Worth Richard: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20648] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National opposes this bill. Let me explain why. When there is legislation of merit then National’s support will be readily forthcoming but as Minister Philip Goff has said oaths reflect tradition history and continuity— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: This Government betrays that. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: —and this Government betrays that. It is very interesting to reflect on the history of oaths. In the fifth century BC we had the Hippocratic oath. I do not think that any doctor today would say that that historical oath should be changed. It does not need modernisation. It contains in itself an oath that those who follow the tradition of medicine although they are not asked to swear to it believe that it still contains the quintessence of the medical obligation. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: They don’t take it any more. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: If Lianne Dalziel had listened she would have heard me say that they do not take it any more. She quite clearly did not hear those comments and chose to interrupt. 
These are timeless oaths and in a country like ours with a short history we should not move to change them without good reason. I would say that political correctness is not a good reason. I would say that those in the Labour Government who are hell-bent on a path to republicanism should not under that guise seek that these oaths be amended. I just note the opening words of the Hippocratic oath in the 5th century BC: “I swear by Apollo the physician by Aesculapius and Health and All-Heal and all the gods and goddesses that according to my ability and my judgment I will keep this Oath and this stipulation:” There follows then the substantive wording of the oath which concludes: “While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life in the practice of the art respected by all men in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath may the reverse be my lot!” 
I do not think it was without significance that when the planned provisions of this bill were made known members of the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand were quick on their feet and they strongly endorsed this modernisation. And why did they? They did so because they saw in it a change they substantively seek to secure. So they said in their press release of 10 May 2005: “We wish to support the Government’s move to modernise the oaths and affirmations.” They were referring to statutory legislation the Oaths and Declarations Act within which a framework of law is set out both in respect of oaths and in respect of affirmations. We see in this Parliament as old members go and new members come the form in which an oath may be administered and the right to make an affirmation instead of an oath. We also see as part of the words associated with an oath the phrase: “So help me God.” That may be uncomfortable for Labour members but it is retained in this oath. I think the next step we see will be the removal of those words. I think—to advance that argument just one tad further—we will see the removal of the Speaker’s prayer because these things are uncomfortable for a Government driven by political correctness driven by a need to make change where no real change is required. 
Let me give a very simple illustration of that. One of the things that this legislation does in pursuit of the claim for modernisation is that the words “honestly and impartially” are to be replaced by the words “faithfully and impartially”. Does that represent modernisation? I do not think so. Why are we making that change? Here is another example. The plan is to replace the word “divulge” which most people know with the word “disclose”. That is somehow in some curious way seen as an advance. It is not an advance at all. It is playing around with our language for no good reason except in pursuit of what some have called the “Goff agenda”. I have hesitated to use those words but the Goff agenda is not an agenda that leads to better outcomes nor is the Oaths Modernisation Bill. 
It is quite interesting actually because within the legislation has been produced a comparative table under a number of headings. There are changes to be made to the Oath of Allegiance which is misspelt but that does not matter; it is just a little technical slip. Changes are to be made to the Judicial Oath Executive Councillor’s Oath the current oath the armed forces oath and the citizenship oath. I shall just take an example. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What part does the member object to? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Phil Goff is calling for an example and what an invitation that is to accept readily because there are multiple examples. Here to meet the special needs of that particular citizen is an example. It is the Oath of Allegiance which is one we will all be familiar with. The current form of the Oath of Allegiance is: “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.” That is to be changed. This is priority legislation! As this Parliament moves to a dying close Minister Goff has decided that this is important stuff and we must get it through. We can abandon the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. If members watch the place of that bill on the Order Paper they will see that it has slipped down to No. 15. 
However I was comparing the Oath of Allegiance to the proposed oath. It is interesting and we are looking at the English version which is helpful. I will not be dealing with the Maori version unless there is a proposal that I have extended time to speak in this debate. The proposed oath is: “I … swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Queen of New Zealand her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.” Is that a really important change? Is it not something that some might say is not deserving of the priority? 
That is why so many of us see in all this unnecessary legislation—[ 
Interruption 
]; with the constant interruptions of Mr Goff—the stealthy march towards republicanism. We saw it when they scrapped the Privy Council. We saw it as Minister Goff who will fail in this quest sought to abolish Queen’s Counsel and now we see it here. That is a tragedy because Parliament should be focused on real things and real issues. As this Parliament runs down what are we spending our time on? The Oaths Modernisation Bill. We are fiddling around with the Oaths and Declarations Act which is in fact in really good order. The interesting thing that is also relevant is that the Government has decided not to deal with some of the more abstruse oaths. Maybe it has not discovered them. Maybe it does not know what its obligations are in respect of particular society sectors. We oppose this bill. Who on earth would support it?