Mapp Wayne: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20715] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Tonight National will vote against the Oaths Modernisation Bill. We do so on three principal grounds. The first is that it is unnecessary the second is that it is part of the Government’s surreptitious agenda and the third is that it is designed to lull the public into accepting a process of incremental change. There is no compelling reason to change our oaths and affirmations. I will give an example of that. The explanatory note of the bill states that the Government is doing important things—so important that it intends to replace the word “honestly” with the word “faithfully”. That has huge significance I imagine! Further the Government intends to replace the word “divulging” with the word “disclosing”. It is extraordinary that the Government is spending hours of the House’s time to do something that is pointless and unnecessary. 
Now I know that the Government will say that the bill is just a modernisation bill and that the National Party is opposing it just because that is what that party does to Government measures but our second reason for opposing the bill is also important. This bill is clearly part of the Government’s agenda of creeping republicanism. Government members know that—they know precisely that. Let us look at the record of creeping republicanism. First this Government dropped the Privy Council and established the Supreme Court. I ask my colleagues whether a referendum was held on that. 
Hon. Members 
: No! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There was no referendum. Second this Government replaced photos of the Queen in our embassies and high commissions with photos of the Prime Minister. Third it has made the change from the Governor-General taking the general salute at military parades to the Prime Minister taking the salute. Who else takes a salute? The person who usually does that is a president. That is the usual name for such a person. Fourth the Government is changing the term “Queen’s Counsel” to the term “Senior Counsel”. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: You’re joking! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is right. Fifth the Government has abolished knighthoods. Finally as part of the Government’s plot with the United Future party the lapdog party that surreptitiously supports the Government whenever it can the Government has created the Constitutional Arrangements Committee. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that he cannot refer to members or parties in that way. The member will withdraw that remark. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well if anyone would take offence I would withdraw that remark. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Be seated. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for the remark. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
At no stage has the Government set out its real agenda. It clearly does have one and it is an agenda of republicanism. If we compare for instance former Prime Minister Jim Bolger with Prime Minister Helen Clark we see that former Prime Minister Bolger was perfectly clear to the public of New Zealand about what he intended. He is a republican. He is proud of that he put it clearly on the public record and he wanted to have a debate on precisely that. When the current Government is challenged on the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic its members say: “Oh no. This is nothing to do with that. It may happen 50 years from now or something like that but it is not part of our agenda.” That is the difference is it not? On the one hand there was Jim Bolger with the courage of his convictions standing up and being willing to debate the issue with New Zealanders—he actually shifted people’s beliefs; the figures went up from 35 percent to 45 percent in favour of republicanism simply because of his advocacy—but on the other hand it is clear that in contrast the current Government is moving towards republicanism secretly and covertly and with the help of its ally and stooge United Future. So we say that this Government has a surreptitious design and that this bill is all part of that agenda. 
Our third ground for opposing the bill is that the bill is intended to get people used to the idea of change and to change to long-held traditions. There is no particular reason to do so but the Government is doing it anyway simply to set the pattern of change so that for each and every case—or at least certainly in this kind of case—it can say the change is just a minor thing and ask how anyone could object to it. Last night I heard Mr Goff say precisely that. But the purpose of the bill is quite different from its stated purpose. The purpose is designed to get people used to the idea of change. A few minutes ago I set out a pattern of behaviour. This bill conforms to that pattern of behaviour. The bill is of itself a device a fiction a transparency and in fact it is so successful that the New Zealand First members—members of a party that actually supports the idea of New Zealand’s arrangements remaining as they are unless there is a clear plan—have themselves been brainwashed. They are supporting this bill going to the select committee so unwittingly—and I acknowledge that it may be unwittingly—they themselves have embarked on allowing the process of creeping change and of allowing small components of change at various points along the way. 
I conclude by saying that I could respect the Government if the Prime Minister and others on the Labour benches came out with their agenda and were prepared to have an open discussion with the New Zealand public. But they are not prepared to do that. Instead they are going through a process of conditioning and grooming that is intended to change the public mood. That is the real purpose of this bill. It is not to alter the wording of the oaths but to encourage the idea of change. For that reason National opposes the bill. We do not trust the Government. We have ample evidence as to why we should not trust the Prime Minister. Her statements in this House show an untrustworthy nature and on that basis we say to New Zealand that this Government cannot be trusted with regard to these kinds of bills. The Government is trying to dupe the citizens of New Zealand. Therefore this bill should be opposed.