Little Andrew: Royal Succession Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Royal Succession Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11445. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to talk on this bill the Royal Succession Bill and note that of the three things the bill does one of those is an act of validation. I have to say that it is a pleasure to be able to speak on a bill that validates past actions without upsetting the good citizens of Mangawhai and indeed of Tasman district. But that is kind of where the positive aspects of this bill stop and start.We are dealing in this bill with an anachronism and every citizen in this country who has their radio and television tuned to Parliament this afternoon will be wondering why it is that we are taking the very expensive time of this House and the people who work here on this piece of legislation about the Queen the Crown or the Sovereign of England. They will be wondering why it is that in this day and age in this little corner of the world in a nation that is reputed—and indeed this Government trades off it as indeed the last one did—to be a country that punches above its weight and that does extraordinary things all in its own name with its own identity and with its own culture we find ourselves on this wintry afternoon legislating for gender neutrality in the succession of the Sovereign. How on earth does that absurd situation arise?I might hasten to add that Labour will support this bill. We do not want to cause offence to the Sovereign because there are bigger issues at play when it comes to this nation’s relationship with—Hon Trevor Mallard: Soft on royalty.ANDREW LITTLE: Yes soft on the causes of royalty as well. There are bigger issues that come into play when it comes to the relationship between the nation State of New Zealand and the Queen of England.Who would have thought in this day and age that we would find ourselves legislating—Simon O’Connor: Hasn’t been a Queen of England for 500 years until this one.ANDREW LITTLE: There is the resident monarchist of the House. He has to chip in. He takes great offence because here we are having to legislate against primogeniture. Who would have thought that in the 21st century we would be having to pass legislation about that? Who would have thought that in the 21st century we would have to pass legislation to overcome prejudice against Catholics? Oh now Mr O’Connor is very silent on that point—very silent on that point. Mr O’Connor needs to be reminded that without this legislation he would have absolutely no chance of getting anywhere near succession to the throne or any part of it and once upon a time he would have been deprived of public office in the home country. That is how bad it was.You have only to look at the old Bill of Rights of 1688 which is held up as such an important document around the Commonwealth. What a dreadful piece of legislation that was. Here it is: “Papists debarred the Crown.” That is not the bad thing actually. That is not the bad thing because we can overcome that. It is what they said about the papists. Here is what they said about the papists: “And whereas it has been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince”. That is what they thought of the Catholics in thatday and age. And here we are in the 21st century having to pass legislation to prevent discrimination against Roman Catholics by the Crown that is meant to be of this country. How patently ridiculous.The third thing we are doing is we are legislating to validate the marriages potentially hundreds of marriages that have not been personally consented to by the Crown. Of course there is still an issue in my humble opinion about why the Crown should be called upon to approve any adult marriage. What is wrong with the autonomy of the individual and the Queen’s or the King’s adult children being able to decide whom they marry? That has been the cause of constitutional crises as recently as last century but not so far this century. It was a cause of constitutional crisis. Poor old Princess Margaret was deprived of her beau and King Edward had to abdicate because of his favoured spouse. Thank goodness we have got past all that. We have got through the age of the charleston and we have not had the same problem ever since.These measures will at least give the appearance of modernising the succession arrangements for the royal family. But the reality is that there should never have been in the modern world at least any gender or religious discrimination or any discrimination at all. We should ask the question—and Mr Foster-Bell no doubt will be called upon to answer along with Mr O’Connor the self-professed monarchists of the National Party—why on earth it is we are being called upon to pass this legislation in this day and age. It highlights as I said a much bigger issue of New Zealand’s relationship with the monarch. The question is: how relevant is it? How relevant is it that the time of this House should be spent on this legislation for New Zealanders who simply want to go about their business. They want this Parliament to devote its time and attention to making sure that life in New Zealand is worth living and is bearable that the distribution of wealth is fair that job opportunities exist and that people can be cared for and looked after and can ultimately be happy.The constitutional arrangements that we now live under and thrive under in terms of this Parliament mean that we have to participate in this charade of passing this legislation along with 16 other sovereign nations—[Interruption ] I take the advice—Hon Trevor Mallard: She’s the Queen of New Zealand.ANDREW LITTLE: She is the Queen of New Zealand and that is the point. That is the issue. It is because of those constitutional arrangements that we have to participate in this charade. So we must now ask the question: is this really 21st century New Zealand? I do not want to cause offence to the royal family—never have done—and for that reason as I said we will support the bill. But it is not the New Zealand way that we support the idea of status and privilege as a birthright. That is not the Kiwi way. It never has been and never will be.The good people of the United Kingdom who came out here 180 years ago or 170-odd years ago to become the second peoples of this land the second set of settlers on this land came here to get away from exactly that cultural aspect. They came here to get away from privilege and status delivered as a birthright. They came here to forge a new way to pioneer a new country with new values and to pioneer a country built on freedom built on hard work built on reward for that hard work and built on getting ahead under your own steam. That is the New Zealand way not cuddling up to and seeking succour from those sorts of institutions that are outdated and outmoded—interesting as they may be—and producing good music occasionally as they may do although not the theme songs that we get from old has-been pop stars like Elton John and others and Cliff Richard. Of course that does not necessarily go with royalty but—Hon Trevor Mallard: What’s the member saying about Elton? What’s he promoting Elton for?ANDREW LITTLE: Well we are talking about queens this afternoon so why not? We are not talking just about the Crown. But the thing is—Hon Member: Shameful.ANDREW LITTLE: I do not think there is any offence caused there. He called it himself. The point is that he keeps on being rolled out in every royal gala performance they have. Can we have something slightly more modern?But this is the question that young New Zealanders are now asking. This legislation will give rise to that question in the minds of even more as to whether we should spend the time of this Parliament priced at what $350000 an hour to debate these important issues—Hon Trevor Mallard: No the marginal cost is almost nothing.ANDREW LITTLE: My learned friend Mr Mallard says that the marginal cost is almost nothing. But the truth is that we have now been compelled to consider this legislation under urgency as part of this urgency motion. It is a piece of legislation that will not touch the ordinary lives of ordinary New Zealanders or for that matter any New Zealander even those living overseas and even those living in the United Kingdom. It will not touch the ordinary lives of ordinary New Zealanders one single bit but we are corralled into it. We are driven by it by our constitutional arrangements and if this bill does anything let it be a clarion call. Let it draw attention to the arrangements that we now have and let it attract a real curiosity about whether this is the way we should go forward.We are a nation State. We are a bold proud nation State. We hold our heads up proudly around the world. We contribute our people to support our allied nations like the United Kingdom and many others in the Commonwealth and out of it but we do that in our own name and in our own right. We should not be drawn into or be required to spend the valuable time of this House on issues like this when there are more compelling issues to be dealing with and when we have our own history to celebrate.I would just conclude by saying that this week is an important week of course in labour history. It is the centenary of the second Unity Congress which led to the formation of the United Federation of Labour and the Social Democratic Party the precursors to the Labour Party. That is the history that we should be celebrating. That is the real history that has touched New Zealanders’ lives—the lives of all New Zealanders—and has made a difference not this legislation.We will support the bill. We do not want to cause offence to the Sovereign today but it is time we reconsidered moved on and stood on our own two feet.