Royal Succession Bill

I move, That the Royal Succession Bill be now read a second time. The Royal Succession Bill makes moderate and considered changes to the rules of royal succession. These changes update the rules of succession to make them more consistent with modern New Zealand society and values. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee received seven written submissions and heard from four submitters. I am pleased that the committee has reported back unanimously and recommended only one minor technical change. This unanimous agreement shows that the changes are positive for New Zealand’s system of government. I am aware that some submitters raised issues to the committee, such as whether New Zealand should become a republic. Wider constitutional changes such as that are outside the scope of this bill.

The bill makes three specific changes to the royal succession rules. The changes result from an agreement made at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in October 2011. All 16 realms of which Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign agreed to the three specific changes. The realms agreed to implement the changes simultaneously.

The first of these changes is that an elder daughter will be allowed to succeed to the Crown ahead of a younger son. This removes gender discrimination, which cannot be justified in the modern age. The committee recommended a minor amendment to the bill. The gender-neutral change will apply from 12 noon, New Zealand time, on 29 October 2011. This minor amendment is reflected in the committee’s proposed changes to clauses 3 and 5 of the bill. It takes account of British summer time and will ensure consistency with the other realms.

The second change made by the bill allows a person marrying a Roman Catholic to succeed to or possess the Crown. The current restriction applies only to Roman Catholic spouses, not to those following any other religion or no religion at all. The bar has historical reasons and can no longer be justified in modern society.

The third change removes the rule that all descendants of King George II must have the Sovereign’s consent to marry. That is replaced with a rule that the first six in line to the throne must seek consent. If consent is not given, the marriage remains valid but the person concerned will lose their place in the line of succession. The old rule will have affected many hundreds, if not thousands, of people. There is a risk that marriages may be technically invalid as a result, even without the people concerned being aware. This bill addresses that problem by validating such marriages, provided that relevant conditions are met.

This bill improves the rules of royal succession to help ensure that they better reflect modern New Zealand values, while preserving the essential features of the monarchy that underpin our system of government. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation, the Royal Succession Bill. I did partake in the early discussions in the Justice and Electoral Committee, when I was on that committee, before I transferred to that other august committee the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is the latter committee that probably had a little more to offer this bill, perhaps, than even the Justice and Electoral Committee. Nevertheless, the mere fact that we are dealing with this bill at this time in this House on this day highlights the kind of anachronism that now surrounds our relationship to the British Crown.

The Minister of Justice noted that of the seven submitters, some of them made submissions about our status as a monarchy and whether we should be a republic. I simply say that that is hardly surprising, when we are in this humble little House in this humble corner of the Earth, thousands of kilometres away from the seat of the throne of the British monarchy and the person who is constitutionally our head of State. Who would have thought? It behoves us really to question exactly why it is that we are in this position and for how much longer we can go on.

Very nice it is that the previously sexist provisions under which only a male heir could succeed to the throne have gone. It is very nice that we should abolish the discriminatory provisions on those who accede to the throne, in respect of marrying a Roman Catholic. We all know the history of the papists and the Catholics in Britain and how reviled they were, and the big schism between the British monarchy and the Catholic Church that allowed Henry VIII to remarry not just once but several times more after that. We all know and understand that, but, in fact, we have had these discriminatory practices and provisions built into our constitutional system for this long. I think that as an independent nation, free to express ourselves and proud to express ourselves in the way we do, at some time—and I suggest that that is now—we should stand on our own two feet and say that much as we respect that which has been achieved by Britain and its monarch, and much as we respect what we refer to as the royal family—because, let us face it, there are many of them around the world—the one that appears most often in our glossy magazines, our monthlies, our weeklies, and occasionally in our daily newspapers, it is time for us to stand on our own two feet.

We should not in this House have to be legislating for the removal of discriminatory marital practices. I mean, we did that early this year on a much more momentous and well-received occasion than this. The Catholics have not had to park themselves out on the front lawn of Parliament House. They have not called on Tau Henare or Chris Auchinvole or Paul Hutchison or others to give stirring speeches about the removal of discrimination. We have not had that in relation to the Catholics.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: So what about the Treaty relationship?

I ask Tau Henare what it is that he has got against Catholics. Why has he so far not got up to give a speech on this bill about how poorly treated the Catholics have been by the British royal family for so long? Where is that speech? Where is Maurice Williamson and his great colourful rainbow over his electorate office? When is he going to talk about stopping the discrimination against Roman Catholics by the British royal family? Where is that sweeping speech? Where is the invitation to be hosted by Ellen DeGeneres on her show to talk about the discrimination against the Catholics?

Oh yes, it is all very well for the gay folks in our community to have the discrimination removed against them, but what about the Catholics and what about the British royal family? I am waiting for those stirring speeches, because it has gone on for far too long—hundreds and hundreds of years of discrimination—and I think that if you were a British Catholic or, indeed, if you were a New Zealand Catholic who aspired to be the spouse of an heir to the throne, compensation almost certainly is in order! There will be those who have got that close to entering the relationship of marriage with an heir to the throne of our head of State and who have been deprived of that opportunity, and I think that at the very least an inquiry into that prospect must be undertaken and, if necessary, compensation paid!

But notwithstanding that, notwithstanding our shuddering horror at the sorts of laws we are being asked to pass in this bill, we will nevertheless support it because at this point in our history, our head of State is the British monarch, our head of State is the Queen of England and all her realms and everything else that goes with it. But I will be one of those who will be first at the barricades, when the opportunity arises, to say that it is time for a change and it is time for our country, our proud nation State and everything that it stands for, to press its case in the world on its own, with its own domestically chosen head of State, so that we can truly hold our heads up high and say that we are New Zealand, we are our people, and we are united under the Southern Cross and all those wonderful things that we get down this end of the globe, and say that it is time that we did it for ourselves. As the Blood Sisters say in that great song, we can ring our own bell—I think that is the term. If the sisters can ring their own bell, it is time for the entire nation of New Zealand to ring its bell and to proudly stand and choose our own head of State.

But let us say that while we still have the British monarch as our head of State, let us remove those last vestiges of discrimination. Let us have the Roman Catholics roaming Buckingham Palace without fear and with impunity, and let us see those royal young women succeeding the throne without the vestiges of primogeniture and all the rest of it that goes with it.

We do support the bill, but we do so in a spirit of hope that this might be the first step to a period of reflection, so that we might make a change so that we do not have to pass more laws about an institution that is increasingly less relevant to us and about a bunch of people who have less and less interest in us.

It is a pleasure to rise and take a short call in support of this Royal Succession Bill, notwithstanding Andrew Little’s papist, republican rant. It is something that is important to us. It is a small bill. It is a small bill and it is an important bill. It is easy to make light of things that sometimes, on the face of it, seem a little trivial and of little consequence. However, this bill is something that makes a small but very significant and important change to our basic constitutional arrangements. For many people, it would seem unusual that our Parliament and parliaments in the other 15 Commonwealth realms have to pass special legislation to ensure that, in future, royal succession will be gender-neutral. These days, it seems, by our standards of society, that anything other than a gender-neutral royal succession would be something completely unacceptable in a modern society.

This bill is not long. It is not complicated. It does not seek to change anything in terms of our constitutional monarchy other than to modernise the rules surrounding succession by removing aspects of gender and religious discrimination. With the birth last year of Prince George, it is going to be many years before the practical implications of this bill will have any impact at all. That, in itself, is not important. What is important is that the change has been made and will have effect in due course. Now, when necessary, no matter how far into the future it is, the succession will be a succession that is appropriate and fitting by modern, current societal standards.

It was a pleasure to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee as we considered submissions on the bill. We received seven submissions. We heard from four and we made just one minor technical amendment to do with the time, in order to relate to Greenwich Mean Time, summer time, and those sorts of things, so it was a very minor change. But it is a narrow bill. It did not have any scope to consider the republican issues that Andrew Little raised. It is important that our constitutional institutions maintain their history and traditions, and I support those, but it is also important that the rules that govern those institutions evolve and sometimes change with the expectations of a changing society. This bill is a classic example of how our system can and does work to accommodate natural evolution.

New Zealand is a young nation. We have a proud tradition of progressive history and of progressive social change within our history. This is a good bill. It is a small but simple bill. It is a bill with a simple and obvious intention. It is a bill that helps keep our constitutional monarchy relevant and in step with modern thinking. It is a bill I support and I commend to the House.

It give me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Royal Succession Bill. There is an extraordinary coincidence of things happening on the Order Paper this morning. Very shortly we are going to be debating the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill and right now we are debating the Royal Succession Bill. One is tempted to use words like “sublime” and “ridiculous” in the reverse order of those things right now, but I do want to place on record that although this bill is not ridiculous, certainly the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill is closer to the sublime end of that scale.

Can I just say also that members of the House, of course, will understand the speech delivered by my colleague Andrew Little. The Labour Party is full of Roman Catholics. We started off with Roman Catholics—if we go back to Michael Joseph Savage and the people before him and our founders on the West Coast—so he is representing a very significant voice within the Labour Party. So I do want to acknowledge that.

Can I just say that, for my own part, there should not be any discussion about moving to a republic in New Zealand without proper consideration of the role of the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Tiriti and the impact of that on our psyche, on our history, and on our development as a nation would need to be compensated for, because it is a treaty with the Crown. Should we become a republic, similar or exactly the same provisions would need to be embedded somewhere—not with the Crown but with the Government of New Zealand. That conversation is not finished yet. It should not be rushed. And that is why this bill does not rush the decision about having Roman Catholics succeed to the throne.

Of course, Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the Church of Rome in 1534, so it has taken us 479 years to get this far. Sometimes, those things take a little while. They take a bit of thought. So at least the modernising step that is being made in this bill is to allow the Sovereign to be married to a Roman Catholic, but it does not allow a Roman Catholic to be the Sovereign, because with the title of Sovereign goes the title Defender of the Faith—Defender of the Faith. Henry VIII set that up. So if the faith is—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: No, he didn’t. The Pope gave that to him when he was a staunch Catholic, actually. That’s the history of it. And then he kept it.

Thank you.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He was a Catholic. Henry VIII was a Catholic.

Thank you. Yes, yes, everybody used to be a Catholic—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Not everybody.

Everybody used to be a Catholic, until various bits split away. Of course, the most famous secession from the Roman Catholic Church was that of Henry VIII, which he did for his own purposes so that he did not have to deal with that nasty provision around divorce. So he had his own reasons—he had his own reasons for doing that. I am grateful to the Minister of Justice for her interjection.

This bill is a sign of modernisation. We are slowly, 479 years on, making our way to the 21st century. At least the gender provision in the bill is something more modern. The Sovereign does not have to be the oldest boy; an older female sibling can accede to the throne. Of course, with the birth of baby George we do not have to confront that issue for quite some time, so quite when there will be another queen is yet to be seen. However, this is modernising in the terms of these constitutional things.

I would like to thank Scott Simpson, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, for a very congenial and still thoughtful discussion and debate in the select committee. Although this bill does not appeal to all, this is the constitutional reality that we have at the moment. Perhaps in another 479 years we may get to a complete constitutional and respectful self-determination state in New Zealand, one that has properly and with a great deal of thought and care taken into account what should be our fundamental commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a katou. Kia ora. Following on from the member Maryan Street, I definitely hope we do not have to wait 479 years to finally get our constitution, to get our house in order. The Royal Succession Bill is a relic of the past. It is an anachronism. It is a too little, too late measure by the monarchy. It is a relic of the past. It is high time that New Zealand moved on. We are like that stereotypical kid, that 30-year-old who is still living at home. It is time for New Zealand to leave the parents’ house, get a flat on our own, and maybe get some furniture of our own. Sure, it is a bit cruisy at home—you do not have to pay the bills, and maybe you do not even have to do the washing—but it is time to move out of home. It is time to stand on our own two feet.

I am rising to abstain on the Royal Succession Bill. I am quite happy and proud to be abstaining on this bill.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You came here to vote yes or no.

I cannot vote for a bill that enshrines discrimination, Mr Tau Henare. I cannot vote for a bill that the Labour Party said was a shuddering horror. I cannot vote for that. But I am also not going to vote against modernising and against ending sexist, discriminatory practices, which are what we have seen for hundreds of years under discriminatory monarchy. So what the Greens have decided to do is to abstain on this bill. What we will be doing is not voting for discrimination, but we are not voting against the modernisation of a discriminatory institution. [Interruption] I think what we have seen is a hornet’s nest of interjections taking off from both sides of the House.

I want to get to the substance of the bill. We want to acknowledge that the bill does do some good things. It is a modernising bill. It allows female first-borns to take the throne. It reduces the list of heirs whom the monarch can limit from marrying, which dates back to 1772, I understand. But the Greens, as I have outlined, will be abstaining on it. We cannot support discrimination, but we are not opposing a modernisation process. We would challenge other people—and I would like to be there on the barricades with Andrew Little. An abstention is a—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You don’t have the right to challenge. Not voting—that’s right. So you should leave. Take your pāua, take your crayfish, and leave.

Mr Henare, an abstention is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary vote. And what I would have preferred—if members had voted for Keith Locke’s referendum on the Head of State Referenda Bill—is what we could have been having, which is an actual conversation about where we go forward. This is a relic. It is an anachronism. I do not think that the member should be voting for such an old-fashioned, discriminatory institution.

This bill is, quite simply, too little, too late. The entire institution is corrupt. It is inside. It is an institution that has no place in 2013. It is simply incredible that in 2013 we are finally getting rid of that sexist, discriminatory primogeniture rule, which has been around for hundreds of years. We have seen women’s liberation for decades in New Zealand, and this Parliament and the other of the 16 realms that also have to pass this legislation are getting around to it only now. It is a discriminatory institution, and that is why I cannot support it.

What New Zealanders, particularly the younger generation, want, I believe, is to see a Kiwi head of State. What this bill does is discriminate against New Zealanders, because what we are seeing is an English head of State for New Zealand. She is called the monarch of New Zealand, but, as we saw with the Iraq War, where Britain went to war and we did not, she was the monarch of Britain, not New Zealand, representing our interests abroad. This is a monarch who has been in New Zealand, I understand, only around 10 times. She lives a life fundamentally different from New Zealanders’ lives. I think we should end the discrimination and allow a New Zealander to be our head of State.

Secondly, this bill discriminates against Roman Catholics, which we have heard about in this debate. When you look around this Chamber, it is not the old relic Tau Henare who is the only relic in this Chamber; we have got relics like the Mace, and we have got relics like the iconography of the monarchy and the prayer we start with. Again, that is an Anglican prayer, and it is time to ditch that discriminatory, sectarian way we start our Parliament. We should have a way that all members of all faiths or members not of faith can feel comfortable with. This bill clearly discriminates against Catholics, because the monarch cannot be a Catholic. They have to be part of the Anglican faith. It is fascinating watching the religious schism from the Protestant revolution still shaping our laws and our constitutional arrangements in 2013.

Lastly, although it is a modernisation and improvement that the monarch does not have to personally approve literally hundreds of marriages between potential future heirs—it has been limited to six—plainly and simply, what we are seeing is arranged marriage. I cannot vote for a bill that contains arranged marriage. I think it is egregious and should not be enshrined in New Zealand law or Commonwealth law. But, all in all—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What happened with the Rena? Oh, yeah, that’s all gone.

I know that it is the last day of the year, but I am going to try to ignore some of those inane interjections.

What we are talking about is our constitutional arrangements, and what I want to see is a proud, independent New Zealand going into the future with confidence. I do not want to see a New Zealand that looks to the past. I heard the member Scott Simpson say that we are a young country. In reality, we are the fourth-oldest parliamentary democracy in the world. We should be proud of our institutions, but it is time—like that stereotypical adult child—to be leaving home, to go and get our own house.

I think New Zealanders want an independent head of State who is a New Zealander, who grew up in a country like them, who knows about the country’s history, and who can represent New Zealand values on the world stage. It is time for New Zealanders to feel proud of a Treaty-based, inclusive democracy that does not have a head of State living on the other side of the world who very rarely travels here and who knows very little about our day-to-day life. It is time that we listened to the people of New Zealand and had a genuine debate around the Treaty.

As a member who supports the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as our founding document, I want to see that enshrined in our constitutional arrangements. For too long the relationship between the Crown and iwi in the Treaty has been used as an excuse to not see action. Many petitioners over the decades have gone to Westminster to see the Queen and, quite appropriately for our constitution arrangements under the 1947 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act, the Queen has referred iwi petitioners to the New Zealand Parliament. The Crown, in New Zealand statute, is enshrined in the monarch’s representative, the Governor-General, and the House of Representatives. This is the Crown.

If we are going to proceed into the future as a proud, multicultural nation that sees the Treaty at the heart of our constitutional arrangements and political Government, what we need to do is ditch that chimera that the Queen is somehow in a representative relationship with us. For 60 years she has batted those questions back to New Zealand. What I want to see is a true Treaty-based Parliament. We have got that old Upper House chamber. I would love to see a Treaty House of Parliament. What we have not seen in this debate, and what we have not seen in the constitutional debates set up by the Government, is a fundamental question: how do we embrace a Treaty nation? [Interruption]

Although Tau Henare is not the only relic we see in this Chamber, it is high time for New Zealand to go into the future with confidence. It is time to change some of this archaic iconography around this House. It is time to change our flag. It is time to change our constitutional arrangement. It is time to see a Kiwi as the head of State, a Kiwi representing New Zealand, a Kiwi doing us proud, and a Kiwi whom New Zealanders can vote for.

We do not want a monarch on the other side of the world. We want a new flag. We want a fairer, democratic, less discriminatory constitutional arrangement. New Zealanders want a proud, independent nation that stands on the world stage as a proud, independent nation, representing ourselves, not a monarch on the other side of the world. That is the future. It is my vision for New Zealand—a future that all New Zealanders can participate in, not just a discriminatory anachronism, a too-late relic of the past enshrined in this bill. Kia ora.

I am proud to be part of this Parliament and to have the privilege of voting, not abstaining, on the Royal Succession Bill. I am proud to be a member of the Commonwealth, I am proud to be a royalist, and I am proud to support this bill.

I am also proud to say that New Zealand First—always the voice of calmness, reason, and good sense in this House—will support the Royal Succession Bill. We do not see that there is any need whatsoever to launch into a debate about republicanism as a result of any consideration of this particular bill. We are very pleased to leave that to the Roundheads and the Cavaliers in the various parts of the House whom we have heard those sorts of sentiments come from so far today. Nor do we think there is any reason to start launching into a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi and whether, indeed, it has any part in the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand at all or, if so, what they should be. In fact, the bill has got a very narrow focus and does only three things. I might say that the Justice and Electoral Committee worked very hard to see that it did keep a very narrow focus, despite some very provocative submissions made to it during the course of its deliberations.

The Royal Succession Bill is a modernising bill. It takes only a few small steps forward, but they are steps forward and we should see them as that. The first one is gender-neutral succession, which is correct in principle, although the New Zealand First spokesperson on women’s affairs tells me that she thinks that the change should go a little further—that it should be for women-only succession. However, that is not New Zealand First policy. New Zealand First policy is, in fact, for gender-neutral succession, so we certainly support that aspect of the bill. It reflects what the public expects, and it has been needed for some time. It is good to see that happening at this stage.

The second, and much more difficult, provision in the bill relates to the possession of the Crown by a person who marries, or who has married, a Roman Catholic. Removing that exclusion is also a step forward. We understand that many say that the Crown itself should be able to be held by a Roman Catholic, or, indeed, by a person of any other religion. But New Zealand First does understand that we are only one of 16 realms concerned with these particular new provisions and that for historical reasons that we are all very, very well aware of, it is not appropriate for us down here in New Zealand to seek any further changes than that which is proposed. That is, in fact, something for the United Kingdom. If it gets round to making those changes, then I am sure that many people in this country would welcome it. But it is simply not feasible, sensible, or possible to promote those sorts of sentiments at this stage, and the bill does not do that. That is not within its scope.

The last provision, of course, requires something that is just common sense. Currently, all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry. There probably have already been many occasions where that consent has not been obtained because there must be hundreds of people who are covered by the current provision. It is just common sense that we have a new provision that only the first six in line to the throne will need to seek such consent. That is just a carry-on from the provision that requires to the Crown to be the head of the Church of England.

We see this as just a common-sense bit of legislation. We do not see any need whatsoever to look at republicanism, the place of the Treaty, or things that are clearly and obviously well outside the scope of the bill. I do not mind hearing some light-hearted debate about the matter, but it actually is quite a serious issue. It has been well-thought-through. It has been agreed to by the 16 realms.

There are some pretty sensible provisions made. All three of these are sensible. They are moving in the right direction. We should have no objection whatsoever to this bill. Therefore, I am a little bit disappointed that the Greens do not see it in that way and cannot vote for it. It is just common sense, and it would have been good if the House had been able to reach full consensus on the matter. So I regret that that is not going to be possible. New Zealand First has no difficulties with the legislation whatsoever and will vote for it.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call to support the Royal Succession Bill. This is a very important bill, particularly this morning when we are going to debate the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill. This bill is probably important not only for our past and present but for our future as well, because the reality is that MPs are required to pledge allegiance to the Queen as New Zealand’s head of State. Our system is a constitutional monarchy system. Every MP is bound by that system and every MP should swear their allegiance to the Queen. This is a relevant bill. This is not about somebody else’s head of State; it is about our head of State.

My first encounter with the Queen—not a personal encounter, of course—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why are you so disrespectful?

What was that?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why are you so disrespectful of our traditions in New Zealand?

Sorry?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Don’t be disrespectful about our parliamentary traditions. Don’t bag the Queen.

That is not a terribly constructive contribution from the Minister of Justice. My first encounter with the Queen was when I was studying at my first university in China. There was a paper called Queen’s English and Pub Talk. It was quite an interesting paper. For the first 2 years we had professors from England to teach us BBC English. But for the remaining 2 years we had professors from the United States to teach us VOA English, Voice of America English, so many students ended up speaking American English.

Coming back to this bill, it seeks to modernise historical royal succession rules by making three specific changes. Firstly, it provides for gender-neutral succession to the throne, ending the rule that a younger son precedes an elder daughter in the line of succession. Secondly, it provides for succession to, and possession of, the Crown by a person married to a Roman Catholic, removing the current prohibition. Thirdly, it requires only the first six in line to the throne to seek the Sovereign’s permission to marry in order to ensure that their marriage is valid. Currently, all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry.

The bill has a narrow scope. The changes to royal succession have been agreed by the 16 realms of which Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the submitters for their passion, their commitment, and their analysis, especially Monarchy New Zealand and The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand. Generally, submissions either supported or were neutral about the specific changes in the bill, which are seen as improving the current rules of royal succession. However, some submitters raised issues about the broader constitutional context behind the changes. I acknowledge my Green colleagues in that regard because they argued that the monarchy is outdated and that New Zealand should become a republic. The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand submitted that there should be a referendum on this issue, and, conversely, other submitters considered that the bill should change the rules to allow a Roman Catholic to become Sovereign of New Zealand.

As I said, the bill has a narrow scope. Wider constitutional issues, including the role of the monarchy, are beyond the purpose of this bill, and any moves for New Zealand to abolish the monarchy or hold a referendum on becoming a republic should be discussed in the context of a wider constitutional debate.

Finally, I think that the bill as drafted, particularly under clause 8, reflects our constitutional arrangements. Under Section 15(2) of the Constitution Act 1986, any changes to United Kingdom laws will not automatically apply to New Zealand. In addition, the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 adopts imperial laws as at the date of enactment, and it does not include subsequent changes. So any changes to United Kingdom laws do not automatically apply to New Zealand. That is a deliberate measure to ensure that United Kingdom Acts or amendments do not apply without being accepted by New Zealand’s Parliament. In line with this, New Zealand’s general legislative approach is to mirror relevant provisions of United Kingdom law in New Zealand law, rather than refer to United Kingdom Acts. Thank you.