Franks Stephen: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20723] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I feel thoroughly inspired after that ringing speech. One does not often come to the House not knowing which way one is going to vote deciding instead to listen to the quality of the arguments before making up one’s mind. On this bill I think I will have to leave everyone hanging on my decision. 
I will just run through some of the arguments as they appeared. The first thing that struck me is that one simply cannot imagine what possible purpose is served by putting this bill forward. Of all the issues facing New Zealand—of all the matters for which we could use the $80000 an hour or so that it takes to run this place—we occupy ourselves by replacing the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully” in the oath of the Auditor-General. That is an odd one. Come to think of it what does the Government mean by taking an “honest” Auditor-General and making him a “faithful” Auditor-General? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It sounds like a lapdog. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I think it sounds like lapdog language. I wonder whether United Future had something to do with that change. One can quite easily be an honest Auditor-General but to be a faithful Auditor-General one has to be faithful to someone. Faithful to whom? It is a bit of a worry. At first I thought the change was quite innocuous but now that I look at those words and try to work out what it could mean to use parliamentary time at $80000 an hour for however many hours it takes to change “honestly” for “faithfully” I am not so sure. That same change has been carried through to the oath for the environment commissioners. At the moment the environment commissioners have to carry out their duties “honestly”. In future they will have to carry out their duties “faithfully”. [ 
Interruption 
] It does seem a little sinister yes. 
Another change—and I think it was the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who drew this to the House’s attention—is the attempt to curry favour through political correctness by including all these oaths in another official language. I do not know whether members are aware that we are about to have yet another official language inflicted on us. Mouldering in the Justice and Electoral Committee is a bill to make New Zealand Sign Language another official language. Just imagine! How does one take an oath in Sign Language? Who can tell whether one is doing so honestly? I am disappointed in the Government that it does these politically correct things but has given no indication of how one takes an oath in sign language. I am quite sure that if one official language has an oath then those who use another official language have every right to demand an oath in their language too whatever it is. 
I come back to possibly a slightly more significant point. For us to replace the words “fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen” with the words “respect the democratic values of New Zealand and the rights and freedoms of its people” is not innocuous. That is a significant change. When one fulfils one’s duties as a New Zealand citizen it is perhaps reasonably straightforward to understand that there is a duty to obey the law. There is a duty to turn up for military service if a law is passed to say that one must. There is a duty to assist the police if called upon although they so rarely call upon citizens these days. But what does it mean to “respect the democratic values of New Zealand”? I can respect the Catholic church but still decide to pay absolutely no regard to its teachings. I can respect it as a religion but that does not mean I have fulfilled the duties laid down on Catholics. I think that this is a deliberate attempt to take away what is currently a duty and replace it with words that mean nothing. The Government is disguising that. That oath is a citizenship oath. It is the oath that states to immigrants that they should recognise that they are changing their allegiance and changing the persons to whom they owe duties. Instead we are taking that concept out of our oath and replacing it with the weasel word “respect”. 
I also have a lot of curiosity about what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Let us assume that an immigrant—some poor refugee—has come here from North Korea and that he wants to know what the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are. Well the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders are according to Helen Clark whatever she says they are. That will feel pretty familiar to a refugee from North Korea and to someone who has come from Iraq. Those people will be familiar with countries where the rights and freedoms of the people depend on the ruler from time to time. Why do we not have something that swears to uphold the freedoms we have inherited—the freedoms under the law as it stands at the time—not the rights and freedoms that this Government decides to leave to New Zealanders? We see in almost every Act that this Parliament passes a further erosion or removal of rights and freedoms. The oath is meaningless as it stands and it has done virtually nothing to increase what it should be increasing which is the obligation taken on by immigrants. That is the third point. 
Why are we tinkering with the words of oaths when this Government does not bother to enforce the obligations that they are intended to create? How many prosecutions are there for perjury these days? How often do we find that someone who has sworn a false oath borne false witness or lied on oath has paid a heavy price? The ACT party has had a consistent policy for as long as I have been in this Parliament that it would make the penalties for suborning justice—lying on oath—as severe as the penalties the person has tried to avoid by lying. One of the bills that is waiting on the Order Paper while this drivel is being brought forward tinkers with the penalties for perverting the course of justice. Possibly it will not even get through before the Government decides to call an election. Meanwhile we are wasting the time of this House in dealing with the form of the oaths without looking at the substance of them. The House should really be considering the consequences of lying by people in official positions or in positions where they have promised not to lie. I can see why this Government may be a little sensitive about cranking up penalties for lying. It is quite a sensitive issue. 
Peter Brown 
: Tell us about it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I will not go into that. Others in the House have put plenty of time into it. But I certainly cannot understand why we have an entire bill devoted to the wording of oaths without a word about the consequences of making false oaths. Nothing in this bill states what would happen to an immigrant who for example swore a false oath to uphold the democratic values of New Zealand. For example do the democratic values of New Zealand include the right to maintain allegiance to another power? Many countries in their citizenship oath ask people to make their primary duty to the new country. Some require people to swear that the country is their only allegiance and to give up other allegiances. 
Peter Brown 
: I agree with that. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I say to Peter Brown that I do too. I certainly believe that when people come to New Zealand and want the privilege of citizenship then they have to recognise that they become New Zealanders and that New Zealand must be their primary allegiance. There should be none of this monkeying around. I do not know why the Government does not require immigrants to become citizens before they can vote. We treat our citizenship so lightly and cheaply. The Government is prepared to spend the time of this House on tinkering with words to make them more confusing and more vague and it does not want to look at the substance of the obligations that the words are supposed to create. 
I have mentioned the replacement of the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. I am concerned too that nothing in the bill explains just when an obligation is imposed by oath or why we choose to require oaths for some offices and not for others. For example the medical profession in this country is laden down with gatekeeper roles. It is given all sorts of responsibilities that can mean a yes or a no to the eligibility of people to get treatments to get benefits to stay at home to work or to get out of trouble. Yet as I understand it we have nothing that doctors have to swear to when they accept and get those high privileges or that onerous duty. Why do we have an oath for special constables when we do not have one for other people such as doctors? I thank members for their attention.