Moroney Sue: Royal Succession Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Royal Succession Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11456. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour):Yes it is. It is indeed a split call and I am very pleased that it is. I am not sure whether I have gone through the looking glass and ended up in Narnia or this is actually an episode ofBlackadder  but what a bizarre bill for us to be actually spending our time debating in this day and age in 2013 in our New Zealand Parliament. Yes Labour is supporting this bill the Royal Succession Bill because it would probably seem a bit churlish not to support something that actually is makingsomething that is so archaic a little less archaic. So we will support it on that basis. But for goodness’ sake I think nothing would show the New Zealand public how irrelevant and out of touch the current Government is getting with the core issues going on in this country than if they were to tune in to this debate this afternoon and hear us talking about this as if it were a piece of progressive legislation. I am sorry but the last speaker Katrina Shanks was trying to present this as if it were a progressive piece of legislation. It is making something that is extremely archaic a little less archaic. Let us be honest about that.I am not sure how exactly I ended up on the speaking list for this but I imagine that it is because I am supposed to be thrilled with the prospect that this is somehow bringing about something that is good for women.Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s got racing in.SUE MORONEY: Oh it has got racing in it has it? Is that how I am on the speaking list for this bill? I was really unclear about that. I thought maybe I was supposed to say this is great for women. Well look it might be great for women who are members of the Windsor family but generally it makes no difference at all to any other women. Particularly it makes no difference to women in New Zealand. And is it not about time that that Government did something that was positive?Hon Trevor Mallard: The Mountbatten family.SUE MORONEY: The Mountbatten family? I do not know. Who are they—Windsors or Mountbattens?—whoever they are. But is it not time that that Government did something that was good for the women of this country? Last week we had a Minister of Women’s Affairs say that equal pay was nothing to do with her that she was not even interested in it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of this bill.SUE MORONEY: I was inclined to bring the last speaker Katrina Shanks to order if she thought this was a progressive bill. I thought she might have been speaking to a different bill as well. I thought that maybe I ended up on the speaking list because I am in fact a Roman Catholic and perhaps this is good for Roman Catholics. But again it actually does say that someone ascending to the throne can marry a Roman Catholic but no we cannot have any Roman Catholic sit on the throne. Again it is not awfully progressive from that perspective either.I cannot see why we are taking up a lot of time in this Parliament debating something that really is archaic. I know that the Government members opposite have tried really hard to talk about how progressive this legislation is. Well look if this is as good as it gets under the National Government then its members really need to get out more. They need to get out more and talk to people about the issues that really matter because while this Government is going into urgency to debate issues like this and other matters that actually do not affect any New Zealanders at all at any level it is stopping from being debated tomorrow night a bill in my name on redundancy which actually does affect a lot of—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That has got nothing to do with this bill. I ask the member to come back to the bill.SUE MORONEY: I am trying to get the Government to focus on things that are relevant to New Zealanders instead of this irrelevant waffle that actually does not make any difference because yes I am a woman and I am a Roman Catholic but I am still not going to benefit from this bill and neither is anyone in New Zealand.Hon Trevor Mallard: How do you know?SUE MORONEY: Well I do not know. How could they? How could anyone in New Zealand actually benefit from this bill? I suppose if they were a Roman Catholic and they were to marry someone from the Mountbattens or the Windsors—that royalpart of the breeding—then perhaps they would. But basically in summary this bill is completely irrelevant to New Zealanders and the everyday issues that they face. Labour is supporting it simply because it makes something that is terribly archaic a little less archaic.