers over older sisters. I think that it is something that was not appropriate in the past. It has been some time since it did actually apply in fact, but I think that in the 21st century it is something that is just no longer appropriate. I think that whatever system we have, the suggestion that males take precedence over females when it comes to succession is just wrong.

It then comes to the next really fundamental question, and that is the question of the relationship between the Queen of New Zealand and the Church of England. I just want to do a real underlining of those points. We are today discussing who should be the Queen of New Zealand, but we are doing it in the context that that person is also the Defender of the Faith, and the faith in this particular case is no church in New Zealand but is the Church of England. It is one of the points on which I think there should be reasonable debate—whether, in fact, New Zealanders could accept having someone who is a Catholic as their monarch. In this particular case we are talking now about the abolition of exclusions of people who marry Roman Catholics, but I think it does open up the fundamental question about whether the King or Queen of New Zealand could be a Roman Catholic, and whether we would automatically exclude someone on the basis of their religion. That is something that is quite serious.

I know that in times past—not going back more than a generation or two—the antagonism was such that I am pretty sure that many New Zealanders would not think it was acceptable, and I am pretty sure that most Catholics would not have been the slightest bit interested in being the King or Queen of England. Of course, going further back—going further back—it was something that was common. So I just want to leave for the House, on this particular issue, the question of whether we want to tie our law so tightly that a person is automatically excluded from being the King or Queen of New Zealand because of that role also being the Defender of the Faith—i.e., the Church of England. In my view, that goes too far.

The next question is the abolition of the requirement of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 that all of the descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marriage. We know that this does not happen now. We know that actually it is a much more limited group. What the bill does is to tie it back to the first six people in line to the throne and require those people to have the Sovereign’s consent. I think this is a clause that also needs to get very careful consideration. We have got some rules around the freedom for New Zealanders to marry. I have a sincere question as to whether or not there should be a special role for a Sovereign to deny his or her children or grandchildren the right to marry the person of their choice. This has occurred on occasion. We have seen it occur, and we have seen disaster. We have seen in the generation of the current Sovereign’s children a number of relationships that have not worked, as a result of the people not being able to marry the person with whom they had what might be considered their primary and first relationship. That has not been healthy for that family, and my question is whether we want to continue that sort of arrangement.

I will support this bill going to the select committee. I look forward to the submissions. It is going to be interesting to see whether Government members are prepared to have a country that stands up for itself.

The bill before us, the Royal Succession Bill, proposes three changes to the rules of royal succession for the New Zealand monarchy. This emerges from a political agreement at head of Government level at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2 years ago. First, it would abolish primogeniture—the precedence of younger brothers over elder sisters—thereby ensuring that succession is not dependent on a person’s gender. Second, it would allow individuals within the royal line of succession to marry a Roman Catholic. Third, it would restrict the requirement of royal consent for marriage to just the first six individuals in line to the throne.

The bill raises issues of a deep constitutional nature, and these are, of course, placed in a historical context. There is often a tendency to justify any shortcomings in universal human rights in the context of historical anomalies. There was a case not so long ago where the UK Supreme Court argued, in asserting that particular electoral laws pertaining to a particular bailiwick were consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, with the quote that laws, even anomalous laws, have to be considered “in the round in light of historical and political factors relevant to” a particular place. Although, if one were starting from scratch, there could be few who would think that the law might be satisfactory, it did not follow that human rights would be breached. So you have issues that are not simple, and inevitably will occasion a penetrating discussion not only in this House but in the wider society. People can hold strong views on these issues.

There are various points to consider, both constitutional and political. First, there is the right of primogeniture. There can be no opposition, surely, to abolishing the right of primogeniture. The only point to note is one of astonishment that it has taken so long to bring the British and Commonwealth law up to speed with universal human rights, which reflect the Western values that we all delight in trumpeting. It was Scott Simpson, just a moment ago, who spoke about an elite group of nations moving to legislate. With great respect, that is absolute rubbish. Our 16 jurisdictions are a group of nations; we are not an elite group of nations. There is no such thing as an elite group of nations within the universal context of human rights. He also was animated enough to say that we were bringing our law on this matter up to speed with universal human rights—not totally correct. We are inching along in that respect to bring it up to speed with universal human rights, but we are stopping short of it.

The second issue is the freedom of royal marriage. Allowing the British and Commonwealth monarch to marry a Roman Catholic is fine and, indeed, necessary. But as I understand it, although the Act of Settlement states that a monarch may not marry a Roman Catholic, it also states that the monarch “shall join in communion with the Church of England,”. That is, the monarch must be an Anglican, and must perform the duty of Defender of the Faith, at least in England and Wales, though not in Scotland or Northern Ireland. So the exclusion applies to all other faiths, including any declaration of non-faith. As such, it is an infringement of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which would accord the right of any human to have freedom of religion and occupy any position notwithstanding.

Crown Law’s view is that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because “The rules that govern succession [in a shared, hereditary monarchy] are historically and politically complex. They are inapt for detailed Bill of Rights Act scrutiny.” This seems, with respect, to be a weak argument. The current succession laws of the British monarchy, including these proposed reforms, undeniably infringe upon universal human rights, even in the context of this draft bill. There is a strong argument for republicanism, although let me emphasise that republicanism is not Green Party policy.

The third change is restricting the requirement of royal consent. The requirement to seek consent from the monarch by the first six in line to the throne is also such an infringement.

It is a minor point in terms of New Zealand domestic debate, but it might be queried whether the New Zealand legislation will or will not apply to the Cook Islands, Niue, and even the Ross Dependency. Presumably the British legislation will “directly pass through” the New Zealand Governor-General acting in right in a different capacity in those jurisdictions. We would be interested to get an opinion from the Government on this point. The shared monarchy makes it required that all 15 realms outside the United Kingdom pass identical legislation. Agreement to that effect was given, including by New Zealand, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011. This requirement for collective legislation by 16 jurisdictions effectively circumscribes New Zealand’s freedom of constitutionality—another argument for republicanism.

These constitutional considerations effectively rest on a set of broader considerations. This is probably another case of the New Zealand public needing to judge whether a reform goes far enough. There will be those who think it does and those who think it does not. For its part, the Green Party regards the draft legislation as being useful in so far as it rectifies some serious shortcomings in the New Zealand constitutional system. But we also regard the bill as not going as far with the reforms as it should.

In so far as the current New Zealand constitutional system precludes a Roman Catholic from being head of State—or a Hindu, or a Muslim—then it breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whether that applies to the Governor-General, representing the head of State, is another issue. It may have been the case that previous Governors-General converted to Roman Catholicism, and that would be an interesting point of fact.

Does the bill go sufficiently far with reform as to warrant our support? Our answer is no, yet we do not wish to oppose the bill, since it does effect some positive change. The Green Party will therefore abstain on the bill. If it were a normal piece of domestic legislation, we would work to strengthen its provisions and advance some amendments in the Committee of the whole House. But this is not a normal bill. It is a piece of the constitution that addresses the monarchy, and that monarchy is shared across 16 sovereign jurisdictions. As such, the rules have to be identical; you could not have rules for New Zealand choosing a shared monarch and different rules for Britain or Australia. Our rules, no doubt, would be regarded as null and void to the extent that they differed from those of the UK.

It is a supreme irony that 16 so-called sovereign nation States are unable to make their separate sovereign determination of the rules choosing their own head of State. I note the intriguing judgment in a Canadian case that “One cannot accept the monarch but reject the legitimacy or legality of the rules by which this monarch is selected.”—true up to a point, but this bill before us is altering the rules and thereby rejecting or casting out the previous rules. So the matter is relative, though not so relative as to enable freedom of legislation over one’s own head of State. The Minister of Justice said just a moment ago that the rules have to be consistent across the realms, and that a bill is proceeding through the UK Parliament, but that this does not, of course, work for us; we must do our own legislation. So be it. We shall abstain on the bill while making it clear, as appropriate, what our views are on certain of its aspects.

I rise to speak to the Royal Succession Bill. I did not think I would be quoting Voltaire, but to Dr Graham can I say: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Voltaire was quite correct—there are always ways that we can improve things, and I encourage the Green Party to support democracy, to support good constitutionalism, and to support gender equality in this Parliament.

It is interesting too that we have been talked to by people over 50 years of age who have been telling us that the youth are not interested in the monarchy, whereas, in fact, the second biggest group of supporters in New Zealand are people my age and younger. We have heard from one speaker that the 1688 Bill of Rights was a bad bill. We heard that from Andrew Little. That was legislation that allowed Parliament to actually overrule the monarchy.

We have heard people talking about the Queen of England. Well, there has not been a Queen of England for hundreds of years. We have heard about the Church of England in New Zealand. Well, strangely enough, the Church of England is a problem for the English, not for the strong, independent, mature, bold country of New Zealand, which freely chooses to engage with 15 other realms to share a head of State. You would think that the likes of the Labour Party and particularly the Greens would like that idea of cooperation—that we freely share a head of State with 15 other nations, which have between themselves a remarkable record of democracy. Here is an interesting fact. For about 70 percent of New Zealand’s history since the Treaty, we have had a woman as head of State. That is almost unrivalled in any other place in the world.

I just want to sum up my position with a quote that I think sums up the importance of this bill—the importance of this bill in constitutionalism, and the importance of this bill for democracy. Excuse me that this is gender-specific, but we can always substitute: “A king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he is a successful politician, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of State to this most common denominator in the world—the accident of birth—[people] implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person.”

This bill comes down to the birth of a child. New Zealand’s democratic constitutional system rests on the birth of a child, which this Parliament freely and democratically accepts to be our head of State, a New Zealander, a New Zealand head of State. I support this bill.

This Royal Succession Bill is one of the most unusual bills before Parliament this year. We do not often get to debate the potential future chief of State of 16 different countries, but this is an important change for the New Zealand constitution, and it is good that New Zealand First has had a chance to consider this constitutional change and debate it. It is very sad, of course, and utterly unacceptable that the consideration of other constitutional changes now being considered by the Government, being those generated by the National - Māori Party confidence and supply agreement, have excluded New Zealand First. New Zealand First will support the Royal Succession Bill, but we have grave concerns about the constitutional changes being considered under the current process to implement the National - Māori Party agreement.

Of great concern is the very biased make-up of the 12-member Constitutional Advisory Panel that is managing that process. There is also a cross-party reference group that does not include New Zealand First. The panel will make recommendations to Pita Sharples and Bill English, who are the responsible Ministers, and then to Cabinet in November this year. These parties may then try to ram another constitutional bill through Parliament, and the issues to be discussed in that are much greater in weight than those we are currently considering this evening. They include a written constitution, the size of Parliament, the size and number of electorates, the length of the parliamentary term, Māori electorates, including the Māori electoral option—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on a bill that does not cover those points, so I will ask the member to concentrate on the bill. He can mention those things, but it must relate to the substance of the bill.

The reason I am mentioning them is simply this: we have much greater issues before us this year in terms of the New Zealand constitution than we are dealing with this evening, and those constitutional changes are much greater in weight than the Royal Succession Bill we are talking about this evening. We in New Zealand First will be taking great note of those, including flawed concepts such as incorporating the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, whatever they are supposed to be—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will sit. I just mentioned that the member must concentrate on the bill. It has been 2½ minutes and the member must focus on what this bill is, and I would ask the member to come back to it.

Well, Mr Assistant Speaker, if you had given me a chance, I was just about to move on to that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sit down. Do not challenge the ruling of the Chair or the Speaker. If one wants to do that, I will terminate the speech. You have 7½ minutes going, and I will ask the member to come back to the bill.

I am very happy to come back to the bill because that is what I was about to do, anyway.

We will be supporting the Royal Succession Bill. It implements changes to the royal succession agreed by the 16 realms of which the Queen is sovereign. These changes do modernise historic royal succession rules, firstly by ensuring that the royal succession is not dependent on a person’s sex, and it also allows an older daughter to precede a younger son in the line of succession. In other words, it abolishes the archaic concept of primogeniture. Regardless of when the bill is enacted, it will apply for all royal births after midnight on 28 October 2011.

The bill also removes the current restrictions that bar from the throne people married to a Roman Catholic. These barriers can no longer be justified. The change will apply to all marriages where the person concerned is alive, thereby reinstating some people into the line of succession. But, of course, there is no change to the law under which the monarch must be a member of and the head of the Church of England. In this respect, the law will remain discriminatory. That is not appropriate in this day and age and ought also to change. But we in New Zealand First accept that New Zealand alone cannot achieve this while we retain the constitutional monarchy, which we share with 15 other countries.

Lastly, the bill abolishes the requirement of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 that all descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry. It also introduces a new requirement that the first six people in line to the throne must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry. There are likely to be hundreds of descendants of King George II who were or are unaware of the marriage consent requirements of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, and whose marriages are, therefore, technically invalid. The bill therefore also validates the relevant earlier marriages for purposes other than royal succession. So for that reason also, New Zealand First is happy to support the bill.

Although New Zealand First does support the bill, it does so without approving the continuation of religious discrimination in the way the monarch is still required to adhere to under current arrangements. We also await with interest the more substantive changes to the New Zealand constitution which I suspect will be foisted upon us later this year.

I rise and take a call on the Royal Succession Bill in its first reading. Its purpose is very clear and, again, it is heartening to hear that both New Zealand First and Labour are also supporting this going to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where there will be robust debate. There are issues that do need to be discussed and talked about. This bill changes the restrictions around royal succession to make them better reflect today’s modern values while still preserving the important traditions. It is important that New Zealand’s constitutional institutions maintain their history and traditions, but it is also important that these rules that govern those institutions evolve with the times.

There was some conversation around the constitution and there was also from the Green member Kennedy Graham some concern about the impact of this on the other nations of the realm. In fact, recently I attended a meeting for constitutional consultation where three nations of the realm, the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, did talk about this. Under this bill, those countries do not have to make any legislative changes for themselves, as they are under the realm of New Zealand and effectively share the same head of State. Therefore, New Zealand law changes will flow through to them as well. There is also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade leading some consultation with those territories as well.

This is a bill that, again, has three parts to it: the abolition of precedence for younger brothers over older sisters, the abolition of exclusion from succession of people who marry a Roman Catholic, and the abolition of the Sovereign’s consent to, and the invalidity of, certain royal marriages. This bill is a good bill. We look forward to it going to select committee. There is room for conversation, consultation, and debate. We commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā tātou katoa. I join my colleagues on this side of the House in saying we will support this Royal Succession Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Hopefully, while it is at the select committee we will hear some submitters remind Parliament why it is important that we emulate what this party sought to achieve by ruling out any further fresh challenges via our judicial system up to the Privy Council. This bill, although it actually seeks congruence with other members of the Commonwealth that have as their Sovereign the current Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, is also a timely reminder that over time this set of institutional arrangements will not last, just as the Privy Council has been replaced by the Supreme Court.

But one of the great obstacles that stand in the way is ensuring as we move forward with addressing anomalies, addressing anachronisms—which this bill does do, not the least of which is banning people who practise the Roman Catholic faith. I suppose that goes back to King Henry VIII, who, as you would recall, became the supreme leader of the Church of England. I would like to say that my tribe was—I suppose “colonised” is the right word. It was evangelised by the Church Missionary Society, so we are Anglicans, although our relations in Hokianga fell under the spell of Bishop Pompallier when he turned up for the Treaty of Waitangi resplendent in all his vestments, etc. But we have remained faithful to the Church of England.

I should just recite a little history for the other side of the House. King Henry tired of Catherine, and then had the misfortune to fall into the arms, breasts, and various other parts of the anatomy of Catherine’s lady-in-waiting. That was Anne Boleyn. Actually, there is a play on in Auckland dealing with the wiles of Anne Boleyn. Of course, at the end that sort of all went to her head, and she lost it. That saw Jane Seymour rise to the occasion. Of course, Jane Seymour then, after a coupling—probably an illegal one if you look at it from the Roman Catholic Church’s point of view—led to Edward. Edward, however, was the youngest sibling of Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen. Various racy histories say that that is not entirely correct, but that is another matter. Of course, the first-born was Mary, and she sort of pined endlessly for her mother, Catherine.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Hell of a whakapapa, this one.

Yes. So I just want to demonstrate, as someone who is looking forward to an eventual republican evolution, that it should never be said by those make-believe monarchists over there that we are kūware, or that this Māori does not know the whakapapa of the Anglican Church. Knowing a thing or three about the dangers of wahines myself, I cannot imagine what the hell possessed him to have six wives, but that is another matter. I have no intention, despite recent behaviour, to emulate that.

Naturally, we will support this. It is a timely reminder that this is part of our heritage. Heritage is not static; it evolves. I cannot be quite as pointed as Mr Little was, because I certainly have a little affection for the current Queen. But the notion that Camilla should arrive at Waitangi and be welcomed by Hone Harawira is probably quite suitable, actually—probably quite suitable. But I just cannot imagine embracing Charlie and his hoa rangatira as the new King and Queen of Aotearoa. That may be an issue for the mokopunas and children. Of course, then it will go down to the current poster girl, but I will not be quoted in Kaitāia by my mother and her generation saying anything destructive about Kate or the one in the puku.

Let me come back to the notion that a piece of legislation should validate or invalidate marriages. I just hope that there are no parliamentarians in the House requiring such statutory interventions. Perish the thought.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: There was a county clerk who slipped his own divorce into a local bill.

Ha, ha! I only fear that that was not John Carter. David Lange told very, sort of royal stories, rude stories about that fellow Northlander of mine, John Carter. But anyway, let Rarotongans deal with him for the moment until the poor Ngāpuhis, the hapless Ngāpuhis, have to deal with him. I understand he is coming back to stand against my friend Mr Wayne Brown—brown in name, red in disposition, and blue in temper. But anyway, that is for another day.

We will support this bill. We do not actually support some of the sentiments on the other side of the House. There is a big Māori agenda in terms of where royalty actually goes; I will leave Tainui to talk about their own royal problems. I am a Ngāpuhi, so we can never agree. We are probably born to be republicans through the ringa kaha. However, this is necessary. It seems somewhat incongruous to the modern functioning of this House, but we cannot allow this House or our institutions to be completely cut adrift from Queen Victoria, her whakapapa, the Treaty, and the rights and responsibilities that we have inherited by dint of our Judaeo-Christian ethic and Westminster parliamentary democracy, which we have received and must be proud and honest stewards of in our time.

I do not know whether or not this bill will capture the imagination of the young people, as an earlier National Government member referred to; he must have different young people in his area, because the young people of Kaikohe are not talking about this. The young people of Kaitāia over the weekend were talking about grassroots rugby. Unfortunately, the word “grass” has a different meaning the further north you go. So—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a secret word.

I could not possibly comment—I could not possibly comment. John Carter has left the House. That would be something more appropriate to be delivered by my fellow Northlander and erstwhile colleague John Carter. I just feel that to suggest that the young people are somehow going to race forward and embrace these amendments is an exaggeration. We are doing it by dint of our responsibilities as parliamentarians and to support the Government of the day. After all, we are Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

I have no doubt that it is important, however, that congruency be achieved, because I am quite confident that before the next election the current Prime Minister will receive a knighthood and not lead that party. He will not want to lead that party into Opposition. Well, it is kind of related, because we call the Opposition “Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition”. OK, I will take that hint. I cannot really say much about Roman Catholics, and I do not want to for fear of alienating most of the Christchurch MPs, so I do not want to say much in that regard.

But, as I said, we will tautoko the bill. It does not represent where the imagination and the spirit of the rank and file Kiwi are today, but it is a part of our parliamentary heritage. In that sense, I hope not to sit on the select committee, but look forward to hearing what might come to that select committee. Kia ora tātou katoa.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Royal Succession Bill, especially after that great orator Shane Jones, who was obviously filling in his 10 minutes with whatever he could think of at the time. This bill modernises the historic royal succession rules by removing aspects of both gender and religious discrimination. This is a really timely bill in terms of Kate and William expecting their first child coming up. What it will do is allow an older daughter to precede a younger son in the line of succession if that need be—obviously, maybe not so much in this case. I think the timing of this bill is really nice, actually.

New Zealand is a country that has a proud tradition of being the first country for positive social change. We led the world in women’s suffrage. We had the first women to occupy the highest levels of Government, judiciary, and business. And, in fact, an interesting fact is that we have had a female head of State for 70 percent of the time since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. This bill is very timely and very relevant, and I am proud to be part of the Government that is supporting this. Thank you.

I understand that the next call is a split call. I call Sue Moroney.

Yes, it is. It is indeed a split call, and I am very pleased that it is. I am not sure whether I have gone through the looking glass and ended up in Narnia or this is actually an episode of Blackadder, but what a bizarre bill for us to be actually spending our time debating in this day and age, in 2013, in our New Zealand Parliament. Yes, Labour is supporting this bill, the Royal Succession Bill, because it would probably seem a bit churlish not to support something that actually is making something that is so archaic a little less archaic. So we will support it on that basis. But for goodness’ sake, I think nothing would show the New Zealand public how irrelevant and out of touch the current Government is getting with the core issues going on in this country than if they were to tune in to this debate this afternoon and hear us talking about this as if it were a piece of progressive legislation. I am sorry, but the last speaker, Katrina Shanks, was trying to present this as if it were a progressive piece of legislation. It is making something that is extremely archaic a little less archaic. Let us be honest about that.

I am not sure how exactly I ended up on the speaking list for this, but I imagine that it is because I am supposed to be thrilled with the prospect that this is somehow bringing about something that is good for women.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s got racing in.

Oh, it has got racing in it, has it? Is that how I am on the speaking list for this bill? I was really unclear about that. I thought maybe I was supposed to say this is great for women. Well, look, it might be great for women who are members of the Windsor family, but, generally, it makes no difference at all to any other women. Particularly, it makes no difference to women in New Zealand. And is it not about time that that Government did something that was positive?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The Mountbatten family.

The Mountbatten family? I do not know. Who are they—Windsors or Mountbattens?—whoever they are. But is it not time that that Government did something that was good for the women of this country? Last week we had a Minister of Women’s Affairs say that equal pay was nothing to do with her, that she was not even interested in it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of this bill.

I was inclined to bring the last speaker, Katrina Shanks, to order, if she thought this was a progressive bill. I thought she might have been speaking to a different bill as well. I thought that maybe I ended up on the speaking list because I am, in fact, a Roman Catholic and perhaps this is good for Roman Catholics. But, again, it actually does say that someone ascending to the throne can marry a Roman Catholic, but, no, we cannot have any Roman Catholic sit on the throne. Again, it is not awfully progressive from that perspective either.

I cannot see why we are taking up a lot of time in this Parliament debating something that really is archaic. I know that the Government members opposite have tried really hard to talk about how progressive this legislation is. Well, look, if this is as good as it gets under the National Government, then its members really need to get out more. They need to get out more and talk to people about the issues that really matter, because while this Government is going into urgency to debate issues like this and other matters that actually do not affect any New Zealanders at all, at any level, it is stopping from being debated tomorrow night a bill in my name on redundancy, which actually does affect a lot of—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That has got nothing to do with this bill. I ask the member to come back to the bill.

I am trying to get the Government to focus on things that are relevant to New Zealanders, instead of this irrelevant waffle that actually does not make any difference, because, yes, I am a woman, and I am a Roman Catholic, but I am still not going to benefit from this bill, and neither is anyone in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: How do you know?

Well, I do not know. How could they? How could anyone in New Zealand actually benefit from this bill? I suppose if they were a Roman Catholic and they were to marry someone from the Mountbattens or the Windsors—that royal part of the breeding—then perhaps they would. But, basically, in summary, this bill is completely irrelevant to New Zealanders and the everyday issues that they face. Labour is supporting it simply because it makes something that is terribly archaic a little less archaic.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to acknowledge Te Reo week in New Zealand. I guess that is an iconic part of our culture, about being New Zealand, yet what we are debating today under urgency with this bill is something foreign. It is something distant—in fact, it is something 16,000 kilometres distant. It is a totally different part of the world. It is not about New Zealand. This bill is a relic of the monarchy in New Zealand—a dying institution, I believe, for New Zealand. So I welcome the ability to rise and take a call on this, the Royal Succession Bill.

I think it is fair to say I am not a monarchist; I am a republican, and proud of it. I voted for Keith Locke’s bill last term. I support a discussion on a head of State. I believe that the monarchy is discriminatory. I think it goes against our Kiwi values. I think it goes against that spirit of a fair go for everyone, not just for those of privileged birth.

You know, it was pretty galling to have to swear allegiance to the Queen to take my seat and speak in this Chamber. I think many members probably find it a disconcerting and an odd institution to have to go through for what is the Parliament of our country, of all New Zealanders, to have to swear allegiance to someone who lives on the other side of the world and her heirs and successors. I find it troubling. Luckily, I can just think about Freddie Mercury when I am swearing allegiance.

The Greens will be abstaining from voting on this bill. We are not voting against it. We are not opposed to it. Likewise, we are not supporting it. We do not support this institution, which is discriminatory, and the discrimination that is still contained in this bill. This bill is trying to bring about gender balance. It is trying, on the fringes, to impact on the bar on Roman Catholics and those of other religions from taking the throne and marrying successors, but it is still discriminatory.

First up, we have got a terribly poor process. I mean, this has been around for a long time. We have known about this discrimination for a long time. The agreement came in Perth, with some of the Commonwealth countries coming together and agreeing it just had to be changed, because it was just so embarrassing—so embarrassing to have the future monarch having a baby but there being problems with royal succession. I have not heard once why we have to have this bill debated under urgency. I think this is not a law we need to pass under urgency. I guess we question, given the select committee process, what the point is. Is the Government going to amend anything based on expert evidence, based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, or based on submissions? Given that 16 other realms have to agree to this identical text, my question is this: are we going to get a real select committee process there?

The bill changes three main things: succession does not have to be dependent on a person’s sex, it takes away the bar on people on the throne marrying a Roman Catholic—obviously, the monarch still cannot be a Roman Catholic; they must be an Anglican—and it abolishes the requirement that all descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry. That is a pretty good change, but the monarch still gets a hand in arranged marriages for six people in the succession line. I do not like the idea of supporting the monarch still being able to pick arranged marriages. I do not think it is in keeping with our Kiwi culture or 2013, the year we are in right now.

I personally believe this bill and the entire institution of the monarchy are a relic of the past. I think these changes come too late for this relic of the past, for this discriminatory institution of the monarchy. I guess the catalyst has been the wedding of Will and Kate, and the baby. I wish them all the luck. I have got to admit I did actually watch the wedding on the telly. I wish them all the best. But although I welcome the ending of discriminatory practices against their first-born, I think this is too little, too late.

Again, of course, it is discriminatory in the sense that in no way—or almost no way—can a New Zealander be the head of State of New Zealand. I want to have a New Zealander as my head of State. I want to be swearing allegiance to the people, to the voters. I do not want to be swearing allegiance to someone who lives on the other side of the planet and still arranges marriages for their children. I am against discriminating against Roman Catholics, and that is why I will not be supporting this bill tonight. I am against arranged marriages.

I agree with this quote from the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand: “This is a poor attempt at modernising an arcane and increasing irrelevant institution. It emphasises that the monarchy is a foreign remnant of our Colonial past—we’re only keeping the clause discriminating against Catholics because England has an established protestant church.” It is going to be interesting to see the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet being discussed at the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Ultimately, New Zealand coming under a monarchy is like the stereotypical 30 or 40-year-old still at home with their parents. We know they have got to move out, but maybe it is a bit cruisy, maybe they do not have to think for themselves, or maybe there are some advantages. It is time for New Zealand to grow up, get a real job, move out of the home of its parents, and make our own way in the world. I support a New Zealand head of State.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. There is eager anticipation here in New Zealand and all around the world about the imminent arrival of our Queen’s newest great-grandchild. Thanks to the provisions in this Royal Succession Bill, backdated to 2011, for the first time this baby will become our monarch irrespective of its gender. This contrasts with the status quo, where a first-born girl would become an heir presumptive, but younger brothers could gazump their big sister upon arrival. Frankly, I find it a little bit mystifying and somewhat disgraceful that any party would abstain on a measure that brings gender equality into the New Zealand law.

We can be very proud of the role played by New Zealand at the vanguard of these reforms. The Prime Minister, John Key, was acknowledged by the British Minister of State for Justice, Lord McNally, as leading the discussion on modernising royal inheritance among the premiers of the Commonwealth realms. As a former vice-chair of Monarchy New Zealand, I am delighted we are moving to a system that is more in tune with our modern values of everyone, male or female, being treated equally before the law, while retaining all the advantages of a constitutional monarchy—its stability, its surety, and its strong sense of service to the nation. I take pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Members, this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

💬 Holly Walker: Party vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): When I put the vote, the member must call for a party vote at the time, not after we are moving on to the next piece of legislation. I do—

💬 Holly Walker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am on my feet. I do know that during the two speeches that were given by the Green Party we were told that it intended to cast a vote other than in the affirmative, so I am prepared to allow it to do that. But I am making it very clear that in the future when I put the vote, that is it, and we will have no exceptions. It was clearly indicated, however, by the two members of the Greens that they would not be supporting the bill in the affirmative.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to explain the position, previously I had advice from the Clerk—and this is something that needs to be fixed up at the Standing Orders review. We are not calling a No vote, but we still have to cast a vote. When the Speaker calls for those in favour to say Aye and those against to say No, we cannot say No, and that is the only point we can actually call a division.

I accept that, and that is why I am prepared to accept it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to give a little bit of advice to my friends in the Greens, the appropriate thing is that when the Speaker declares that the Ayes have it, that is the point when you say: “Party vote called for.”

💬 Holly Walker: And that’s what I did.

Well, we did not hear it.

I am going to ask the Greens to cast a vote. The Green Party—if it would like to stand and cast its position.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, everyone else has to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, a party vote has been called for. We will start the process again.