Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoyal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15428. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Royal Succession BillSecond ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a second time. The Royal Succession Bill makes moderate and considered changes to the rules of royal succession. These changes update the rules ofsuccession to make them more consistent with modern New Zealand society and values. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee received seven written submissions and heard from four submitters. I am pleased that the committee has reported back unanimously and recommended only one minor technical change. This unanimous agreement shows that the changes are positive for New Zealand’s system of government. I am aware that some submitters raised issues to the committee such as whether New Zealand should become a republic. Wider constitutional changes such as that are outside the scope of this bill.The bill makes three specific changes to the royal succession rules. The changes result from an agreement made at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in October 2011. All 16 realms of which Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign agreed to the three specific changes. The realms agreed to implement the changes simultaneously.The first of these changes is that an elder daughter will be allowed to succeed to the Crown ahead of a younger son. This removes gender discrimination which cannot be justified in the modern age. The committee recommended a minor amendment to the bill. The gender-neutral change will apply from 12 noon New Zealand time on 29 October 2011. This minor amendment is reflected in the committee’s proposed changes to clauses 3 and 5 of the bill. It takes account of British summer time and will ensure consistency with the other realms.The second change made by the bill allows a person marrying a Roman Catholic to succeed to or possess the Crown. The current restriction applies only to Roman Catholic spouses not to those following any other religion or no religion at all. The bar has historical reasons and can no longer be justified in modern society.The third change removes the rule that all descendants of King George II must have the Sovereign’s consent to marry. That is replaced with a rule that the first six in line to the throne must seek consent. If consent is not given the marriage remains valid but the person concerned will lose their place in the line of succession. The old rule will have affected many hundreds if not thousands of people. There is a risk that marriages may be technically invalid as a result even without the people concerned being aware. This bill addresses that problem by validating such marriages provided that relevant conditions are met.This bill improves the rules of royal succession to help ensure that they better reflect modern New Zealand values while preserving the essential features of the monarchy that underpin our system of government. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation the Royal Succession Bill. I did partake in the early discussions in the Justice and Electoral Committee when I was on that committee before I transferred to that other august committee the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is the latter committee that probably had a little more to offer this bill perhaps than even the Justice and Electoral Committee. Nevertheless the mere fact that we are dealing with this bill at this time in this House on this day highlights the kind of anachronism that now surrounds our relationship to the British Crown.The Minister of Justice noted that of the seven submitters some of them made submissions about our status as a monarchy and whether we should be a republic. I simply say that that is hardly surprising when we are in this humble little House in this humble corner of the Earth thousands of kilometres away from the seat of the throne of the British monarchy and the person who is constitutionally our head of State. Who would have thought? It behoves us really to question exactly why it is that we are in this position and for how much longer we can go on.Very nice it is that the previously sexist provisions under which only a male heir could succeed to the throne have gone. It is very nice that we should abolish the discriminatory provisions on those who accede to the throne in respect of marrying a Roman Catholic. We all know the history of the papists and the Catholics in Britain and how reviled they were and the big schism between the British monarchy and the Catholic Church that allowed Henry VIII to remarry not just once but several times more after that. We all know and understand that but in fact we have had these discriminatory practices and provisions built into our constitutional system for this long. I think that as an independent nation free to express ourselves and proud to express ourselves in the way we do at some time—and I suggest that that is now—we should stand on our own two feet and say that much as we respect that which has been achieved by Britain and its monarch and much as we respect what we refer to as the royal family—because let us face it there are many of them around the world—the one that appears most often in our glossy magazines our monthlies our weeklies and occasionally in our daily newspapers it is time for us to stand on our own two feet.We should not in this House have to be legislating for the removal of discriminatory marital practices. I mean we did that early this year on a much more momentous and well-received occasion than this. The Catholics have not had to park themselves out on the front lawn of Parliament House. They have not called on Tau Henare or Chris Auchinvole or Paul Hutchison or others to give stirring speeches about the removal of discrimination. We have not had that in relation to the Catholics.Hon Tau Henare: So what about the Treaty relationship?ANDREW LITTLE: I ask Tau Henare what it is that he has got against Catholics. Why has he so far not got up to give a speech on this bill about how poorly treated the Catholics have been by the British royal family for so long? Where is that speech? Where is Maurice Williamson and his great colourful rainbow over his electorate office? When is he going to talk about stopping the discrimination against Roman Catholics by the British royal family? Where is that sweeping speech? Where is the invitation to be hosted by Ellen DeGeneres on her show to talk about the discrimination against the Catholics?Oh yes it is all very well for the gay folks in our community to have the discrimination removed against them but what about the Catholics and what about the British royal family? I am waiting for those stirring speeches because it has gone on for far too long—hundreds and hundreds of years of discrimination—and I think that if you were a British Catholic or indeed if you were a New Zealand Catholic who aspired to be the spouse of an heir to the throne compensation almost certainly is in order! There will be those who have got that close to entering the relationship of marriage with an heir to the throne of our head of State and who have been deprived of that opportunity and I think that at the very least an inquiry into that prospect must be undertaken and if necessary compensation paid!But notwithstanding that notwithstanding our shuddering horror at the sorts of laws we are being asked to pass in this bill we will nevertheless support it because at this point in our history our head of State is the British monarch our head of State is the Queen of England and all her realms and everything else that goes with it. But I will be one of those who will be first at the barricades when the opportunity arises to say that it is time for a change and it is time for our country our proud nation State and everything that it stands for to press its case in the world on its own with its own domestically chosen head of State so that we can truly hold our heads up high and say that we are New Zealand we are our people and we are united under the Southern Cross and all those wonderful things that we get down this end of the globe and say that it is time that we did it for ourselves. As the Blood Sisters say in that great song wecan ring our own bell—I think that is the term. If the sisters can ring their own bell it is time for the entire nation of New Zealand to ring its bell and to proudly stand and choose our own head of State.But let us say that while we still have the British monarch as our head of State let us remove those last vestiges of discrimination. Let us have the Roman Catholics roaming Buckingham Palace without fear and with impunity and let us see those royal young women succeeding the throne without the vestiges of primogeniture and all the rest of it that goes with it.We do support the bill but we do so in a spirit of hope that this might be the first step to a period of reflection so that we might make a change so that we do not have to pass more laws about an institution that is increasingly less relevant to us and about a bunch of people who have less and less interest in us.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and take a short call in support of this Royal Succession Bill notwithstanding Andrew Little’s papist republican rant. It is something that is important to us. It is a small bill. It is a small bill and it is an important bill. It is easy to make light of things that sometimes on the face of it seem a little trivial and of little consequence. However this bill is something that makes a small but very significant and important change to our basic constitutional arrangements. For many people it would seem unusual that our Parliament and parliaments in the other 15 Commonwealth realms have to pass special legislation to ensure that in future royal succession will be gender-neutral. These days it seems by our standards of society that anything other than a gender-neutral royal succession would be something completely unacceptable in a modern society.This bill is not long. It is not complicated. It does not seek to change anything in terms of our constitutional monarchy other than to modernise the rules surrounding succession by removing aspects of gender and religious discrimination. With the birth last year of Prince George it is going to be many years before the practical implications of this bill will have any impact at all. That in itself is not important. What is important is that the change has been made and will have effect in due course. Now when necessary no matter how far into the future it is the succession will be a succession that is appropriate and fitting by modern current societal standards.It was a pleasure to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee as we considered submissions on the bill. We received seven submissions. We heard from four and we made just one minor technical amendment to do with the time in order to relate to Greenwich Mean Time summer time and those sorts of things so it was a very minor change. But it is a narrow bill. It did not have any scope to consider the republican issues that Andrew Little raised. It is important that our constitutional institutions maintain their history and traditions and I support those but it is also important that the rules that govern those institutions evolve and sometimes change with the expectations of a changing society. This bill is a classic example of how our system can and does work to accommodate natural evolution.New Zealand is a young nation. We have a proud tradition of progressive history and of progressive social change within our history. This is a good bill. It is a small but simple bill. It is a bill with a simple and obvious intention. It is a bill that helps keep our constitutional monarchy relevant and in step with modern thinking. It is a bill I support and I commend to the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It give me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Royal Succession Bill. There is an extraordinary coincidence of things happening on the Order Paper this morning. Very shortly we are going to be debating the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill and right now we are debating the Royal Succession Bill. One is tempted to use words like “sublime” and “ridiculous”in the reverse order of those things right now but I do want to place on record that although this bill is not ridiculous certainly the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill is closer to the sublime end of that scale.Can I just say also that members of the House of course will understand the speech delivered by my colleague Andrew Little. The Labour Party is full of Roman Catholics. We started off with Roman Catholics—if we go back to Michael Joseph Savage and the people before him and our founders on the West Coast—so he is representing a very significant voice within the Labour Party. So I do want to acknowledge that.Can I just say that for my own part there should not be any discussion about moving to a republic in New Zealand without proper consideration of the role of the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Tiriti and the impact of that on our psyche on our history and on our development as a nation would need to be compensated for because it is a treaty with the Crown. Should we become a republic similar or exactly the same provisions would need to be embedded somewhere—not with the Crown but with the Government of New Zealand. That conversation is not finished yet. It should not be rushed. And that is why this bill does not rush the decision about having Roman Catholics succeed to the throne.Of course Henry VIII separated the Church of England from the Church of Rome in 1534 so it has taken us 479 years to get this far. Sometimes those things take a little while. They take a bit of thought. So at least the modernising step that is being made in this bill is to allow the Sovereign to be married to a Roman Catholic but it does not allow a Roman Catholic to be the Sovereign because with the title of Sovereign goes the title Defender of the Faith—Defender of the Faith. Henry VIII set that up. So if the faith is—Hon Judith Collins: No he didn’t. The Pope gave that to him when he was a staunch Catholic actually. That’s the history of it. And then he kept it.Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you.Hon Maurice Williamson: He was a Catholic. Henry VIII was a Catholic.Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you. Yes yes everybody used to be a Catholic—Hon Maurice Williamson: Not everybody.Hon MARYAN STREET: Everybody used to be a Catholic until various bits split away. Of course the most famous secession from the Roman Catholic Church was that of Henry VIII which he did for his own purposes so that he did not have to deal with that nasty provision around divorce. So he had his own reasons—he had his own reasons for doing that. I am grateful to the Minister of Justice for her interjection.This bill is a sign of modernisation. We are slowly 479 years on making our way to the 21st century. At least the gender provision in the bill is something more modern. The Sovereign does not have to be the oldest boy; an older female sibling can accede to the throne. Of course with the birth of baby George we do not have to confront that issue for quite some time so quite when there will be another queen is yet to be seen. However this is modernising in the terms of these constitutional things.I would like to thank Scott Simpson the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee for a very congenial and still thoughtful discussion and debate in the select committee. Although this bill does not appeal to all this is the constitutional reality that we have at the moment. Perhaps in another 479 years we may get to a complete constitutional and respectful self-determination state in New Zealand one that has properly and with a great deal of thought and care taken into account what should be our fundamental commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a katou. Kia ora. Following on from the member Maryan Street I definitely hope we do not have to wait 479 years to finally get our constitution to get our house in order. TheRoyal Succession Bill is a relic of the past. It is an anachronism. It is a too little too late measure by the monarchy. It is a relic of the past. It is high time that New Zealand moved on. We are like that stereotypical kid that 30-year-old who is still living at home. It is time for New Zealand to leave the parents’ house get a flat on our own and maybe get some furniture of our own. Sure it is a bit cruisy at home—you do not have to pay the bills and maybe you do not even have to do the washing—but it is time to move out of home. It is time to stand on our own two feet.I am rising to abstain on the Royal Succession Bill. I am quite happy and proud to be abstaining on this bill.Hon Tau Henare: You came here to vote yes or no.GARETH HUGHES: I cannot vote for a bill that enshrines discrimination Mr Tau Henare. I cannot vote for a bill that the Labour Party said was a shuddering horror. I cannot vote for that. But I am also not going to vote against modernising and against ending sexist discriminatory practices which are what we have seen for hundreds of years under discriminatory monarchy. So what the Greens have decided to do is to abstain on this bill. What we will be doing is not voting for discrimination but we are not voting against the modernisation of a discriminatory institution. [Interruption] I think what we have seen is a hornet’s nest of interjections taking off from both sides of the House.I want to get to the substance of the bill. We want to acknowledge that the bill does do some good things. It is a modernising bill. It allows female first-borns to take the throne. It reduces the list of heirs whom the monarch can limit from marrying which dates back to 1772 I understand. But the Greens as I have outlined will be abstaining on it. We cannot support discrimination but we are not opposing a modernisation process. We would challenge other people—and I would like to be there on the barricades with Andrew Little. An abstention is a—Hon Tau Henare: You don’t have the right to challenge. Not voting—that’s right. So you should leave. Take your pāua take your crayfish and leave.GARETH HUGHES: Mr Henare an abstention is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary vote. And what I would have preferred—if members had voted for Keith Locke’s referendum on the Head of State Referenda Bill—is what we could have been having which is an actual conversation about where we go forward. This is a relic. It is an anachronism. I do not think that the member should be voting for such an old-fashioned discriminatory institution.This bill is quite simply too little too late. The entire institution is corrupt. It is inside. It is an institution that has no place in 2013. It is simply incredible that in 2013 we are finally getting rid of that sexist discriminatory primogeniture rule which has been around for hundreds of years. We have seen women’s liberation for decades in New Zealand and this Parliament and the other of the 16 realms that also have to pass this legislation are getting around to it only now. It is a discriminatory institution and that is why I cannot support it.What New Zealanders particularly the younger generation want I believe is to see a Kiwi head of State. What this bill does is discriminate against New Zealanders because what we are seeing is an English head of State for New Zealand. She is called the monarch of New Zealand but as we saw with the Iraq War where Britain went to war and we did not she was the monarch of Britain not New Zealand representing our interests abroad. This is a monarch who has been in New Zealand I understand only around 10 times. She lives a life fundamentally different from New Zealanders’ lives. I think we should end the discrimination and allow a New Zealander to be our head of State.Secondly this bill discriminates against Roman Catholics which we have heard about in this debate. When you look around this Chamber it is not the old relic Tau Henare who is the only relic in this Chamber; we have got relics like the Mace and we have got relics like the iconography of the monarchy and the prayer we start with. Again that is an Anglican prayer and it is time to ditch that discriminatory sectarian way we start our Parliament. We should have a way that all members of all faiths or members not of faith can feel comfortable with. This bill clearly discriminates against Catholics because the monarch cannot be a Catholic. They have to be part of the Anglican faith. It is fascinating watching the religious schism from the Protestant revolution still shaping our laws and our constitutional arrangements in 2013.Lastly although it is a modernisation and improvement that the monarch does not have to personally approve literally hundreds of marriages between potential future heirs—it has been limited to six—plainly and simply what we are seeing is arranged marriage. I cannot vote for a bill that contains arranged marriage. I think it is egregious and should not be enshrined in New Zealand law or Commonwealth law. But all in all—Hon Tau Henare: What happened with theRena? Oh yeah that’s all gone.GARETH HUGHES: I know that it is the last day of the year but I am going to try to ignore some of those inane interjections.What we are talking about is our constitutional arrangements and what I want to see is a proud independent New Zealand going into the future with confidence. I do not want to see a New Zealand that looks to the past. I heard the member Scott Simpson say that we are a young country. In reality we are the fourth-oldest parliamentary democracy in the world. We should be proud of our institutions but it is time—like that stereotypical adult child—to be leaving home to go and get our own house.I think New Zealanders want an independent head of State who is a New Zealander who grew up in a country like them who knows about the country’s history and who can represent New Zealand values on the world stage. It is time for New Zealanders to feel proud of a Treaty-based inclusive democracy that does not have a head of State living on the other side of the world who very rarely travels here and who knows very little about our day-to-day life. It is time that we listened to the people of New Zealand and had a genuine debate around the Treaty.As a member who supports the Treaty of Waitangi Te Tiriti o Waitangi as our founding document I want to see that enshrined in our constitutional arrangements. For too long the relationship between the Crown and iwi in the Treaty has been used as an excuse to not see action. Many petitioners over the decades have gone to Westminster to see the Queen and quite appropriately for our constitution arrangements under the 1947 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act the Queen has referred iwi petitioners to the New Zealand Parliament. The Crown in New Zealand statute is enshrined in the monarch’s representative the Governor-General and the House of Representatives. This is the Crown.If we are going to proceed into the future as a proud multicultural nation that sees the Treaty at the heart of our constitutional arrangements and political Government what we need to do is ditch that chimera that the Queen is somehow in a representative relationship with us. For 60 years she has batted those questions back to New Zealand. What I want to see is a true Treaty-based Parliament. We have got that old Upper House chamber. I would love to see a Treaty House of Parliament. What we have not seen in this debate and what we have not seen in the constitutional debates set up by the Government is a fundamental question: how do we embrace a Treaty nation? [Interruption]Although Tau Henare is not the only relic we see in this Chamber it is high time for New Zealand to go into the future with confidence. It is time to change some of this archaic iconography around this House. It is time to change our flag. It is time to change our constitutional arrangement. It is time to see a Kiwi as the head of State a Kiwi representing New Zealand a Kiwi doing us proud and a Kiwi whom New Zealanders can vote for.We do not want a monarch on the other side of the world. We want a new flag. We want a fairer democratic less discriminatory constitutional arrangement. New Zealanders want a proud independent nation that stands on the world stage as a proud independent nation representing ourselves not a monarch on the other side of the world. That is the future. It is my vision for New Zealand—a future that all New Zealanders can participate in not just a discriminatory anachronism a too-late relic of the past enshrined in this bill. Kia ora.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I am proud to be part of this Parliament and to have the privilege of voting not abstaining on the Royal Succession Bill. I am proud to be a member of the Commonwealth I am proud to be a royalist and I am proud to support this bill.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I am also proud to say that New Zealand First—always the voice of calmness reason and good sense in this House—will support the Royal Succession Bill. We do not see that there is any need whatsoever to launch into a debate about republicanism as a result of any consideration of this particular bill. We are very pleased to leave that to the Roundheads and the Cavaliers in the various parts of the House whom we have heard those sorts of sentiments come from so far today. Nor do we think there is any reason to start launching into a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi and whether indeed it has any part in the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand at all or if so what they should be. In fact the bill has got a very narrow focus and does only three things. I might say that the Justice and Electoral Committee worked very hard to see that it did keep a very narrow focus despite some very provocative submissions made to it during the course of its deliberations.The Royal Succession Bill is a modernising bill. It takes only a few small steps forward but they are steps forward and we should see them as that. The first one is gender-neutral succession which is correct in principle although the New Zealand First spokesperson on women’s affairs tells me that she thinks that the change should go a little further—that it should be for women-only succession. However that is not New Zealand First policy. New Zealand First policy is in fact for gender-neutral succession so we certainly support that aspect of the bill. It reflects what the public expects and it has been needed for some time. It is good to see that happening at this stage.The second and much more difficult provision in the bill relates to the possession of the Crown by a person who marries or who has married a Roman Catholic. Removing that exclusion is also a step forward. We understand that many say that the Crown itself should be able to be held by a Roman Catholic or indeed by a person of any other religion. But New Zealand First does understand that we are only one of 16 realms concerned with these particular new provisions and that for historical reasons that we are all very very well aware of it is not appropriate for us down here in New Zealand to seek any further changes than that which is proposed. That is in fact something for the United Kingdom. If it gets round to making those changes then I am sure that many people in this country would welcome it. But it is simply not feasible sensible or possible to promote those sorts of sentiments at this stage and the bill does not do that. That is not within its scope.The last provision of course requires something that is just common sense. Currently all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry.There probably have already been many occasions where that consent has not been obtained because there must be hundreds of people who are covered by the current provision. It is just common sense that we have a new provision that only the first six in line to the throne will need to seek such consent. That is just a carry-on from the provision that requires to the Crown to be the head of the Church of England.We see this as just a common-sense bit of legislation. We do not see any need whatsoever to look at republicanism the place of the Treaty or things that are clearly and obviously well outside the scope of the bill. I do not mind hearing some light-hearted debate about the matter but it actually is quite a serious issue. It has been well-thought-through. It has been agreed to by the 16 realms.There are some pretty sensible provisions made. All three of these are sensible. They are moving in the right direction. We should have no objection whatsoever to this bill. Therefore I am a little bit disappointed that the Greens do not see it in that way and cannot vote for it. It is just common sense and it would have been good if the House had been able to reach full consensus on the matter. So I regret that that is not going to be possible. New Zealand First has no difficulties with the legislation whatsoever and will vote for it.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call to support the Royal Succession Bill. This is a very important bill particularly this morning when we are going to debate the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. This bill is probably important not only for our past and present but for our future as well because the reality is that MPs are required to pledge allegiance to the Queen as New Zealand’s head of State. Our system is a constitutional monarchy system. Every MP is bound by that system and every MP should swear their allegiance to the Queen. This is a relevant bill. This is not about somebody else’s head of State; it is about our head of State.My first encounter with the Queen—not a personal encounter of course—Hon Judith Collins: Why are you so disrespectful?RAYMOND HUO: What was that?Hon Judith Collins: Why are you so disrespectful of our traditions in New Zealand?RAYMOND HUO: Sorry?Hon Judith Collins: Don’t be disrespectful about our parliamentary traditions. Don’t bag the Queen.RAYMOND HUO: That is not a terribly constructive contribution from the Minister of Justice. My first encounter with the Queen was when I was studying at my first university in China. There was a paper called Queen’s English and Pub Talk. It was quite an interesting paper. For the first 2 years we had professors from England to teach us BBC English. But for the remaining 2 years we had professors from the United States to teach us VOA English Voice of America English so many students ended up speaking American English.Coming back to this bill it seeks to modernise historical royal succession rules by making three specific changes. Firstly it provides for gender-neutral succession to the throne ending the rule that a younger son precedes an elder daughter in the line of succession. Secondly it provides for succession to and possession of the Crown by a person married to a Roman Catholic removing the current prohibition. Thirdly it requires only the first six in line to the throne to seek the Sovereign’s permission to marry in order to ensure that their marriage is valid. Currently all descendants of King George II require the Sovereign’s consent to marry.The bill has a narrow scope. The changes to royal succession have been agreed by the 16 realms of which Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the submitters for their passion their commitment and theiranalysis especially Monarchy New Zealand and The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand. Generally submissions either supported or were neutral about the specific changes in the bill which are seen as improving the current rules of royal succession. However some submitters raised issues about the broader constitutional context behind the changes. I acknowledge my Green colleagues in that regard because they argued that the monarchy is outdated and that New Zealand should become a republic. The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand submitted that there should be a referendum on this issue and conversely other submitters considered that the bill should change the rules to allow a Roman Catholic to become Sovereign of New Zealand.As I said the bill has a narrow scope. Wider constitutional issues including the role of the monarchy are beyond the purpose of this bill and any moves for New Zealand to abolish the monarchy or hold a referendum on becoming a republic should be discussed in the context of a wider constitutional debate.Finally I think that the bill as drafted particularly under clause 8 reflects our constitutional arrangements. Under Section 15(2) of the Constitution Act 1986 any changes to United Kingdom laws will not automatically apply to New Zealand. In addition the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 adopts imperial laws as at the date of enactment and it does not include subsequent changes. So any changes to United Kingdom laws do not automatically apply to New Zealand. That is a deliberate measure to ensure that United Kingdom Acts or amendments do not apply without being accepted by New Zealand’s Parliament. In line with this New Zealand’s general legislative approach is to mirror relevant provisions of United Kingdom law in New Zealand law rather than refer to United Kingdom Acts. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a second time.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.In CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Royal Succession Bill to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I am pleased to take a brief call in the Committee stage of the Royal Succession Bill noting of course that in addition to this being an important piece of legislation in its own right—notwithstanding our concerns about the monarchical theme of it—it is of course the last day of Parliament sitting for this calendar year. It is not uncalled for in fact on occasions such as this for there to be some cheap and tacky reference to the Zeitgeist. Last year when I was called upon to speak on a bill on the last day of the sitting year at a time when a dance style known as “Gangnam Style” was very popular I managed to weave that into my contribution to a very important piece of legislation. So having now sat through the second reading ofthis particular piece of legislation I am somewhat surprised that when the cultural item that leads our Zeitgeist today is the song “Royals” by our very own Ella Yelich-O’Connor trading under the name of Lorde—all very appropriate at this time for this time of the year and for this occasion—no mention has been made in the debate on the Royal Succession Bill to that very phonetic piece of music. It would be wrong for this bill to pass through this House at this time in our history both constitutional and monarchical but also cultural without an appropriate reference to that very important piece of cultural expression—that is to say the song “Royals”.Hon Maurice Williamson: Please don’t sing it. Please don’t.ANDREW LITTLE: I am going to reassure Maurice Williamson that I am not going to sing it but that is as far as my promise goes. I do however want to say when we are talking about a piece of legislation that is correcting a historical level of discrimination against Roman Catholics and against first-born girls that I think we should note that the lyrics particularly in the chorus of “Royals” would be very reflective I think of Roman Catholic young people who aspire to marry into the royal family. They would have been left saying: “And we’ll never be royals [because] It don’t run in our blood that kind of luxe just ain’t for us. We crave a different kind of buzz.” That is the claim to republicanism that is being made in “Royals”. And of course it would be left to the monarch of the day to have to say: “Let me be your ruler. You can call me queen bee and baby I’ll rule I’ll rule I’ll rule.” Judith Collins finds that very attractive I am sure. I do not want to draw reference to her leadership aspirations but that might be her theme song. When we hear that being played at the next National Party conference we will know that it is all on.But on this occasion I want to say that it is right in this very small funny sort of way at this time in our constitutional history that we should correct these anomalies—these discriminatory practices—within the royal family and it is very nice of the royal family to deign to have us and other parts of the realm pass legislation to remove these acts of discrimination. But it does leave that funny taste in the mouth and we need to say that maybe it is time we need to go a little further and break out on our own. On that note—that musical note in fact—we will continue to support this bill in its final passage.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I will take just a short call on the Royal Succession Bill. It is not usual for me to agree with Andrew Little and I am not going to break the habit of a lifetime by starting now. I just want to correct a couple of things that have been said here today. The first is that actually the Queen is the Queen of New Zealand for us. She is the Queen of Great Britain and the United Kingdom when she is there but for us she is our Queen.I would also just like to remind the Green Party member Gareth Hughes—who spoke before and who after much impassioned rhetoric then decided to abstain—that it actually does not do any good for the status of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand to then try to belittle the history of the Crown the monarchy and actually the establishment of New Zealand. I think that we should all just remember that the Treaty is in fact a partnership between the Crown and the iwi of New Zealand. It is not a partnership that went anywhere other than that. It was in fact that important. Some of the strongest supporters of the monarchy in New Zealand are in fact Māori because of that historical relationship.I think that it does not help us in New Zealand to forget where this Parliament came from. Actually it came from a tradition that started in the UK. We may well talk about Catholicism and all that sort of thing but until Henry VIII all of the monarchs of Britain were actually Catholic ever since Catholicism had been established. That was the religion of the day. In fact people did not get a choice as to whether or not they were Catholic; they were either Catholic or dead frankly.Hon Maryan Street: What’s changed?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Similar things happened and of course these things changed over the years.Of course this bill does help to modernise what many people in New Zealand would think is a very quaint tradition but it is a quaint tradition with a lot of history and a lot of importance to many other New Zealanders. I am one of those New Zealanders who is relatively ambivalent on the issue of whether to have a republic or a monarchy but I will say that for the monarchy to be of importance to New Zealand and for the Treaty of Waitangi to be important the monarchy needs to be given its fair due. I was shocked to hear the Green Party member criticise the number of times that the Queen has been to New Zealand. She has been here many many times. I actually thought that was outrageous. He should apologise to the Queen for that—not that she has ever heard of him and she probably never will I should hope.But anyway it is a good bill. It is a sensible bill. It is very moderate. It will never make the monarchy modern but it will in fact help to bring to the monarchy a little bit of what we have today—in other words gender neutrality and not actually excluding Roman Catholics. The reason for excluding Roman Catholics has well and truly passed. It was really all about who controlled Britain. Everything has now passed and it is time for us to come together and support this bill. I would like to thank everyone who has supported it.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I was not going to take a call. I will take just a very short one. I rise as the New Zealand First spokesperson on women’s affairs to acknowledge the single clause of the three provisions that has the most importance for me which is the removal of the discrimination against women gaining the throne. I wish to make a comment about the fact that if we look at history we see that the two strongest rulers in history—in modern history anyway—were women: Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. If you have a look at the tumultuous times—Hon Maurice Williamson: What about Victoria?TRACEY MARTIN: Victoria was wonderful too but let me just talk about Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. Have a look at history at the tumultuous times that those young women—young women—lived through in an era when people thought that they could not do it and look at the amazing difference that they made to the world. Nobody should be afraid to have a woman in a leadership role whether it be as a monarch or as a Prime Minister. It is wonderful to see this House along with 16 other nations endorse the fact that a woman can stand there and rule equally as well as—if not better than—any man in history. I needed to stand and just say that. New Zealand First supports the Royal Succession Bill and I personally strongly support that particular clause.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I also rise to take a short call in this Committee stage on the Royal Succession Bill. It is a truism to say that history is important to us. It does not matter whether we are Māori or Pākehā or of any other ethnic extraction each of us holds to our history with a fierce grip. The history of our tūpuna and of our relationships with the people whom our tūpuna had relationships with are of critical importance to who we are now. I feel as a Pākehā as strongly as Māori do about their tūpuna. I recognise that with my Pākehā pedigree I am linked back to England—and a little bit to Scotland but primarily England—and I cannot ignore that part of my heritage.When we are debating this bill I think we need to recall the significance of history because although I do not wish to delay the proceedings of this House in getting to the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill I do also want to reiterate the point I made earlier even at the Committee stage that any movement away from the constitutional relationship we currently have with the Queen of England whoas the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice says is also the Queen of New Zealand has to be one that is thought through extremely carefully with those descendents of the people who signed a treaty with Queen Victoria. It was a treaty with Queen Victoria. If we are no longer to have a Sovereign in place in our founding document then we have to be very very certain that the Treaty of Waitangi is not eroded and that in fact it is enhanced in the process. So I am not quick to move to a republic because of that reason if no other.But I also want to respect the role of the Sovereign and in fact the lifetime of service that the current Sovereign has given in the United Kingdom but also across the Commonwealth where she has acknowledged and moved with the times as members of the Commonwealth have established their own constitutional arrangements their own parliamentary independence and their own separate status but remaining part of the extraordinary residue of colonisation that is the Commonwealth. That has both good and bad things attached to it but it is a residual vestige of colonisation that has transformed into something that can be and has been of international significance. That is not to be diminished by any of the light-heartedness that I brought to my earlier contribution to this debate.What we have in Aotearoa New Zealand is a unique debate about the role of the Sovereign. At this point we are modernising the royal succession in agreement with every other country that is one of the realms of the Sovereign. This has been agreed with all the relevant countries. It would be unhelpful unconstructive and in fact quite extraordinary if we were not to support this because it affects not only New Zealand but all of those countries that are represented at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In Perth in 2011 these changes were approved in principle by that family of countries and this is their final moment of fruition here in New Zealand.I want to just stress however that constitutional matters must always be informed by history. Our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand have had preponderance towards inheriting British traditions and British laws. Our point of difference in the world is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we need to preserve that and our uniqueness at all costs. Thank you for your indulgence.GARETH HUGHES (Green): When the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice is not calling people “numpties” she is misleading the Committee when it comes to the allegations that I was belittling our Treaty history. I was not intending to take a call on the Committee stage of the Royal Succession Bill but I just—Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take exception at being told that I misled the Committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not sure that I am going to uphold that point of order. That is quite a frequent statement.GARETH HUGHES: Thank you Mr Chair because I do not want to make a personal explanation but I do want to explain where I am coming from as an individual member in this House when it comes to the Treaty in relation to this bill. Obviously in previous calls I have argued I believe passionately for a change of our constitutional arrangements for a New Zealand head of State which is different from what we see with the new provisions in this law. I acknowledged in my contribution the role of the Treaty. What I want to see is a genuine Treaty conversation in New Zealand about how we actually celebrate it how we educate about it and how we actually bring it into effect because—Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This bill before us is not about a republic. It has nothing to do with the republic issue so I would like you to bring him back to what is actually in the bill. It is actually quite narrow.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes that is a valid point of order. Sometimes there is kind of a comparative thing made. I would ask the member to come back to the substance of the bill.GARETH HUGHES: Thank you Mr Chair. In the clauses of this bill we see the changes to the royal succession for female babies. We have heard from the Minister in the chair and from other members about the role of the Treaty in the constitutional relationship that the Queen of England has with New Zealand. I want to point out that when you look at those Treaty relationships brought up by the Minister—I was making the point that in fact under the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 the Crown has not been the monarch Elizabeth Windsor; the Crown has been the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand Governor-General. This is my point. The Minister is a lawyer. She should be aware of these points.I am not belittling the history of the Treaty; what I am saying is that I am excited about the opportunity from this bill that we can actually have a constitutional debate about how we best reflect the Treaty and how we best bring it into effect. I raised a suggestion around the idea of an Upper House a Treaty House. I do not believe that that is belittling the Treaty; I believe that it is actually looking to the future. I acknowledge the concerns because the Treaty was a historic unprecedented activity in global history and obviously is of great importance to both Māori and Pākehā and all cultures enshrined in New Zealand. It is something special that occurred only down here in Aotearoa New Zealand.I have a different opinion from that of my colleague Catherine Delahunty who is sitting next to me and no doubt many other members. I do not believe that the fact that it was signed by Governor Hobson on behalf of an 18-year-old Queen Victoria means it has to be put on ice for ever. I believe that constitutional arrangements can change. As a party that has Te Tiriti o Waitangi enshrined in its charter in the heart of our party what I could not countenance is changing our constitutional arrangements and lessening the role of the Treaty. What I am merely portraying—and I am not belittling the Treaty—is that I believe that our constitutional arrangements have been put on ice and we could actually go further do better and learn more about Te Tiriti o Waitangi if we actually embraced it and went forward with a genuine conversation about our head of State.Obviously what I want to see is a genuine Treaty relationship. I am obviously of Pākehā descent. My father emigrated from Wales and both of my two kids now have the blood of England Ireland Scotland and Wales. It has taken only 200 years for all the nations of the United Kingdom to be found in New Zealand literally on the other side of the world. I am fortunate to have grown up in Gisborne and unfortunate to have had very little to no historical education in school or training. I think it is a great tragedy that we do not teach our kids about history and the Treaty.I want to finish on a final point which is that if we are going to be talking about the Treaty we also have to have a conversation about tino rangatiratanga. If you look at New Zealand history this was not ceded in a treaty. This was ceded at the point of a musket. When you look at what happened on the beach at Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa Gisborne the first contact between James Cook and Te Maro ended in bloodshed and nails left on a corpse. Let us have a genuine conversation about the Treaty. Let us not throw out allegations about belittling history as we saw from the Minister in the chair. Let us actually have a conversation. Let us have a conversation about how we can improve Te Tiriti o Waitangi with a new indigenous Pacific-centred constitutional arrangement for Aotearoa New Zealand.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a third time.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a third time.Ayes97New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.