McKelvie Ian: Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6409. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in this House on a member’s bill. It has taken me nearly a year to get this far so it is a pleasure to be able to get up and speak on the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. 
When doing a little research on this I went back to the original Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. When you go back to the original Act and then you read the member’s bill in Te Ururoa Flavell’s name it really simplifies something that is quite complex legislation. I think that to move to a change like this needs a lot more discussion and a lot more planning than has gone into this process so far. 
I support the view that the constitutional review is the proper place for this type of discussion to take place. It allows us to chart our future. It allows us to do it in an orderly manner. I think that if we are going to make a change of this magnitude then the change needs to be made in a general discussion undertaken by all New Zealanders. I also think that if we are to get unity in this sort of approach then the voluntary or the optional approach to this is not the correct one. If you were to take this bill forward then I do not think it is right that we should necessarily have an option because I do not think that achieves the objectives of this bill at all or even the objective of the mover of this bill. So I think that if this bill is all about inclusiveness and unity then there should be no choice in this. This bill clearly gives a choice. Catherine Delahunty the Green member who spoke earlier talked about unity. I do not think there is unity when we give people the option to do something or not to do something. 
 It has taken us many years from moving even from swearing on the Bible to the option of simply making an affirmation in the— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh so we have a choice. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: We have a choice in that but that is a very different choice from some people being able to take it with them or some people not being able to take it with them. I think they both achieve the same thing. This does not achieve the same thing. It certainly achieves something— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Why not? 
IAN McKELVIE 
: Because it allows people to be either in or out. I can imagine my wife swearing an oath using the Treaty of Waitangi and I can imagine me not doing that and I do not think that is how this thing will be planned properly at all. I do not think it makes any sense to proceed down this path. I think that as a country we need to have a much greater discussion on this and I think we need to do it in a manner that includes everyone’s opinion. 
The country has changed much in the last 160 years. I must say that some of the sentiments expressed in this House tonight point to that fact that the country has changed much. The make-up of the country has changed significantly in the last 160 years and I think that in dealing with these sorts of issues we need to account for the very different make-up that this country’s population has now from the make-up it had in the past. I look forward to that discussion. I think it is a great opportunity for us in the future. 
The last thing I want to talk about is the Treaty settlement process that has been undertaken and is currently being progressed in my view very satisfactorily under Minister Finlayson. It is making really good progress and I think it is probably the first time in 160 years that we have moved forward in a manner that I think is doing a lot of good for this country. In my own electorate in the Rangitikei I look forward to the Treaty settlement process being concluded because I think it will give rural New Zealand a significant boost. In saying that I look forward to the Treaty settlement process moving on with pace I also have to oppose this bill because I do not think either that it is inclusive or that it completes or gives us an option to achieve this in a manner that I think the country wants to move on. Thank you.