Hughes Gareth: Royal Succession Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Royal Succession Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11458. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to acknowledge Te Reo week in New Zealand. I guess that is an iconic part of our culture about being New Zealand yet what we are debating today under urgency with this bill is something foreign. It is something distant—in fact it is something 16000 kilometres distant. It is a totally different part of the world. It is not about New Zealand. This bill is a relic of the monarchy in New Zealand—a dying institution I believe for New Zealand. So I welcome the ability to rise and take a call on this the Royal Succession Bill.I think it is fair to say I am not a monarchist; I am a republican and proud of it. I voted for Keith Locke’s bill last term. I support a discussion on a head of State. I believe that the monarchy is discriminatory. I think it goes against our Kiwi values. I think it goes against that spirit of a fair go for everyone not just for those of privileged birth.You know it was pretty galling to have to swear allegiance to the Queen to take my seat and speak in this Chamber. I think many members probably find it a disconcerting and an odd institution to have to go through for what is the Parliament of our country of all New Zealanders to have to swear allegiance to someone who lives on the other side of the world and her heirs and successors. I find it troubling. Luckily I can just think about Freddie Mercury when I am swearing allegiance.The Greens will be abstaining from voting on this bill. We are not voting against it. We are not opposed to it. Likewise we are not supporting it. We do not support this institution which is discriminatory and the discrimination that is still contained in this bill. This bill is trying to bring about gender balance. It is trying on the fringes to impact on the bar on Roman Catholics and those of other religions from taking the throne and marrying successors but it is still discriminatory.First up we have got a terribly poor process. I mean this has been around for a long time. We have known about this discrimination for a long time. The agreement came in Perth with some of the Commonwealth countries coming together and agreeing it just had to be changed because it was just so embarrassing—so embarrassing to have the future monarch having a baby but there being problems with royal succession. I have not heard once why we have to have this bill debated under urgency. I think this is not a law we need to pass under urgency. I guess we question given the select committee process what the point is. Is the Government going to amend anything based on expert evidence based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet or based on submissions? Given that 16 other realms have to agree to this identical text my question is this: are we going to get a real select committee process there?The bill changes three main things: succession does not have to be dependent on a person’s sex it takes away the bar on people on the throne marrying a Roman Catholic—obviously the monarch still cannot be a Roman Catholic; they must be an Anglican—and it abolishes the requirement that all descendants of King George II must seek the Sovereign’s consent to marry. That is a pretty good change but the monarch still gets a hand in arranged marriages for six people in the succession line. I do not like the idea of supporting the monarch still being able to pick arranged marriages. I do not think it is in keeping with our Kiwi culture or 2013 the year we are in right now.I personally believe this bill and the entire institution of the monarchy are a relic of the past. I think these changes come too late for this relic of the past for this discriminatory institution of the monarchy. I guess the catalyst has been the wedding ofWill and Kate and the baby. I wish them all the luck. I have got to admit I did actually watch the wedding on the telly. I wish them all the best. But although I welcome the ending of discriminatory practices against their first-born I think this is too little too late.Again of course it is discriminatory in the sense that in no way—or almost no way—can a New Zealander be the head of State of New Zealand. I want to have a New Zealander as my head of State. I want to be swearing allegiance to the people to the voters. I do not want to be swearing allegiance to someone who lives on the other side of the planet and still arranges marriages for their children. I am against discriminating against Roman Catholics and that is why I will not be supporting this bill tonight. I am against arranged marriages.I agree with this quote from the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand: “This is a poor attempt at modernising an arcane and increasing irrelevant institution. It emphasises that the monarchy is a foreign remnant of our Colonial past—we’re only keeping the clause discriminating against Catholics because England has an established protestant church.” It is going to be interesting to see the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet being discussed at the Justice and Electoral Committee.Ultimately New Zealand coming under a monarchy is like the stereotypical 30 or 40-year-old still at home with their parents. We know they have got to move out but maybe it is a bit cruisy maybe they do not have to think for themselves or maybe there are some advantages. It is time for New Zealand to grow up get a real job move out of the home of its parents and make our own way in the world. I support a New Zealand head of State.