O'Rourke Denis: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15435. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.