te Heuheu Georgina: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20721] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Oaths Modernisation Bill. I think that the speaker who has just resumed his seat has totally lost the point. It is all very well for him to stand and say that United Future members are not lapdogs; he should say that to the country. Where are that member and his party registering in the polls? In the zone where people see that party as the lapdog of the Government. So he should think about that. 
I do find though that I am in total agreement with my colleague the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp of course. This bill is totally unnecessary. The speaker before me started to go through the various oaths and asked what on earth can be wrong with this that and the other. I ask him what the point is. Why do we need to say Queen of New Zealand when all New Zealanders know that she is the Queen of England? Formally she might be the Queen of New Zealand but we do not think of her as that. She is the Queen of England. Maori people more than anybody understand that notion. It was the Queen of England whom we signed the Treaty of Waitangi with and it is still the Queen of England whom we look to if we think we can get some redress from her. 
The United Future member can go through all those particular rights that are set out in the bill and ask what the harm is in them but we ask what their point is. 
That brings me to the points that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp raised. First of all these changes are totally unnecessary. They do not add to or detract from anything. There is ultimate meaning in the oaths as they are. There is absolutely no need to change them. New Zealanders will not feel any more or less committed— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Most people out there are crying out for it! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I have to disagree with my colleague Maurice Williamson. I do not think New Zealanders are crying out for the oaths to be changed. By and large most New Zealanders rely on tradition. There is nothing like tradition to provide stability in a democracy. Again Maori certainly realise that. I cannot say that for anyone else because I do not presume to speak for anyone else but I certainly know what it is that Maori deem important. Tradition is totally important and tradition is vitally important in oaths and allegiances. So there is the fact that this change is totally unnecessary. 
The second issue is that this legislation is part of the Government’s agenda for creeping republicanism. I agree with Dr Wayne Mapp—again—when he says that at least Jim Bolger an avowed republican put republicanism on the table in 1995. He did so much to the unhappiness of a lot of National Party members; he put it on the table and said that one day we must start debating the issue. That was the right thing to do. Mark Peck is absolutely wrong when he says that it is not the right thing to do—that the point of the process is not to put the issue on the table. It absolutely is the point. These things must be put on the table. They must be discussed by New Zealanders not just by a coterie of Labour Party left-wing socialist people who have their own little discussions in their own little rooms and decide that New Zealand will go down the path of republicanism and that they do not need to tell the public of New Zealand. That is the difference between Labour and this side of the House. We have put things on the table. We recognise when it is the right of New Zealanders to discuss these things—unlike the Government which as a typical socialist Government thinks it knows best. 
The third point is that as my colleague said this bill has been put forward to condition the people to and groom them for the idea of republicanism. I have to agree with him totally—absolutely. 
Stephen Franks 
: They are like paedophiles—they groom. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Gosh! I am not going to say that but there is more than a hint of grooming in this bill. Why would the Government put it forward unless for the purpose of lulling New Zealanders into a sense that it is OK and that they will go along with it? I warn New Zealanders who may be listening tonight that if they give this Government a third term—[ 
Interruption 
] They are all listening; they love listening to this House. I warn them that if this Government gets a third term we will be on the pathway to republicanism. This Government—given its conduct in abolishing reference to the Privy Council and abolishing Queen’s Counsel knighthoods and so on—will put us on that pathway because it thinks it has a God-given right to do such things without having the public of New Zealand behind it. 
The Government thinks this is a discreet little bill but funnily enough it could be the Government’s undoing. It could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is PC nonsense. What Maori person out there said: “We need you to make sure there are translations of the oath.”? Who said that? Who asked for it? 
Stephen Franks 
: Tame Iti! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No Tame Iti would not do that. Who asked for it? What Maori person asked for it? Nobody asked for it. Was Tariana Turia—whom I know members opposite love to hear us talk about—debarred from taking the oath in Maori when she was sworn in? I do not think so. Was she? [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think so either. And since her taking the oath in 1996 a number of Maori have walked up to the Speaker’s Chair and taken the oath in Maori. So what is the purpose of this PC nonsense? Maori is an official language of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick and Ruth Dyson should listen to this. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Georgina! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Steve Chadwick—a good Maori name from Tuwharetoa and the Hawke’s Bay. Maori is an official language of New Zealand. We do not need to state in legislation that Tariana Turia can now take the oath in Maori. What a lot of rubbish! 
I agree with my colleague totally for those three reasons. The bill is totally unnecessary. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear Mr Jim Peters commenting. Does that mean New Zealand First will vote against this bill too? I know that New Zealand First likes tradition too. Winston Peters is a traditionalist so I hope New Zealand First will vote against this bill as well. Tradition gives consistency and stability. Bringing things up to date? What a lot of nonsense! The meaning is not changed whatsoever. Bowing to Maori? Does the Government think it will hold the Maori seats with this? If so it can think again because it will not. It should think on that.