Flavell Te Ururoa: Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6411. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Can I firstly thank those members who contributed to the discussion on the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. I have got to say that the arguments that I have heard tonight—my gosh they are wimpishly weak. I want to acknowledge Tau Henare for his courage in putting his korero out there tonight. I think he made an important statement when he said this is an opportunity to be different in the world. I support that and I appreciate his comments. He also said it is non-threatening—non-threatening. It is an option. You do not have to do it. You will not get banged on the head nothing like that. No no if you want to you can take it up. So I struggle with some of the discussion that has been made tonight. We can talk about the Treaty history all that sort of stuff but let us cut to the chase: that argument will always be there. What we are talking about tonight is a small statement allowed to be additional to what is already stated in our oaths and declarations—if a person wants to. Nothing more nothing less. The statement is: “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi;”. 
Some of the discussions that we have had tonight with respect are way off the mark. I talk to my colleague Louise Upston talking about the notion of having a constitutional discussion beforehand. That is happening but it does not have to be one or the other; it can be both and tonight’s opportunity would have been that. I appreciate the comments from Parekura Horomia and Catherine Delahunty in supporting this. Talking about New Zealand First well probably I will not spend too much time talking about those members because they do not do Maori very well at all—they do not do Maori very well at all. They do not do Maori seats even though they got in on the back of Maori seats. Sorry they do do Maori All Blacks. That is all right. I wonder why. So that is them. 
Mr McKelvie talked about needing discussion and planning. Goodness! This is a simple statement that allows a person if they wish—if they wish—to make a statement. Actually I would say this. In their heart of hearts from the discussion I have heard tonight members actually believe in their heart of hearts that there is no problem with this but they are bound—like Mr Henare—by the whole notion of being whipped. Planning and discussion around a five-word statement to be added to a statement that we have in this Parliament—I mean what is the big deal? Somebody is talking about magnitude of change. My goodness! Five words for goodness’ sake! Somebody else talked about the notion of choice. Well this is choice. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: It’s nonsense. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: It is choice. It is nonsense when you talk. We talked about Mr Tirikatene-Sullivan—Mr Tirikatene. I am sorry e Rino e taku he. I appreciated his comments as well about the historical nature of a desire from our people to have this statement and similar statements of it in this House. Mr Yang you talked about uniformity. There is no uniformity already. You have got a choice—oath or declaration—and within that here is another choice that you could take a part of if you wished. No compulsion—that is it. You talked about enforcement. When we come into the halls of Parliament we are already part of an enforcement regime which is why Hone Harawira could not go through this process this year. By adding five words he would have been—along with many others who wanted to follow this line—able to take up that opportunity. So we talk about consistency and yet we have oaths to the Queen to God and whoever else and yet on a constant basis we contradict that. We contradict that in this House. 
This statement if there was fear about there being a political motive to this I do not get it. There is no political motive to it. There cannot be because it is for those people who choose to take it up—no political motive pretty straightforward to allow some of us to take up that option. Sure there is a discussion to be had about the bigger picture about Treaty statements but I have got to say that it is with an element of heavy heart that I listened to the discussions tonight. For all the rhetoric about the Treaty of Waitangi in this country for us not to be able to have the courage and the commitment to add five words— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: It’s nothing to do with courage. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —New Zealand First aside—to the declaration and oaths in this country is a sad day. It is a sad day when we cannot take up an opportunity even to take it to a select committee to allow the debate to happen. Surely—surely—at this point in time with the commitments made between political parties and indeed the founding document of our nation that we could not find the space to take it to a select committee of this Parliament it is a sad day for us. The balance is that Obama got in. The balance is that Tauranga Moana Maori are happy. The downside is that today tonight in this House at this point in time it is noted down in history that some people did not have the courage to follow it through for this bill.