Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee. It is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I stand in the House of Representatives tonight to speak to this bill, knowing full well that it does not have the numbers to succeed beyond its first reading.

It is with a sense of bewilderment and extreme sadness that I speak to the simple yet powerful provisions encapsulated in the 16 words of the text that I seek to have added to the Oaths and Declarations Act. Tonight I speak to the collective conscience of this House, and do so as many of my predecessors have done, and compel that conscience to act in the interest of our nation and vote in support of this bill, to swear a commitment of faith to our beloved Treaty of Waitangi. Tonight I ask us to put aside our philosophical positions, our polls, and our party spin, and replace them with honour to maintain, affirm, defend, and give support to the notion that in fulfilling our public duty we act in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. And if you cannot do this, if you cannot bring yourselves to vote in favour of this, then vote for others who seek it in their hearts to do so, and allow us the choice.

This bill follows on from the Māori Party’s previous efforts in 2012 to have the Treaty honoured during the taking of an oath—nothing more, nothing less than simple acknowledgment that, if you so desired, you could add seven simple words at the time, saying “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi” when you pledged your oath of office. At that time when the bill was heard, the Hon Tau Henare cautioned us with this statement in this House: “This bill is not some sort of procedural motion that we are talking about. We are not talking about some minor procedural motion. We are talking about something that goes to the heart of the identification of this country.”

I feel glad that I live in this country where I can send my kids to a total immersion school, and where I can get up and speak my own language in the House of Representatives. There are three languages in the House of Representatives—what a great democracy. What a great place. And we could have gone just that little bit further tonight, by saying that if you want to—if you want to—you could swear allegiance not only to the Queen, not only to the nation, but also to the founding document of our nation, the Treaty of Waitangi.

At that time there were calls to have more discussion about our constitutional arrangements and to await the outcome of a constitutional review. There were fears—irrational fears, I would call them—and concerns that there was not enough certainty about what was actually meant if you gave an oath to support our Treaty and someone else did not. There were other concerns raised about how consistent the bill was with other Acts, such as the Citizenship Act. There were even comments made that the bill is not the right platform, as the status of the Treaty is still evolving and that a wider discussion should involve all New Zealanders.

I consider it entirely inappropriate to enslave the debate for this bill to the confines of half-baked arguments that offering this choice for those who accept to take up the option will result in some sort of binding contract between the Treaty and the giver of the oath. Our founding document deserves more and we deserve more. To suggest that because some do not know what the principles of the Treaty are they should not be included at all, ever—I ask this House to remove the shackles of politics and to emancipate itself from the rhetoric that the Treaty has no place in this House, and, instead, to consider it an honour to be afforded the opportunity to swear an oath of faith in all that it means to be a representative of our people through the premise and the promise of our Treaty relationship.

To be truly representative of our people, we must be representative of our founding history. Burying our heads in the sand and relegating the Treaty to the too-hard basket is just not an option. Worse, relegating constitutional discussions about the Treaty to being only about Treaty settlements is unfortunate. We cannot rewrite history, and nor should we try. We know that change and enduring change is a lengthy process. History tells us that it is with small, sure, incremental steps that a vision for unity in diversity can be realised. We are not there yet by any means, and this bill is an example of how far we have to travel before our potential for partnership is actually achieved. And what are we if we are not a House of Representatives? So many times I have sat as an observer in this House and have wondered at the courage that it will take to bring these fundamental issues to the forefront of our debates.

What is so wrong with supporting this bill to its first reading so that it can be sent off to select committee for the debate to be heard, so that it can receive submissions from the New Zealand public? And that is why we have brought this bill back to the House. In fact, I have brought this bill back to the House with the changes that I believe allay any concerns that have been expressed earlier. I have, for example, awaited the constitutional review, which is now complete. I have offered to work to ensure consistency with other Acts and that the additional oath given will be for parliamentary purposes only. I have agreed to maintain section 4 of the Oaths and Declarations Act, which allows for alternative affirmations in place of the oath. I find it quite remarkable that you can choose to take an oath and omit God but not the Queen, but yet here it is, and yet we choose to omit the Treaty. And yet, despite all of this, I cannot get the agreement of the House to get the bill to a select committee.

The Māori Party will not resile from the challenge of this or any other issue that advances the interest of tangata whenua in the interest of our nation. The irony is not lost on me that today we have one of the most significant days of our history. Today in the Māori Affairs Committee we got to discuss the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. That bill will recognise the awa in its own entity, and today we got to discuss that in the select committee. It is partnership in true action, and yet here we are—here we are—about to turn down this bill, which simply seeks to allow every person who takes an oath, in addition to repeating the words of the oath, to elect to state that they will perform their duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

That means that any person who elects to state that they will perform their duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi may do so by making the following statement, either before the words of the oath or at the end of the affirmation: “I will perform my duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” or “E ai ki ngā mātāpono o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ka whakatutuki ahau i ōku mahi.” And what can be so hard as to agree to give people the choice as to whether they wish to act in accordance with the principles of the Treaty? Some might ask what that means in reality. Well, in reality it simply means giving expression to partnership, being cognisant of our duality of nationhood, and being understanding of our diverse cultures as we discharge our obligations as servants of our people.

I want to finish with the prophetic words of our founding Māori Party co-leader Dame Tariana Turia, from a speech that she gave in Dunedin in 2004: “The Māori Party is committed to ensuring all New Zealanders have an understanding of and respect for the status of tangata whenua and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Treaty is the ultimate key to an effective relationship between our peoples. It should not be used to defy or destroy us. Our tipuna—those of the Crown and those of tangata whenua—embraced it as a strategy to live together peacefully in this nation.” We should honour their intention, and I recommend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. It is my pleasure and my honour to be able to stand here as the first speaker for the Government for the Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill’s first reading. I want to start by acknowledging Marama Fox for the work she has done to get this bill to the House and, of course, for her good fortune in having drawn it from the ballot. I consider Marama Fox a friend and a colleague in many ways. We are Māori MPs. We have come to this House to achieve the best outcomes for our people and for all New Zealanders. We are partners in the most stable and successful coalition Government that this country has ever seen, and we are members of the Māori Affairs Committee, which, I humbly submit, is the most collegial and cooperative committee in Parliament. But we all do not agree, and today, on this issue, we are going to disagree.

This bill had its genesis before either Marama Fox or I were members of Parliament, when my old school friend Hone Harawira caused somewhat of a disturbance by defying the law as it is and reading out his own oath, which included swearing allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi. So I want to acknowledge that Marama Fox is going about this the right way: by seeking, through the democratic process, to change the law and, therefore, the tikaka of Te Whare Pāremata. I commend her for her efforts and congratulate her on getting this far with her bill. But that said, I also disagree with her and with the Māori Party on this issue.

This is certainly a well-intentioned bill, as Marama Fox has just said. But speaking for myself, I see the Treaty of Waitangi as central to what we do here in Parliament. It is our duty to examine every piece of legislation that comes here in the light of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to ensure that the Treaty and its principles are upheld. This is something that I take very seriously, and particularly in my role as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee because every piece of legislation we examine involves interaction between the Crown and Māori and, therefore, plays some part in the Treaty relationship. Every agency of executive Government that we review each year has some responsibility as a representative of the Crown. But even in my other committee responsibilities on the Local Government and Environment Committee, I see the Treaty at play on a day-to-day basis. Whether we are considering resource management, water issues, or wider conservation issues, the Treaty is always a factor and we are always tasked with ensuring proposed legislation upholds its principles.

Every day that I serve in this House I am committed to performing my duties in accordance with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is my personal commitment; one that I know is shared by colleagues right across this House. I see this responsibility as being intrinsic in the oath that I took. I have sworn my allegiance to the Crown and, thereby, to serve the people and the country of New Zealand. To me there is no question that in swearing that oath I undertook to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi and the laws of this country.

I understand the desire of some members to recognise their personal commitment to the Treaty when making their oath or affirmation, but I cannot see that this is what the oath is actually about. The oath is not about declaring the particular issues we feel most passionate about. It is not about that. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has the floor. The member is giving a speech in a solemn tone. For that member to continue to barrack during the course of that does not show respect to this House or that member, and I would ask her to stop.

I understand the desire of some members and the passion of some members to recognise their personal commitment to the Treaty when making their oath or affirmation, but I cannot see that this is what the oath is about. The oath is not about declaring the particular issues we feel most passionate about. If that was the case, I would choose to signal my commitment to upholding the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But that is not what the oath is for. That is not what the oath is for. The oath is something that is prescribed for each one of us in this House to take, or for those who are in other positions who are required to take an oath.

It is right that a very minor variation be allowed for those who have an objection or preference for affirming rather than swearing. Whether sworn or affirmed, the statement contained in the oath or affirmation has the same meaning, which is loyalty to our country, symbolised by the allegiance to the Crown. But there should never be substantial differences between the oaths required for holders of the same position to take. There should not be.

All of us, as members of Parliament, should be serving here on the same basis. We should be here on the same basis. I do not think it would be desirable to have a situation where some MPs have taken an oath to uphold the Treaty and some have not. Upholding the Treaty is the duty of every member of Parliament. That would not change based on whether MPs chose to swear a particular oath or not. It would not change—it would not change. But the implication of having different oaths would be that some MPs are sworn to uphold the Treaty and some are not, as I said. Some are not and some are, if they want to uphold the Treaty. Acting in accordance with the principles of the Treaty would then be very subjective.

We are all familiar with the established principles of the Treaty, but how they apply in each situation continues to evolve through the application of legislation and court rulings. That is, in some ways, the essence of this. The Oath of Allegiance should not impose responsibilities that are not clearly defined on those who take it. It should not impose different responsibilities on holders of the same position. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill.

💬 Kelvin Davis: What were they again?

These are them. Taking an oath or declaration is a significant part of New Zealand’s legal framework, requiring a standard of national approach. The status of the Treaty in New Zealand’s constitution and the duties flowing from it are a matter of law and Government policy. Just to finish, this is my point also: National is committed to ensuring that Māori and all New Zealanders can enjoy a successful and a more prosperous future. Kia ora.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well that was a kete full of hōhā if ever I heard a speech. Here we have the National Government, which has just spent the last hour championing choice, and what happens? It is denying Māori the choice to stand up for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Māori members of the National Party must be quite embarrassed by their party’s stance.

It is not a well-known fact that Queen Elizabeth II and I are, in Māori terms anyway, quite closely related. She does not actually mention my name often; I guess that proves that she is not a name-dropper. But the reality is that my great-great-grandfather’s first cousin was godson to Queen Elizabeth II’s great-great-great-grandmother. So, if we overlay the Māori whakapapa framework, that basically means that we are whānau. But, despite the fact that we are whānau—Queen Elizabeth II has been to New Zealand a number of times, and each time she heads up to Waitangi and drives right past our marae. She has never once swung in to her whānau’s marae. You know, whānau is whānau; my marae is her marae. Not once have I seen her turn up. Not once have I heard her karanga. Not once have I heard her waiata. Not once has she peeled a spud or washed a plate or opened kinas whatsoever. When, on the odd occasion, I have been over to England, I turn up to her place—no pōwhiri, no karanga, not even a whakatau. In fact, there is this big wrought iron fence out in front of her marae, with these guys with red jackets and big woolly hats on and guns keeping me out. She does not know anything about whanaungatanga or manaakitanga, or anything like that.

The point of the story is that Queen Elizabeth II has absolutely no understanding or any ability to relate to who I am and where I am from as a Māori New Zealander. I have absolutely no ability to relate to her and where she comes from. Yet when I walked into this House here and I had to put my hand on the Bible, I had to swear allegiance to a lovely great-grandmother who lives over in England. I did not have the opportunity as a Māori member of Parliament to swear allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles—and that is really unacceptable. The National Government has an opportunity today to change that.

I can relate to the Treaty of Waitangi because I grew up in the place where it was signed. My great-great-great-great-grandfather was one of the signatories; he was the grandfather of that godson of Queen Victoria. I ran around and played, as a kid, on the place known as Tau Rangatira, where the chiefs sat on 5 February and debated and discussed the Treaty of Waitangi before heading over the river to sign it the next day. We used to walk freely all around the Waitangi Treaty Grounds when I was a young person, until Pita Paraone and Peeni Henare and all the other members of the Waitangi National Trust actually put a charge on it. I have even hit a few golf balls up the fairway that runs parallel to the Treaty Grounds—in fact, probably more of my golf balls have landed on the Treaty Grounds than have landed on the fairway. But the fact of the matter is, as a Māori I can relate to the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; I cannot relate to a lovely great-grandmother who sits in her house at the end of The Mall in London. It means nothing to me, and it means nothing to many of my Māori compatriots—and even to non-Māori members of Parliament.

I remember, as a teenager, when I signed up for teachers’ college in 1984, having to go down to the local chemist because there was the justice of the peace, George Barke. He made me put my hand on a Bible as well and swear allegiance to that same English great-grandmother. It just did not mean anything to me then. It was a bit embarrassing, because he made me do it in the middle of his shop with all of the customers walking around, and I just thought it was ridiculous. The Treaty of Waitangi is something that I can relate to, that I can swear allegiance to, that all New Zealanders can swear allegiance to if they want. Marama Fox is only asking for us to have the choice. Thank you.

I stand to take a short call on the Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. It is quite interesting, I can put my hand on my heart and say that the Treaty was not signed where I was brought up—I did not live there; I lived in a little place called Rangiwāhia—and at that time we did not know a lot about the Treaty. But let us take a little bit of a look at the history of how the Treaty got here. It was Queen Victoria, that great-grandmother over there in England, who actually brought that Treaty, through her representative, Hobson. When we start to look at what the member Marama Fox is trying to do here in getting people to swear the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, we need to start looking at what those principles are and how they play out with every individual person.

Let us start with the members in this House, because what partnership means to me is very different to some of my colleagues. It means very different things to different people, and how do we judge that? How do you judge that when somebody swears in their oath to that particular principle? Who judges it? Who will critique that? How will we know that we have done this in the duties that we are swearing to? I believe that we already do that. We do not need to swear that. That goes with the principle of protection and the principle of participation, because we do that. Look at the number of Treaty bills that have been signed through this Government: 54 since 2009; a total of 80 Treaty bills that have gone through here. As my colleague Nuk Korako so eloquently put it in his speech, there is nothing in our bills that we do not consider in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

When we start to look at all of these things around “How do we know that? How do we judge it?”, it does put a lot of people into a precarious situation, and then there starts to be some competition about who does it better than others, because it will happen. If this particular bill is going to go forward, you need to have a lot more discussion around how it is going to be applied and what kinds of standards are going to be put in place, because they will come out regardless of what people say. You can stand in this House today and say no, it will never happen—but it will happen, and every single one of us will be judged by it, should this bill be passed. It is interesting that many people on the opposite side have a lot to say about it—a lot to say—and yet, have they thought about the future consequences of what that may mean for other MPs, other representatives across various organisations who take various oaths, what that means within their duties in doing whatever it is that they are doing?

I believe that there needs to be a lot more thinking going on around this, and I can see that when we start looking, everybody is saying: “Oh, National doesn’t care. It has no good affinities with Māori.” That is rubbish. It is a lot of rubbish. We look at the principles that we have within our side of the House as recognition of property rights and economic independence. That is what those Treaty bills are all about. That is what most of the bills that involve Māori are all about. Strong, capable families and whānau—that is what this side of the House does with working with Māori and delivering the various bills and policies that we have.

If we start looking at cultural diversity, once we start looking across the House—yes, New Zealand has that. We have a broad church of a number of cultures here in New Zealand, and every single one of those ethnicities actually acknowledges that Māori are the mana whenua. That is what they acknowledge—and they do, they uphold the Treaty within their own ways. We do not need legislation around this. We do not need an oath to actually say that we support things like this, because we do it. It is the doing, not the saying. It is the doing that counts, and that is exactly what this side of the House does. We do it. Let us start talking about going down the alleyway of the foreshore and seabed. It was not this side; it was the other side. We actually model what we do with Māori on this side, and I cannot support this particular bill tonight.

Kia ora tātou katoa. He mihi nui ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I am very glad to be here tonight as well as very ashamed, because I am afraid the bill is going to go down, and the consequences of not doing it send a very strong message. They send a message that the Parliament is still not ready to grow up and recognise that we are not in London, we are not in Westminster—we are in Aotearoa. We can take what is good from our colonial history and we can take what is good from our founding document and we can create a better country, but we do not do it by voting this bill down.

I want to just acknowledge Marama Fox and the Māori Party for bringing this forward. The Green Party is very proud to support a bill that would allow people to take their oath on Te Tiriti. I have experienced the humiliation in this House of trying to swear on Te Tiriti. It is not just about tangata whenua, because Te Tiriti is needed more by Pākehā than anyone else. It is the founding document that affirms our right to live with honour in Aotearoa with respect to the people who never ceded their rangatiratanga. That is why this option should exist.

When I have tried to swear on Te Tiriti in this House, it is because it is the meaningful founding document. The Crown is only one part of the bargain. If people find it meaningful to swear to the Crown, they are welcome to do so, but in Aotearoa the fact that the option does not exist is bizarre. We support the bill because sovereignty—or if you want to call it tino rangatiratanga—in article 2 was never ceded. Go and ask Ngāpuhi. I have been to Waitangi every year for 16 years, which is nothing compared with those who are from there. Every year I have been to Tou Rangatira and listened to the kōrero about what Te Tiriti means. Although I support the bill, I do not actually support the principles. I support the articles because the articles make it very clear: kāwanatanga, the governance of Pākehā by Pākehā, and ngā tauiwi katoa for our diverse nation. Article 2: tino rangatiratanga. The absolute chieftainship of the rangatira, given by their people to them, was never ceded.

So the Crown and this Parliament have no right to say that we cannot swear on Te Tiriti o Waitangi or that the Parliament is sovereign without Te Tiriti. It is about the relationship, and if people do not understand that it is about the relationship, no wonder they do not understand about power in relationships, which means recognising and respecting people’s right to honour their most solemn values. That is what an oath is supposed to be: we swear on our solemn values. For many of us and, increasingly, for a younger generation who have had the benefit of some Te Tiriti education, Te Tiriti is the foundation. And there is recognition that prior to 1840 there was also a process, including Te Whakaputanga, but also a long-term process whereby people of the North, in particular—and, I believe, Kahungunu—travelled to talk to the British Crown about the relationship, not to cede sovereignty.

This bill offers people the opportunity to swear on what they hold valuable. The future of this country and the past of this country cannot be separated from Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Why would we want to do that? In terms of leadership—and I have taught Te Tiriti workshops for 20 years now—people look to this Parliament to see symbolic action showing genuine respect and recognition. Yes, we have made progress in some areas but in this area we seem to be blocked. We seem to be locked into a fear-based approach—a fear of diversity, a fear of so-called choice, but also a fear of upholding what is most important to a very, very significant part of our population, including many Pākehā who believe this is really important. So I do not know what these people are afraid of, I really do not.

I also do not understand the arguments that have been put forward about how this might undermine the clear purpose of Parliament or it might create division or confusion. I personally had a member’s bill that every citizen would have the opportunity to swear an oath on Te Tiriti in the citizenship ceremony and that each citizen would be told who the mana whenua were. So I am sorry, Marama, but we do definitely support your bill. I am sorry the others do not—I mean the other, the National Government.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ā, tēnā tātou e noho tahi i roto i Te Whare nei i te pō nei. Ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu o tōku kōrero, e hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki tetahi o ngā kaimahi o Te Whare nei i hinga atu i tērā atu rā. Nā reira, e Tuhi Hauiti Parapara, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe, takoto mai rā i runga i te ātamira o ō mātua tupuna, nā rātou i tākiri mōu i tēnei wā. Nā reira, ahakoa he poto noa iho tēnei mihi, ka nui te aroha ki a koe me tō whānau. Nā reira e kara, haere, haere, hoki atu. Hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to those sitting here in this House, tonight. But before I continue with my contribution, I want to pay a tribute one of the workers of this House who passed away the other day. So to you, Tuhi Hauiti Parapara, I acknowledge you lying there upon the elevated platform of your ancestral forefathers that they laid out for you at this time. Despite this being a brief tribute, there is much compassion for you and your family. So farewell dear friend, depart and return. I come back to us the living and accolades to us all.]

We have had six speakers from both sides of the House, two supporting the bill and the rest, obviously, opposing. It is about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and yet not one speaker has articulated what those principles are. So I want to quote from the Good Book, Mr Deputy Speaker—and you will appreciate this—it is taken from 1 Corinthians 14:8: “Ki te kahore hoki e mārama ki te tangi o te tēpere, ko wai e takatū ki te whawhai?”. Ka pai—I will translate it: “For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?”.

I use that quote because of the uncertainty as to what those principles are. Mr Bennett may know those principles, but then, if I go back to the early settlement bills, reference was made to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, yet none of those principles were articulated in those pieces of legislation, and yet recent settlement bills make no mention of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as part of the legislation. Maybe they do as part of the explanation, but certainly not in the body of the legislation.

So New Zealand First’s position has always been that because of the uncertainty of just what those principles are, then we would not be supporting legislation like this—No. 1. No. 2—the bill talks about “elect”, thus giving an option. So what happens if half the team chose not to take that option and only the other half does? If the sponsor of this bill was serious about the intent, then she would have used the word “must” rather than saying “elect”—but she did not—so even she has some uncertainty about it.

The other thing is that if you look at the explanatory note, in the third line from the bottom—and the member who sponsors this bill might want to read the word—it says “Treaty of Waitingi;”, instead of “Treaty of Waitangi;”. So that suggests to me that this has been put through with some haste, without even being able to spell the word “Waitangi” properly. You are talking about an oath. Should it not be correct in every sense of the word? So until the actual principles are articulated, New Zealand First will certainly be opposing the bill. Thank you.

I was just doing my House duties, sitting in the House minding my own business, reading my Treaty of Waitangi negotiations folder for tomorrow’s work—including a very interesting reference to a meeting with a professor from Oregon to discuss the Whanganui River and Urewera settlements, which are becoming rather well-known overseas for their innovative approach to Treaty questions—when I heard the debate on this particular issue, so I thought that I would give a brief speech to comment on it because, in a word, although I have huge respect for Marama Fox, who is an excellent colleague with whom I enjoy working, I do think the bill is unnecessary.

It always seems to be my miserable fate to follow Pita Paraone on these matters, and he may recall—in fact, hearing the great man speak made me run out to the lobby to obtain the debate on his bill, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill of November 2007. He looks a little bit quizzical, but I remember it very well, and maybe I could get him to read the excellent speech I gave on the subject, which can be found in Volume 643 of Hansard—I know Mr Faafoi will be fascinated to read it—at page 12880, where I set out very clearly an excellent and succinct summary—

💬 Kris Faafoi: I’ve already got a copy of it. I use it to go to sleep.

—of what the principles of the Treaty were. Yes, it is very good. If ever you are feeling tired, or jetlagged, go to page 12880 in Hansard and you will be riveted. But there you are. The principles are actually reasonably well-known, and so Mr Paraone’s constant complaint about the principles not being well-known is, with the greatest of respect to my friend, a little bit off the mark, but there we have it.

But I just want to go back to the wonderful day when we are all sworn in as members of Parliament and we enjoy that particular ceremony, and as Attorney-General, when I go down to the swearing-in of a judge I enjoy the ceremony where the Oath of Allegiance is taken. Everyone stands up, takes the oath or the affirmation, and they say “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”—or, if you are an atheist, no “God”. I think that that is all very well, but the fact of the matter is we need to focus on that phrase “according to law.”, because part of the law of New Zealand is, in fact, the Treaty, and part of the Treaty, of course, is that we accept that there are principles of the Treaty that we regard as important, and I am forever going around the country apologising for breaches of those principles of the Treaty over the years—most recently at a fantastic ceremony in Dannevirke, where I apologised for the breach of the principles of the Treaty in relation to Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui a Rua and Rangitāne o Wairarapa. I did not see Catherine Delahunty there. I am sure she would have been invited. In fact, I like to see Catherine Delahunty at these functions because I know that she is very experienced as a Treaty educator and has a great interest in these matters, and that is splendid when she is able to attend. But the fact of the matter is that we say “according to law.” And, by necessary implication, we read into that the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

So the short point is that I respect Marama Fox and I look very closely at this issue, but if we incorporate a particular reference to the principles of the Treaty, frankly, to use the old phrase—and I am sure I say this for the benefit of Kennedy Graham, who understands the phrase—we are simply piling Ossa on Pelion, and it is basically a waste of space. We do not need it. When we swear that oath—when judges swear the oath, they are swearing allegiance to the Treaty and its principles that they will conduct themselves in accordance with those principles in public life, and that is a very good thing.

So that is the short answer. I know that there is a lot of noise that goes on with these things, but at the end of the day we as members of Parliament have to be logical, and we can agree that the principles are very important. Because of my efforts in 2007, we know what those principles are—

💬 Sue Moroney: But you can’t swear allegiance to them.

—and I would say to Sue Moroney to stop whining and simply concentrate on the words, because words do matter. It is simply unnecessary. It is simply unnecessary, it is otiose, and it is piling Ossa on Pelion.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Otirā, tēnā tātou e Te Whare. I just want to acknowledge, first of all, Marama Fox for bringing this bill to the House.

It has been a very interesting debate. So far, all of the points that I have heard—I have heard a lot of points supposedly against this bill, but they sound like points that are for the bill, and the issues that are raised are issues that could be discussed at a select committee. That is why I stand in support of this bill. I think it is a great idea to have that discussion around what is the content not only of the oath that we take in this Parliament but of every oath and declaration. I think it is a discussion that we should actually have, and the right place for that to take place is at a select committee. I encourage everyone to actually vote for that opportunity. We should have that opportunity.

We have heard a lot about the Treaty of Waitangi and about irrational fear. In 1975 there was some irrational fear around the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which the then Labour Government passed, and there were a lot of things said at that time about what would happen. Then in 1985, again, when it was amended so that claims could be taken right back to 1840, there was some more irrational fear. At that time, people were talking about “It’s going to bankrupt the country. It’s going to do all sorts of things.”, and now we can sit in this House and have rational debates about Treaty settlement claims, which the whole House supports. That is the importance of the Treaty, but it also shows how our attitude towards the Treaty of Waitangi has changed over the last 40 years. This bill is another way that we can give expression to the Treaty of Waitangi.

I was really interested to hear my colleague Kelvin Davis talk about his whakapapa. When we swore allegiance to the Queen, her heirs, and successors, I did not realise that we might be swearing allegiance to his whānau, because if what he said is right, then he could very well be an heir or successor to the Queen.

I really support this bill. In 1996 Tariana Turia actually swore allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi. She was the first one to do that, and she got away with it.

💬 Marama Fox: Did the House fall down?

Did anything change? Well, no, not really, but it was an expression for her to let the whole world know that the kaupapa she was standing on was the Treaty of Waitangi. I believe that I should have that opportunity as well, and every other member who wants to express that should have that opportunity as well. When I did take the oath in this House, I put my hand on the Bible and in my other hand I held a copy of the Treaty of Waitangi. I wanted to give my own personal expression to both the Bible and the Treaty—my faith and my kaupapa that I believe in. That is the way I did it. I would have loved to have the opportunity to say those words—to say that I would undertake the work of a member of Parliament under the kaupapa of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I strongly believe that every one of us should have the opportunity to do that.

I also believe that those irrational fears that are being articulated belong in 1975, not in 2016. So I encourage every single one of us in this Whare to examine the words that are coming out of our mouths and match them up with our actions. The words that I am hearing from the members opposite about this bill do not match up to their action of not voting for it. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēna koutou ōku hoa o ngā whare Pāremata.

[And so acknowledgments to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to my colleagues of the houses of Parliament.]

It is a great pleasure to be able get up and make a contribution on this bill. I have always had a little bit of a fascination with oaths and declarations: as a mayor I used to oversee a lot of people taking their oath of affirmation, or otherwise, during citizenship ceremonies; and, in fact, even going back to being a social worker, from having to go into court and give evidence and having to swear on the Bible. The good book has been mentioned by my colleague Pita Paraone already. The thing that has always fascinated me, actually, about oaths and declarations is that in the very Bible that people swear on often there is the Book of James, chapter 5, verse 12, which says: “Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Just let your yes be yes, and your no be no.” So, ironically, even swearing on the Bible is kind of counter to what it says in the Bible, but that is OK. That is just by the by—a little bit of a sidetrack. I am sure we can have the theological debate about the rights or wrongs of that argument afterwards. But there have always been views about oaths and declarations and the various aspects of them, and what is appropriate and what is not appropriate when making those oaths.

When I first heard of this idea, I thought perhaps this has some merit. There is no doubt that the Treaty of Waitangi actually has a very, very special and significant place in New Zealand’s history. No one is doubting that. No one is doubting that it was significant and that it is important that we take cognisance of it. As the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said already this evening, he has spent a good part of his time here, in that role, settling some of those grievances that are around the Treaty of Waitangi. So, absolutely, is this Government committed to the Treaty of Waitangi? Yes. Is it committed to settling grievances around it? Yes, it is. Is it committed to ensuring that our laws and our statutes reflect aspects of the Treaty of Waitangi? Absolutely.

But where I started to come unravelled in my thinking—some of these people think I was coming unravelled in my thinking about this—and where it was that I actually started to have some doubts about this was the idea, the notion, that people would have an ability to make an oath in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. With all due respect to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Attorney-General, who obviously has a very clear understanding of the principles, actually, there are a lot of people who do not. In fact, I was one of those people and probably still am, to a certain degree.

In the year 1995 I took probably what was my most interesting ever university paper. It was 52.55 and something in the title referred to the Treaty of Waitangi. It was taken by Sir Mason Durie, who was the best lecturer I ever had. I had to do a very concise assignment one day, on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The difficulty I had at the time was choosing what principles to do. Because it was only to be concise, I elected to use the three that were highlighted in the Royal Commission on Social Policy of 1988, and these are the ones that are often commonly accepted by people: Partnership, Protection, and Participation. So I focused my essay on those three. Well, I got a C+ and not from Sir Mason Durie but from the guy who was the tutor for that paper. But anyway I got a C+. Thankfully, I made up for it at the end of the year because I got an A-. I got marked down because I picked only those three principles.

The issue I have with this bill is not the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi in our society. It is important. It is the vagaries and the lack of understanding by the general populace of what is meant by the principles. There have been some good arguments put forward as to why this bill is not necessary. I support those arguments and believe that going forward we do not need to incorporate this. We need to have oaths and affirmations and declarations that are easily understood, they are black and white, and they have no level of ambiguity, and so for those reasons I and this side of the House will be voting against this bill.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa; ngā mihi mahana tino tautoko e hoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House, and to us all; warm acknowledgments to you, colleague, I truly endorse you.]

I really want to start with some information from a November 2004 Cabinet Office document that is entitled “New Zealand’s constitution – past, present and future”. Paragraph 6 of that particular document says: “New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world without a full and entrenched written constitution (the others are Britain and Israel).” What it says is that the law in our country is sourced from the following: the Queen, various statutes with constitutional significance—they include the Constitution Act, the Electoral Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and also the Magna Carta. It also says that the courts and the Treaty of Waitangi form New Zealand’s constitution. I bring that up because the interesting point to raise, after Minister Finlayson’s comment, is based on the fact that the law is something that we all swear to, and if that includes the Treaty, well, it actually also includes the Queen, and we do swear allegiance to the Queen. Therein begins my assessment of this piece of legislation.

So in 1957 the Oaths and Declarations Act was created. It was the Act that thereby gave us, as office holders, the words to say when we were elected to certain offices. Forty-eight years later, on 17 May 2005, we actually decided to review it. The Minister at that time was Phil Goff; he was the Minister of Justice. We did that, through the Oaths Modernisation Bill, because we thought it was about time that we modernised that piece of legislation. What did that result in? It actually resulted in the affirmation. What else did that result in? It resulted in the use of Te Reo. So now, when we come into this House at the beginning of each term, we can say the oath or the affirmation in English or in Māori.

An interesting thing that happened during that process was we actually did have a discussion document and we did ask the public. The public did feed back. They said that, yes, they wanted to keep the reference to the Queen, and that, yes, they wanted to keep the reference to religious beliefs. So some of us do say “so help me God” after we say the oath. That is great. That is fine. So to say that the oath does not evolve, or it does not reflect society is actually completely incorrect.

What is an oath? Let us get to definitions. An oath is a solemn promise. It is also a commitment to one’s future action or behaviour. That is what an oath is. That is what we all swear when we come into this wonderful institution that we are all so privileged to represent. We are here for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. All we ask, and, I think, all they ask of us, is that we evolve with society. I think that the proposition in this piece of legislation is something that merits support at first reading—I really do. Things that have been brought up—we can fix them. That is what the select committee process is all about.

I actually think we are completely undermining this institution by not supporting this piece of legislation. The interesting thing is—if you look back to 2005, guess who voted against modernising the oaths? The National Party did. It did not support creating an affirmation. It did not support enabling us to say either the oath or the affirmation in Te Reo. For them at that time, reading through the Hansard, it was all about republicanism. We were on the path to republicanism. That seemed to be its biggest issue for not supporting—after 48 years—a piece of legislation that this Parliament supported. It was a Government bill; Labour led that process.

My colleagues, I just cannot for the life of me see why the National Government will not support the piece of legislation that Marama Fox has brought to this House. That would enable the select committee to fix up any issues. But, at the end of the day, give us the choice as New Zealanders to pledge allegiance to the Treaty of Waitangi. We could get rid of the principles then. Let us all just have an ability to pledge allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So I will take this opportunity: I pledge allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora tātou.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a little bit bemused. In fact, I wonder at this House in 2016—how we can continue to bathe in the lack of understanding and ignorance that engulfs our country in respect of the Treaty. For all of these people to stand up and say: “It is not necessary; it’s in the law. It’s not necessary; we don’t understand what the principles are.” Educate yourself. We have been told by the Hon Chris Finlayson that he has clearly articulated it for the benefit for all New Zealand, and we are eternally grateful!

Mr Pita Paraone, there is no substance to your argument in not supporting this bill tonight. Your argument is, in fact, more critical and political than anything of any substance.

Mr Nuk Korako stood up and said: “I’m committed. I’m committed to carrying out my duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” So then let us take an oath to say so.

Despite the fact that it is enshrined in the law, until 1975—as pointed out by my colleague Mr Rurawhe—there was great debate about whether or not we should even recognise the Treaty. It was declared a nullity in the law. So now we have it, and the true expression of rangatiratanga for the people who are partnered to the Treaty should be allowing them to take an oath to do so. But people say it would confuse us. Well, tell me what is not confusing about swearing an oath on the Bible, or swearing an oath to God? Tell me how many Christian religions there are who argue about the face of God and what that might look like? Yet, how do we uphold that? We stand up here and swear an oath of allegiance—doing so—and that is not confusing? We do not hold somebody to a standard different to someone who does not swear an oath to God. We do not stand up here and say: “But the Queen is higher than God, therefore you can admit God, but not the Queen.” And we do not find that confusing? The ignorance that this House continues to be bathed in just defies belief.

This country is held up as a beacon to the rest of the indigenous peoples of the world, as a way forward because it is founded on a treaty. Today I gave an interview on Sky TV in Australia as they debated whether or not the Aboriginal people in Australia should have a treaty. They go: “Look at you, New Zealand, you have one—aren’t you great? Haven’t you come so far.” Well, obviously not far enough—not far enough. I am disappointed by Nuk. In fact, I think that he must have choked on his words—Mr Korako—as he struggled to say them today.

My colleague Jo Hayes, whom I sit next to, talked about the confusion of those who might and those who will not, and yet confusions over the interpretations of the Bible exist. Do you know that the Judicature Modernisation Bill is about to come up? In the modernisation of that bill they wanted to take out the Treaty clause. Because we as a party of independent Māori voices uphold the principles of the Treaty, we went to the Minister and implored her to retain that clause, to ensure that anything relating to this in that bill does relate to the Treaty. She has put the clause back in. Imagine if we were not here to do that—imagine if we just left it because “it’s in the law; we don’t need it.”

We do need it. We need to show that we are progressive. We need to show that we are committed. I challenge every member of this House who has sworn to vote for this bill—the next time, when they come to swear an oath of allegiance—to stand up and do so to the Treaty whether or not we are thrown out for it. It is abhorrent to me that we cannot do this simple thing. I am disappointed in this House, and its continual bathing in ignorance.