Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill

I move, That the Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill be now read a second time.

If I can thank members from across the House for sharing some of their personal and shared reflections on the death and the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and what this period of time means for them. We heard some quite varied reflections, which I think is entirely appropriate and reflects the fact that this is an important time and that there’s something here to be considered about this event in the context of our national story. The Government believes that a focused day—a national memorial day—enables us to come together as whānau, as communities, to be able to share these reflections.

I hope that in this debate we can mainly avoid niggle and rancour. But I do have to put on record that I do somewhat resent, in the first reading of this debate, for the ACT Party speaker to have presumed to have spoken on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II by claiming that she knew what the Queen would have thought about this particular piece of legislation. I’m quite certain that I do not know what the Queen would have thought. I’m very certain that Brooke van Velden does not know what the Queen would have thought. She was a famously independent woman who would have made her own mind up about these matters, and had she been asked about it she would most certainly have said, as the ever-appropriate constitutional monarch, that the matter is in fact up to the New Zealand Parliament. Rather than attempting to divine the mind of the late Queen, I can, however, directly quote from her, in response to some of the comments from the ACT Party speaker. The late Queen once said, “Perhaps we make too much of what is wrong and too little of what is right. The trouble with gloom is that it feeds upon itself and depression causes more depression.”

Well, I’m quite certain that while the creation of a new public holiday on Monday 26 September will mean that there is a degree of disruption and that some arrangements do need to be rearranged, that New Zealanders, as resilient people, will deal with that, that we are capable of doing more than one thing at once, that we are capable of making choices, and that we are capable of balancing things up. And sometimes as a country, as we do on other public holidays, we recognise that in balancing things up it is appropriate to come together as families and communities for a particular national purpose.

Ultimately, certainly on this side of the House, we don’t believe that we just live in a market. We live in a society, and sometimes moments like this are important. I do also need to put on record that the quoted figure for the economic cost of this public holiday is not correct and is not what is advised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who advise that, in fact, the possible economic impact of this public holiday ranges from a positive economic impact of $28 million through to a possible negative economic impact of $137 million—less than a third of what was quoted.

In rounding off my comments in this reading of the bill, can I reiterate the special and unique nature of this day. It is about commemorating our head of State, who was the only head of State known by most of us, certainly all of us in this Chamber, who was our head of State for over 70 years. It is one day to memorialise our Sovereign, for New Zealanders across the country to be able to attend memorials and to gather together, and reflect in whatever way helps us to move forward. Here, I acknowledge the contribution of the Māori Party speaker, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer; this day should be a day in which people and communities across the country can reflect in whatever way is appropriate for them. I believe that people will do that when this bill passes the House. I commend it to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I indicated in the first reading contribution, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation. Normally, in a second reading debate we have an opportunity as a House to reflect upon the submissions that have been made during a select committee process, the thoughtful considered opinions of officials and advisers, and a whole range of other matters that are usually the purview of a select committee. Well, of course, this evening, we are sitting as a Parliament under urgency to pass a piece of legislation that is historic and significantly important in the lives and constitutional history of our country, New Zealand. It’s a one-in-a-70-year event, and we on this side of the House think that it’s appropriate that the day that is going to be known as Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day will be passed tonight.

There are a couple of interesting things, and speakers in the first reading debate gave us the benefit of some of their personal reflections and experiences, and I for one appreciate those. But it’s probably important that we try and quantify in some way—for the sake of the record if nothing else—the significance of our late Sovereign lady’s contribution over her 70 years. She was in her 71st year of reign as New Zealand’s Sovereign. In terms of length of time served as a sovereign, she’s only outmanoeuvred—outplayed, if you like—by King Louis XIV of France, who reigned for 72 years and 110 days. The difference between our late Queen and King Louis XIV of France was he took the throne at age four. So a good number of his early childhood years, he was not actually reigning as a full monarch. He died, of course, in 1715. That’s 307 years ago. So that, I hope for the sake of members, put some sense of context into the remarkable contribution that the 70 years of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has meant in historic terms.

What’s interesting about not having a select committee process under urgency is that some of the normal processes of parliamentary scrutiny don’t occur, and I note that on this piece of legislation, there hasn’t been a regulatory impact statement or a supplementary analysis report prepared alongside the policy relating to the contents of this bill. People listening and watching may think that that’s entirely appropriate, but when we come to just looking at the clauses in the bill, it’s a pretty simple bill. Clause 6 really sets it out; it provides for 26 September 2022 “to be observed as a day of commemoration in New Zealand” to acknowledge the “long and dedicated service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to New Zealand. The day … is to be known as Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day.” That really just sums it all up, because that’s what this is about. Other speakers in the first reading debate have made it clear what their party’s view is, and we on this side of the House have made ours as well.

There’s an interesting little constitutional quirk: of course, the royal State funeral for Her Majesty took place in London and at Windsor yesterday, New Zealand time—in fact, during our night time. And of course our own Governor-General, along with a big group of other New Zealanders, is in attendance in London for that service. So, interestingly enough, clause 2 of this bill provides that the bill “comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That’s going to be just a little bit tricky because the Governor-General is overseas. But we have an interesting constitutional arrangement that sees affairs that are now taking place while the Governor-General is overseas. The Government Administrator, the Hon Dame Susan Glazebrook, will, I’m sure, be the person who will sign this piece of legislation and provide the appropriate Royal assent to meet the provisions. It’s the Government Administrator who has actually been fulfilling the role of Governor-General in terms of investiture ceremonies at Government House over the last week or so, and for that, I want to acknowledge and thank her for stepping up to those important investiture ceremonies while the Governor-General is overseas representing us and the Crown at the funeral service.

One of the aspects that wasn’t considered during the first reading debate was the matter relating to the date, 26 September. Now, as it happens, that date is also South Canterbury’s anniversary day, and under section 44 of our Holidays Act 2003, it says that when two public holidays fall on the same day, employees only get one day off, and that seems for the good people of South Canterbury a little bit unfair and a little bit like they may have been short-changed. But we do know that the local authorities have the ability to set and add to or change provincial anniversary day holidays, and it’s my hope—and I understand that it’s a matter being considered by local Government officials in the South Canterbury area—that they may choose to move the date a little and make good of the intent of this piece of legislation.

Now, on this side of the House, we are not without sympathy for the business people who will incur cost relating to this holiday—unexpected in many respects but, we still think, appropriate. Normally we would be saying, “Well, this is an imposition that is one that needs to be considered fully.” It does; it absolutely does need to be considered fully. But we take our view after careful consideration and consultation with quite a few business people, I have to say, who will be inconvenienced to a degree—the vast majority of whom are prepared to make a sacrifice for this memorial day to occur. So there are a number of matters that have been traversed by other speakers in the first reading debate: we haven’t had a select committee process; we don’t have a select committee report; we don’t have a departmental report; and, I venture to suggest, in this particular situation, we don’t need one. We understand the circumstances; we think it’s appropriate; and, on this side of the House, we continue to support this piece of legislation at second reading.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It has truly underlined how significant Her Majesty’s reign was, when you get people on both sides of the House reflecting not just on the Queen’s public significance but also on their personal feeling of connection, whether it was as a small child in short pants, waving a flag; or, for me, as I stand opposite the signs of the Battle of Britain, remembering my grandmother and my grandfather, both of whom served in the air force in the Battle of Britain; my grandmother and my grandfather in the South Pacific—and the insistence, which I could not understand as a child, that we stand for the Queen on Christmas, and we watch the Queen’s speech. She will be truly missed. This is an entirely appropriate time to take a moment to recognise a significant shift in our lives. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it is a real honour. I asked if I could take a call, while reading this bill, because there was a lot of pressure on calls last week and I deferred so that I could have the opportunity to speak this week.

I want to acknowledge some of the contributions—Shanan, Arena, and Ginny—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Full names—order! Full names.

Sorry. Arena Williams, Shanan Halbert, Ginny Andersen, and, of course, the Minister Michael Wood, who said it was appropriate for us to share some of our memories as well. I’ll put my hand up and say that I remember the exact time and place that I heard of the passing of our Queen. It caught me immediately with a lump in my throat and tears welling in my eyes, because she had been a constant in my life, as she had been in all of our lives.

I think that we talk a lot about the sacrifice that she made, but do we actually stop and reflect on the size of that sacrifice when all of us in this House, with our passion and our desire for public service and to serve our own country—and the privilege to have to do that also comes with the scrutiny and the feeling sometimes that we’re living in a fishbowl where we get to look out; everyone gets to look in. But the level of scrutiny that we have to endure as part of our job is minuscule, it’s tiny, it’s insignificant in terms of the massive global stage that our Queen was on and the level of scrutiny and attention that was given to everything that she did from the time that she became our monarch, as a young mum with children, right through to her death when it was obvious that she was unwell and she was frail and she was still performing her duties as our monarch right up until those last two days when she met with the new incoming Prime Minister.

And if we just think about the weight of the public service, all of us in here may be here for five or 10 years, maybe 15 or 20. She served for over 70 years. She did that for us for over 70 years. And she carried that incredible burden because although she would have seen it as a massive privilege and she clearly understood the responsibility that she had in terms of leadership, I have no doubt at all that it was also a huge burden, and she did that with grace, and she did it with strength and intelligence. If ever there was a leader that the other leaders could look up to and aspire to be like, it was Queen Elizabeth.

I never met the Queen. I would have loved to have met her. It would have been a huge honour. I would have been completely star-struck if she had spoken to me. I would have probably very quickly forgotten the words or even heard the words. It would have just been a huge honour to have been in her presence. But I was given the huge honour in 2002, when she visited New Zealand with the Prince, and during her visit—it was four or five days; it was in February—she stayed at Huka Lodge in Taupō and I was included in her protection team. It was my job to patrol on foot, with my police dog Trent, the outer perimeter of Huka Lodge. It was a huge honour for me and I was extremely proud to have been given the opportunity to protect and guard our Queen.

But Prince Philip was very famous and well-known for the fact that he liked to look out and see whether or not he could spot any of the perimeter security, and we were told and briefed, when we started, to make sure to do the best that you can to not be visible. I can understand that, because they want to have a sense of privacy as well. But the prince was very good at spotting the security. So I went to great lengths to make sure that I wasn’t spotted. But I forgot about the fact that I had retired my first dog Czar, who was very dark and very black and sort of blended in with the night. My new dog was coloured more like a corgi. He was a sort of orange—a lovely orange—colour with sort of a black back. Anyway, the prince spotted my dog and in the debrief after they’d left, I was told that I wasn’t in trouble for that because the Queen was quite delighted that there was a long-legged corgi guarding her while she was in Huka Lodge. But you can imagine from that time forward, every time I arrived at a job, it was “Oh, here’s Mitchell with his corgi.” That was my only real sort of contact, or as close as I ever got to the Queen.

But I did want to share another story that was very relevant to our family, and that was during the Second World War. The Queen served during the Second World War. She became a mechanic and she also drove an ambulance. And when I lost my grandmother, I still felt very connected to my grandmother, through the Queen, because my grandmother had also driven an ambulance during the Second World War in London, during the bombings. And there was one time, on 30 September 1940, where a German Messerschmitt 109 had come spiralling out of the air—he’d been involved in a dogfight above London during the bombing of London and he came down and there was a young Kiwi who was a Royal Air Force (RAF) pilot, a Hurricane pilot, at the time, that saw the Messerschmitt coming down, realised that it was going to crash land, tried to anticipate where that was going to happen, and drove quietly to the scene.

Well, the 109 actually crash-landed in Windsor Great Park, which is, effectively, Windsor Castle’s front lawn. So it crashed on the front lawn of the castle and the pilot in the Messerschmitt had actually pulled his canopy back. And when the plane landed, it actually hit some of those big poles that they had to try and stop that happening and he was flung out and landed on the ground. The young flying officer rushed up to him, disarmed him and put him under arrest and put him in the back of his car and took him to one of the RAF depots. But very quickly, who should emerge from the castle? Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret came out to inspect the Messerschmitt that had crashed on their front lawn.

💬 Maureen Pugh: Probably doesn’t happen every day.

No, that doesn’t happen every day, does it? No, you’re dead right. So the Messerschmitt was actually taken. It was it was displayed in Windsor Park Village, and it was used to actually raise funds to buy more Spitfires for the war effort.

The reason why that story is so significant for my family is that the young flying officer that day that rushed over and arrested the German pilot was my grandfather. It was Thomas Francis Gill and he was 23 years old, Kiwi born and bred, but he was flying Hurricanes in the RAF at the time. It was reported in the papers and there was a later book written about that as well.

My grandmother, like the Queen, it was always a lot more fun driving in the car with her than it was with Pop, because Gran, having been an ambulance driver, had retained all those skills and thought she was still an ambulance driver in London even when they returned back to New Zealand later. And I’m sure that if you ever had a ride in the Land Rover with the Queen, you’d have the same sense of excitement—she also having been an ambulance driver in London.

So I just wanted to share a couple of small anecdotes—because we all have them. I mean, even Ginny Andersen referred to the fact as a young woman, she was out on the street waving the flag. We’ve all had those moments in some way, shape, or form where the Queen has touched our lives, and I think that it’s important that we do take a day to honour her and remember her. I’m sure that all of us in this House will be at a memorial service somewhere in the country, spending that day honouring the Queen.

Like my colleague and friend Scott Simpson said, we do understand that there’s a financial cost to this and I’m sorry, and I hope that that that can be recovered extremely quickly. But I think that it is important to remember a woman that gave up over 70 years of her life to lead all of us and make an extraordinary sacrifice that I don’t think we’ll ever see anyone ever make again. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Angela Roberts: Mr Speaker?

Yes. Now, what’s the member’s name? It’s—

💬 Hon Member: Angela Roberts.

Angela Roberts, thank you. Excuse me.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, Ms Roberts, but I have just taken the seat. So go ahead.

That’s all right. More than welcome to settle in, Mr Speaker.

It is a pleasure to take a second call tonight on the Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill. It’s wonderful, the more stories we hear—very, very personal or on reflection as members of the Commonwealth—how much we admired this woman, not just because she was our head of State but because she was a rural girl or she was a mechanic or she loved her animals. I think that is what is enduring about her. I think that Monday will give us an opportunity to reflect on her, on her generation, on our past, and—as many across the House have talked about tonight—on our future. It is because of that that I commend this bill to the House.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Mr Speaker.

Yes, ah—

💬 Hon Members: Ricardo.

Ricardo Menéndez March.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do miss our brief closeness on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so I’m glad my name was remembered! When I think of public holidays, I often go back to the words of one of many queens—Dolly Parton—who wrote:

Working 9 to 5, what a way to make a living

Barely getting by, it’s all taking and no giving

They just use your mind, and they never give you credit

and I think about how public holidays can be an opportunity for rest.

In this incredibly hyper-capitalist society, where many of our workers are overworked and exploited, a public holiday is absolutely an opportunity to slow down and to reflect, and, more importantly, it is an opportunity to dream. I absolutely dream for an Aotearoa where this House is fully committed to Matike Mai and constitutional transformation.

I think of the many contributions prior to my slot where people talked about the Queen’s life of public service, and I want to honour the many members of our communities who have also given their lives to service. I think of the grandmothers, the community workers, and the many people from Aotearoa who give their lives to improve the wellbeing of the world around them.

So the Green Party is happy to support this bill as it will give people an opportunity to slow down for their physical and mental wellbeing. But, more importantly, it also allows us—in the same breath as my colleague Jan Logie—to not just mourn, as some people may be also standing in solidarity with indigenous communities from here in Aotearoa to people in the Pacific and people in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and many other countries who will be thinking of the Queen in a different light. I do think there will be an opportunity for people to be standing with one another and thinking of the hurt and the legacy of the monarchy.

So, with that brief contribution, we’re happy for the bill to progress. We look forward to this Government and the Opposition being committed to perhaps putting in place some more public holidays that remember some of the local people such as Moana Jackson, who also gave his life to public service—an acknowledgment that (a) we don’t have that many public holidays, and (b) that we have so many people here in Aotearoa who have given their lives to service, too.

The unforgettable David Seymour.

Ha, ha! Well, I’ll tell you what, Mr Speaker, I’m glad that there’s some things you don’t forget. I hope you had a good dinner break!

I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill and I pose the question: is it possible to believe that Queen Elizabeth II was an outstanding leader, an inspiration to hundreds of millions of people across the Commonwealth, and somebody that we should greatly respect, admire, and now miss and, at the same time, be completely opposed to what amounts to a political stunt—having a public holiday paid for by employers up and down this country who have suffered enough? I would say that it’s totally possible to honour the Queen and oppose this holiday. In fact, for many reasons, it is the only consistent and correct position.

One reason you might think that is that it’s actually what we’ve done every other time. It’s interesting to look at the history of public holidays such as this, because there almost aren’t any. The only time that there have been spontaneous or bespoke public holidays were at the end of the two world wars in 1918 and 1945. We did not have such a holiday at the end of the 15-year reign of King George VI in February 1952; nor at the end of the one-year reign of King Edward VIII in 1972—although his reign ended much earlier than that; or King George V after a 25-year reign ending in 1936; King Edward VII who reigned for nine years until 1910; or even Queen Victoria, who reigned for 63 years until 1901. How many times did this Parliament declare a public holiday for the death of those sovereigns? Not once. So the idea that this is a normal thing to do, actually, it’s unprecedented. It’s never been done before, and it wasn’t necessary even for Queen Victoria when she passed on and this House was sitting.

Another reason why you might be in honour of the Queen but not want this public holiday is the cost. I was astonished to hear a member of the National Party say, “Look, we think it’s a good idea, but we offer our sympathy to those employers who will pay $450 million.” Well, it reminds me of the great National Party leader and Prime Minister Bill English, who once said to Jacinda Ardern, “People can’t go shopping with your values.” Well, I’d say to that member that the employers who will be paying this cost can’t go shopping with his sympathy. That’s simply not good enough.

Then I would point to the medical profession, or, more importantly, their patients who will miss out. In an excellent speech by Brooke van Velden on the first reading of this bill—of course, it’s been rushed through under urgency, so it’s all happening tonight—Brooke van Velden pointed out that in one district of Wairarapa, 488 procedures are being postponed that day. One GP clinic has cancelled 122 appointments on that day.

💬 Ian McKelvie: We’ve already heard that.

People who do surgery, they plan two months ahead. And I hear Ian McKelvie, now normally he’s someone very focused on quality healthcare, and yet he thinks this is insignificant. For those people who have had the opportunities to have surgery and have doctor’s appointments cancelled and postponed when there are record queues for the medical profession to digest the long waiting lists that have emerged post-COVID, for those people, it’s significant.

Then perhaps we should listen to the school principals, to the educators and communities up and down New Zealand. I’ve had a number of them approach me and say, “This is madness. We’ve got two problems: kids not coming to school and kids who are trying to make up for lost learning after two years of disruptive disruption caused by COVID-19.” Or more specifically, the Government’s response to it. And the Prime Minister and this Parliament, or at least every party in it other than ACT, comes along and says, “Kids, take another day off. And not just any day, the Monday in the last week of term before you have a two-week holiday anyway.” This is the wrong message, and I know one person who would not support that message, somebody who was famously careful with her spending, who was quick to care for those who were in need of medical treatment or charity, and someone who believed in the value of education who would not want to have a sudden public holiday that disrupts all of those things. And that person, of course, would be Queen Elizabeth II. It is a very unusual way to honour somebody who, as we have heard, worked every day of her life by saying, “Let’s have a day off. And by the way, for the most part, someone else can pay for it.” That is totally wrong.

Another reason why somebody might oppose this public holiday and yet be in honour of the Queen is that they are opposed to illogical thinking and, specifically, voodoo economics. We heard it from the Minister of labour Michael Wood, unsurprisingly, the same guy who thinks fair pay agreements will boost productivity. He said, “Don’t worry, because if we have a public holiday, there will be more spending.” This kind of voodoo economics is the kind of thing that people repeat ad infinitum on all sides of the House—except in ACT I’m proud to say—that if people spend a dollar on a particular day, that’s an extra dollar. Well, I’ve got news for people who peddle that kind of voodoo economics. A dollar can be spent once. A dollar that is spent on a public holiday is a dollar that cannot be spent on another day. Someone who goes out for a meal on that day cannot spend the same money going out for a meal on another day. If it was true that having public holidays was a pathway to economic growth, then I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have a public holiday every day and we’ll all be rich? But of course nobody, including Michael Wood, ever takes the analogy that far because they know it’s bollocks. They know it is voodoo economics, and it does not make people wealthier. I know one person who always appealed to logic and reason and common sense and avoiding such mythical beliefs, and that, of course, was our fallen Queen, Queen Elizabeth II.

There is another reason why you might honour the Queen but be opposed to this legislation, and it’s the timing. You see there was an old joke that people used to make about our country, and they’d say, “When the world ends, I want to be in New Zealand because it’ll be 20 years to go where they are.” I’m proud to say that since that joke was popular 40 years ago, New Zealand has modernised and caught up and become in so many respects a leading country in the world. But this type of legislation will add just a cinch of truth to it again. Our slow response to COVID, where we had two months warning of what was happening in the rest of the world, were never quite prepared and still haven’t properly opened up. Where we have far fewer workers, far fewer international students—Camilla Belich there, she’s shaking her head. Let me give her some facts: in Australia, 38 percent of international students have returned pre-COVID levels; in New Zealand, 4.5 percent. That’s why people in the Epsom electorate are losing their jobs if they work at Auckland University of Technology—they don’t have any students. We are finding ourselves behind the world under Labour and the timing of this holiday is such that, after the rest of the world, after billions of people watched the funeral procession last night—Australia, now they’ve always been a bit behind the world, they’re having their memorial day on Thursday. And New Zealand, well we have to wait for a whole week until the Prime Minister gets home so we can have a day off.

I predict—and people on the backbench of Labour should think about this—that the average person in New Zealand, when that time comes around, will be sitting there thinking, “You know what? This is totally ridiculous.” Once again, New Zealand is behind the eight ball waiting for the political theatrics of Jacinda Ardern, at great cost to the real economy, being told by the National Party, “Don’t worry, just go shopping with our sympathy.” And they will say, “This is totally ridiculous.” It doesn’t help us solve our problems of catching up with the operations in the healthcare system, getting kids to school to learn useful things, closing the income gap with other countries, making sure we recover from COVID. It doesn’t help with any of that. And the symbolism is that we’re honouring someone who worked every day of her life by taking a day off. It makes no sense. Let’s honour our Queen and do it by voting down illogical, wasteful legislation such as this. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is incredibly important that New Zealanders are afforded an opportunity to honour and to remember the service and the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, and to do so in a way that’s actually befitting the significant contribution that the late Queen has made. For those reasons alone, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a privilege to take a call on the Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill—in its second reading now, as we work to pass it through all stages under urgency to ensure that indeed it can be enacted in time for the public holiday on Monday, 26 September, to be observed.

Now, I’ve listened to this debate over the course of the evening and I’ve been impressed, by and large, with what has been a mainly respectful debate and an appropriate reflection and recognition and memorial, actually, of the service of Queen Elizabeth II.

I just wanted to make a few comments in addition to that, noting that we are supporting, on this side of the House, the bill as it progresses through. Because I think, actually, it is an appropriate opportunity for New Zealanders to have a specific day to acknowledge, to reflect, to share some memories and to, I guess, commemorate the life of our longest-serving monarch. Seventy years is a phenomenal achievement—longer than anyone in this House has been alive, I believe.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Not the Speaker.

That’s a rough call. So it is important that we do come together to acknowledge that and to think about what that might mean for us in our own lives, in our families, in our workplaces, in our communities, in our schools.

Of course, when we think about that—I do want to acknowledge that, yes, of course, having a public holiday does have some impositions with it. When we think about that in the context of the business interruption, specifically from the economic impact, that aspect is, of course, a consideration. But I think the gravity of the situation—the importance of the lifelong service of Her Majesty—makes it appropriate that we do indeed acknowledge the occasion in that manner.

You know, over the course of the last few days, I have spent some time travelling around my own electorate in the Waikato—as I always do—but asking the question specifically of some business owners. And I was really impressed by the willingness of business owners to acknowledge that this is, indeed, a momentous occasion and sharing anecdotes as we do between each other on reflections we may have had of Queen Elizabeth’s life and her time as Queen of New Zealand. So I do accept that it does come at a cost; as a business owner myself, I understand that. But on the balance of it, it makes sense and is appropriate on this occasion.

We ourselves will be having a State memorial service. I’ll be travelling down to Wellington here for that, and I look forward to joining many other parliamentarians and dignitaries to commemorate the life of Her Majesty. I just want to touch on a little bit of that, because in the context of New Zealand with her as our Sovereign, it doesn’t take much for someone’s life to have been touched or to have some connection to the Queen.

For me personally, there’s just two aspects that I just wanted to share in my brief contribution. The first of those being the privilege to have served in the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment in the New Zealand Army. Obviously the New Zealand Army itself, interestingly, we have the Royal New Zealand Air Force but the army does not have the “Royal” in front of it; however, the infantry regiment does, which is an unusual distinction most people might not have appreciated.

But a real privilege to have served in Her Majesty’s regard in uniform. Although there were many times out in the Waiōuru tussock when one did wonder, perhaps, at the sacrifice one was making, but ultimately these are character-building moments and I’m sure character-building moments that Her Majesty would appreciate on her behalf.

And the other one, and one that I know was very close to the Queen’s heart—as was military service, of course and Mr Mark Mitchell mentioned that in his contribution: that the Queen had, herself, served in World War II as a diesel mechanic in the army and made a wonderful contribution there. I was really impressed at the ethos of service that has prevailed through her family over time.

But the other aspect was agriculture. Agriculture has been a massive part of the Queen’s life, and she has been a very proud agricultural supporter. The Royal Agricultural Society of New Zealand, of course, part of the royal agricultural societies of the Commonwealth. The Queen—on her first visit, actually—partook in a visit to the Claudelands showgrounds in Hamilton and got a good understanding of how agriculture works in New Zealand.

She’s always been a strong supporter of that. So my connection with that—having spent some years in the Royal Ag Society as well as the Australasian Rural Ambassador, one year—was a real privilege to have that connection as well.

So I just want to finish on that note. We do support this, it is an appropriate opportunity to acknowledge that service from Her Majesty. Thank you.

Tēnā tatou. E Nanaia, nāku anō kē i kī atu i tērā wiki, e kore rawa ahau e whāngai i ō roimata hei kai mō taku patu. Engari taihoa ake, ko taku patu me taku utu he hoa haere, anei, e haere ake nei.

[Greetings. Nanaia, it was rather me who said last week, I will not allow your tears to be fodder for my weapon. However in time, my weapon and my revenge will be companions, and here you are, going forward.]

Like I said last week, our tikanga is clear: that we give time for whānau to grieve their losses, whether they be whānau, friends, allies, or even enemies. I have honoured our tikanga by giving her family time to mourn. But, now, I am released of this tikanga, to express the past and current grievances of tangata whenua and other indigenous peoples all over the world at the hands of the Crown, headed by Queen Elizabeth of England. We must acknowledge the brutal genocidal and ongoing impact of colonialism, of the imperial project that was overseen by the house of Windsor and its forebears, here in Aotearoa and around the world.

It is said that at its height, the sun never set on the British Empire. It’s hard to fathom, but that one statement is built on the backs of millions of indigenous peoples around the world. The sun never set on their colonialism, on their racism, and on their violence. The Crown was built on stolen assets and exploitation of tangata whenua and indigenous peoples all over the world. We cannot support this holiday. This holiday is a torturous and an insulting reminder for us. She said the Treaty has been imperfectly observed, but never tried to remedy this by honouring tangata whenua and honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Article 1 consented to kāwanatanga, not sovereignty. Article 2 recognised the pre-existing rights of tangata whenua, our full and exclusive rights to our undisturbed possessions of our lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties—our taonga.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Waititi, I’ll just remind you that we are here to debate a bill. You’ve had two minutes now, and I would ask you, please, to now concentrate the rest of your time on the bill we’re debating here today.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is everything to do with this bill. This is a holiday for Queen Elizabeth, the Sovereign of England.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and that’s what I’m asking you to debate, please—

And that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: —Mr Waititi. So if you carry on, feel free to carry on, but please refer your comments to the bill before the House, which is around the holiday. So carry on, please.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just been listening to colleagues across the House who have talked about agriculture, about their time in police, and about police dogs. This kaupapa is extremely relevant: it is the Crown who are the Tiriti partner.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please confine your comments or reference your comments around the holiday, and you’ll be keeping within the Standing Orders. So carry on.

Article 3: “In [considering] thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.”—“imparts”. Therefore, I declare, on behalf of te Iwi Māori, that Queen Elizabeth, the Queen of England, and her predecessors and successors have never had sovereignty over tangata whenua here in Aotearoa. We are her equals as affirmed emphatically in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Here’s a question I pose to this House: why for the Queen of England, and not for the Māori Queen Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu and many other significant figures of te Iwi Māori? Matariki, National did not support. Fifteen years we waited, since 2009 when Rahui Katene first presented that bill to this House. They could not support that. But they support a holiday that is going through this House in one night. It’s absolutely—I don’t get it. At least ACT is consistent and do not support the one-off holiday, as they did with Matariki.

If you look at our founding covenant as a marriage between ngā rangatira o ngā hapū Aotearoa and the Crown, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a child of that marriage. It’s time tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti take full custody of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Crown. This won’t mean the Crown is off the hook. If a couple gets divorced, you do not lose responsibility. There’s talking over there because they will not allow indigenous peoples to have their voice at this time. This will be an opportunity to reimagine a more meaningful and fulfilling partnership between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti. It’s time for Māori to assert our rights to self-management, self-determination, and self-governance over all our domains. It’s time to remove the British royal family as head of State and move towards to an Aoteroa hou, a Tiriti o Waitangi-based nation in the Pacific.

Therefore, it is time for tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti to have an adult and mature conversation about how we realign the relationship through Te Tiriti o Waitangi to create a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, to create a constitution based on our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Until then, we will never have peace. Nor will the Crown, the royal family, or, for that matter, Pākehā in Aotearoa, have any honour in the eyes of tangata whenua or te Iwi Māori. The Māori Party—Te Paati Māori—absolutely and unequivocally do not support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on this, the Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill. I acknowledge different comments made around the House tonight.

I support this bill because the Queen is the Queen of New Zealand, she is our head of State, she has a role constitutionally within our democracy, and she has undertaken this role for the last 70 years—a significant contribution to public service. A one-off public holiday is an appropriate way, in my view, to honour the significance that that role and her role as a figurehead, as the Queen has played in our country.

I want to particularly acknowledge how difficult it is for many New Zealanders who have lost someone recently in their family—that includes my family, sadly—and how many memories, I think, the funeral of the Queen, and the memorial services, will bring back for them.

So I support this bill and commend it to the House.

“Both with gratitude for the past and confidence in the future, we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand.” So said Prime Minister Savage on 5 September 1939, in the hours after the outbreak of World War II. An awful lot has changed in the 83 years since he uttered those words, particularly here in New Zealand. We’re a very different country. We look differently. We think differently. We are more modern. And thankfully, most tangata whenua do not think the way Mr Waititi has just expressed, and I say to him, there is a time and now is not that time. A few short days since he last spoke in this House is not sufficient time to start that kind of vitriol on the passing of Her Majesty.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Lack of respect.

It’s very disrespectful, Mrs Collins; you’re quite right.

Now, like most members of the House, I did not meet Her Majesty, but, like most of us, have a strong early memory, as a four-year-old, standing on the Kensington Oval in South Dunedin awaiting Her Majesty, Prince Philip, and, I think, Prince Charles and Princess Anne, as younger members of the royal family were also there. Perhaps a 10-year-old Mr Parker had travelled in from Roxburgh to join the thousands of people that were there, but it certainly was a magnificent occasion, and one which was repeated several times in Dunedin over the ensuing years—one particular event not quite so seemly, and that was breathlessly reported by British tabloid media as an assassination attempt by a 17-year-old Bayfield High School student who had a bit of form. He robbed the Andersons Bay post office in his lunch hour and then escaped on his bicycle. I think the better description of what happened that day was a very clumsy and flawed attempt and not the near death of the Queen that particular day. But it certainly put Dunedin on the map.

In 1990, it was my great privilege to be—I was lucky enough to be in the House of Lords for the State opening of Parliament. If any colleagues have the opportunity, I really suggest they take it, because the sort of pomp and colour and ceremony and the music that we saw last night, and the trumpets, were very much evident in things like the trooping of the colour and the State Opening of Parliament. Her Majesty was there, wearing the crown that sat atop her casket on the gun—what’s it called? The gun thing that took the casket around.

That was followed, actually, by the debate on the Queen’s speech between the Rt Hon Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the UK, and the Leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock, and it was an absolute doozy. Of course, no one was to know that just three short weeks after that debate, Prime Minister Thatcher was to resign as Prime Minister of the UK. But of course, the scenes that we saw last night—and actually the reason I’m feeling a bit fuzzy today is because I stayed up and watched just about all of it—some of those things and those traditions are so familiar to every single New Zealander who made the pilgrimage to London as part of their OE and felt a kinship with, I guess, that sort of ceremony. And boy, the British do it better than anyone in the world, and we saw that on great display last night.

It was my real privilege to be the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, as I know the Hon Judith Collins was also, in the previous Government. I led a delegation of 84 World War II veterans to New Caledonia in 2014 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of war in the Pacific—84 very elderly servicemen, most of whom were Kiwis serving in New Zealand armed forces. Some were British serving in New Zealand armed forces, and some were Kiwis who served in the British armed forces. All shared a tremendous affection for Her Majesty and for the freedoms that they fought and so many of their colleagues died for. Actually, on that trip, John Jones was a member of that delegation. Now, he was the last surviving coast watcher from the Gilbert Islands. Most of his colleagues were massacred by the Japanese, beheaded on the island that forms now what is Kiribati. It was a tremendous privilege to hear his story of sacrifice. Of course, Her Majesty—at that time, Princess Elizabeth—served as well, and they told me how much that meant to them, that the royal family was not prepared to leave the United Kingdom and go to Canada as was recommended by the Government. They stayed in Windsor and Buckingham Palace, and Her Majesty as a princess, as a young woman, became a part of the war effort. I think that speaks volumes to her commitment to her country.

I want to address some of the things that David Seymour mentioned. Yes, I agree, it is possible that we honour the Queen and not support a public holiday, and that’s entirely their prerogative, but to suggest that this amounts to a political stunt is, I think, most unfair. He goes on to say, “Well, the only time we’ve had public holidays has been at the end of World War I and World War II.”, and that’s true. Well, I’ll make a deal with him that I’ll only ever support a one-off public holiday every time a monarch reigns for 70 years and then passes away. That’s my commitment to him. Because it’s not likely—in fact, it’s almost certain never to happen again. Our opportunity, however we express that on Monday, to pause and reflect on a life of service, of service to country, to her maker, and to the Commonwealth of nations that I’m proud we are still part of is an entirely appropriate thing to do.

Now, if he has a problem with the cost on small business, then the problem is not with this public holiday; the problem is with all the other costs that have been imposed on small business, with leave and other public holidays and bureaucratic red tape. The problem is not with the cancelled surgeries on Monday but with the thousands of surgeries that have already been cancelled due to the mismanagement of our health system. The problem is not, in our education system, that our children are going to enjoy a day off on Monday; it’s that the chronic absenteeism from their schools has been endemic for years and this Government hasn’t done anything about it. So those are chronic problems that this Government needs to address, but unlike Mr Seymour, I don’t believe that the solution is to prevent our country from pausing and reflecting on the legacy of Her Majesty. I will be at St Paul’s Cathedral on Monday, and it will be, I’m sure, a memory that I will take to my grave, because it is important to me that we, in whatever way we do it, with prayer or reflection or recollection, stop, as a country, and say thank you: thank you for a life of service and a life well lived.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a short call on the Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill. Like my colleague Camilla Belich, I just want to acknowledge that there has been a range of views shared in this House tonight, but I support this one-off public holiday, because 70 years of service is significant. Unlike many parliamentary colleagues, I won’t be able to take a day off on Monday as I’ll be overseas with other parliamentary colleagues, which is very disappointing for me, and I want to just put on record an acknowledgment of one of my very close friends, Michael Stewart, who is the director of music at St Paul’s cathedral—originally a Nelson boy, but he will be leading the music at the cathedral across the road here, where I was married. So I will be thinking of you, Michael, and everything that you do on the organ and taking charge of the choir. It will be a significant moment, and I know that New Zealanders across the country will be celebrating this holiday. I commend this bill to the House.