Smith Murray: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20720] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 McCarthyism is alive and well in New Zealand. Who would have thought it? Instead of reds under the bed we have republicans under the bed. National Party members are searching for them anywhere they can find them. I listened on the radio to the speeches given last night. I must say that the quality of the speeches was reflected in the fact that there was a bit of slurring indicating that well-lubricated speakers were making speeches on this bill. 
I know that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has an important obligation to oppose anything the Government wants to do but sometimes it goes to a ridiculous extent. I must say that the repetition I have been hearing in speech after speech made by National Party members shows the shallowness of their arguments in regard to this issue. Is there anything in this bill that we should be concerned about? United Future does not put it past the Government to be introducing PC changes social engineering and doing it underhandedly and surreptitiously. I looked at the words in the bill quite carefully to see whether I could find anything there. I just cannot see it. There is nothing in these changes that could ever lead one to believe that somehow this is a big plot on the part of the Government to destroy the fabric of New Zealand society. 
What objection can be taken to words like “I will be loyal to New Zealand.” or I “will respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people.”? Yet somehow National does not want to see those new words added to the text. What is wrong with adding after the words “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” the words “Queen of New Zealand”? For 150 years effectively that has been the situation. Although our oaths refer just to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second” I think it is quite appropriate 150 years later to recognise that when we are talking about the Queen we are talking about the Queen of New Zealand when we have a Queen who is Queen of other countries as well. I think it is important that we make it clear to people who are taking oaths that effectively the Queen they are providing loyalty to is the Queen of this country not of England or other countries in the Commonwealth. So what is wrong with that? 
What is wrong with a phrase that states: “I will be a faithful and diligent Councillor.”? How do National members see any problem with that in terms of some sort of hidden motivation? Instead of the words “well and truly serve Her Majesty” we have the words “faithfully and diligently”. That is only modernising the language. The citizenship oath states: “I will be loyal to New Zealand … and will respect the democratic values …”. Is not that what National Party members stand for? Or are we led to believe that they believe that pledging loyalty to democratic values is some sort of sinister plot? We are changing the wording to say “faithfully and impartially serve” and referring to the “people of the realm of New Zealand” in the Governor-General’s Oath. Certainly that is what we should be doing. 
The Judicial Oath now asks judges to say that they will “act fairly and impartially and do right to all people without fear or favour affection or ill will …”. What is wrong with that? What hidden motivations are there in an oath that states that our judges will pledge themselves to act fairly and impartially without fear or favour affection or ill will? In fact one could argue that that should have been in the Judicial Oath years ago because that is certainly what New Zealand citizens expect of their judges. 
So all we see is a modernisation of the language. There are no hidden agendas. There is a modernisation and a consistency of language across the various oaths. The problem it appears is that National members would have us believe that they do not like change. They like the archaic language. Richard Worth in particular likes the archaic language. Why should we not keep language in modern society that people do not understand instead of replacing it with something that people will readily understand! 
It is the same sort of approach National members took when we were speaking on the Evidence Bill. When I spoke about the need for fundamental reforms in the criminal justice system to bring it into a form more befitting modern society they wanted to bury it in the past. They want to clutch to our 18th century system. I admit there were a lot of very positive 18th and 19th century reforms of British justice. But as our society has changed over the years it is important that we reflect on that and ask: “Is it the best system that we have?” and that we are bold enough to make changes. 
The problem with National Party members is that they are so fixated in their historical perspective they do not want change they are scared of change. They are scared of looking at and improving the system we have had to make it far more acceptable to New Zealanders. 
I welcome also in this bill the fact that we are to have te reo text. Maori is an official language in New Zealand. The language is unique to New Zealand despite also sharing similarities with languages of Pacific Islands as far as Rapanui. But we need to be proud of the Maori language. I think it is very important to have in an Act of Parliament oaths that are in te reo and that are the official version of those oaths. We do not then depend on somebody who wants to speak te reo making his or her own interpretation and Maori version of the oath. It is important that there is consistency and that in so far as we want to promote and endorse te reo and increase its usage and recognition in New Zealand it is important we make provision for that. That is what this bill does. It is a very welcome move. 
I find that the opposition to this bill is far-fetched to the point of being ridiculous. Trying to find republicans under the bed in this McCarthyism that I see happening in National’s vain attempt to try to make some sort of logical opposition to this bill—simply because it has a duty to oppose anything the Government does—is being taken to poor extremes. United Future is very happy with the changes that have been made. We are quite happy to support them. We are not lapdogs. We are guide dogs.