Upston Louise: Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6405. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and offer a contribution in the debate on the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill in this first reading. I want to start by acknowledging my parliamentary colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for bringing this bill to the House. Earlier today he successfully—unanimously actually—had a bill passed in this House so I do want to acknowledge his efforts. 
I want to say though that one of the reasons that National will not be supporting the bill today is that I believe in this instance the Maori Party has the cart before the horse. I want to explain that because there has been a conversation tonight about this being about national identity. Well the appropriate place for a conversation around national identity is with each and every New Zealander and that is a conversation we are having as a result of the partnership with the Maori Party with the constitutional review. The place of the Treaty of Waitangi is a key part of the constitutional review. So I think it is appropriate that we do not jump ahead too quickly in this instance. I know that this idea seems like quite a simple idea a simple fix to a problem but actually it is a much broader conversation around our national identity and around the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our overall constitution. That is not something that should be rushed. 
I recently spoke in Australia—I jointly presented with Charles Chauvel—on the constitutional review that we are undertaking. It is so so important that New Zealanders engage in this conversation and that we do it properly and we do it fully. So the aspect of the constitution is the first sort of area where this bill creates some problems. I am somewhat frustrated at the suggestion that the National Party choosing not to support this bill indicates a wider issue in terms of our commitment. For anyone who has heard the speeches in this House from members all across the Chamber but in particular from the National Party and the commitment we have to settling Treaty settlements I think that that is quite an unfair comment. 
We are progressing settlements because we know—because we know—it is the hurt and the injustice and the disagreements of the past that continue to divide this nation. We are the party that is driving ahead at a pace to get those Treaty settlements resolved. I very firmly believe that it is the most significant thing we can do as a country to bring us to the place of unity. Some of my colleagues have spoken about challenges and the fact that we have more progress to make. Well our priority should be Treaty settlements. Our priority Mr Flavell should be the constitutional review. It should be engaging each and every New Zealander in this conversation. 
Although the idea in the bill seems like a good one I think the impacts of it are too—there are some other complications. I want to raise a couple of them. One of course is the issue of consistency. The bill talks about oaths and declarations of some types but has not actually explained each opportunity that an oath is taken in New Zealand. So for example in terms of the Citizenship Act is it expected through this bill that also new citizens would take an oath to the Treaty of Waitangi? What about the Ombudsmen Act? So there is an issue of inconsistency in the bill as it is drafted. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Optional Louise. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: The member Te Ururoa Flavell who has brought this bill to the House quite rightly has said that it is optional but the fact that the oath is optional creates other complications. What does it mean if somebody takes an oath to the Treaty of Waitangi and someone does not and yet they are doing the same job? So the inconsistency in it potentially creates some other problems where someone holding the same office has made one oath and another has not. So you are getting an inconsistency with the same people holding office. 
The spirit of the bill I applaud and I commend the member for bringing it to the House but actually the commitment is having a much broader conversation about the national identity and the Treaty’s place in the constitution. Thank you.