Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is one of those bills that's all about the politics of identity. You see there's a battle out there which is if you're seen to champion the cause of particular groups somehow you meet this politically correct demand to be able to be in favour and more inclusive. Well I'm proud to be a member of this Parliament that is not interested in superficial measures such as this bill in the pretence that that somehow makes us a more inclusive and a more diverse society.Let's go back to what this bill actually attempts to do. Right now if you want to be a member of Parliament those less than 60 words giving your Oath of Allegiance need to be in the language of English or Māori. Now they are the key languages of this Parliament. Māori has a special place in this country because they are the indigenous people of this country.With respect to the issue of English—actually I am one of those that is proud of the English heritage that is part of our country that has helped make this country all that it is today including the proud history that enables us to have this democratic institution of Parliament. I do worry for those that want to derail—that want to denigrate—that English heritage that is part of New Zealand's heritage and part of this country.Now the question I've got for members opposite is if a person is unable in this Parliament to be able to say just 60 words—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order members!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh these people are so liberal! They're so keen for people to have a say if they agree with them but they're not prepared to listen to a contribution that simply says that if people cannot utter 60 words in the language of English or Māori how do they practically expect them to be able to participate in the important democratic functions that are part of this Parliament.Now what this is all about is somehow the member who's introduced this bill is going to go out in terms of the community of the Pacific whether it be Tongan or otherwise and somehow pretend—somehow pretend—that she's an advocate for that community that she's going to make lives better for Tongan New Zealanders simply by this small symbolic bill and I say that she is mistaken. This Parliament has had enough from this Government that is all about symbolism all about intent rather than substance. I would much rather—if the member that brought this bill to the Parliament had a bill that was addressing the real practical issues that Tongan families in New Zealand have I'd have some sympathy. But the idea that somehow—somehow—we become a more inclusive society with a bill of this sort around those allegiances is mistaken.I also want to make this point. Actually we in New Zealand—we in New Zealand—are very liberal in terms of our approach to the 100-plus cultures that make up our country. Have you not just noted in Australia members of Parliament being forced to resign and have elections because they hold citizenship of another country. I don't think it is possible to run an argument that New Zealand is not inclusive respectful and celebratory of whether it be the Tongan the Samoan the Cook Island the Ukrainian the Russian—the many dozens of cultures that make up this country. So my simple point is this: actually the official languages of this country are English and Māori. Yes of course I want people of Tongan Samoan Russian or whatever cultural roots they have to be able to continue their language. But when it comes to the official institutions—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! The member's time has expired.