Penk Chris; Williams PotoCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill. I'm going to do a risky thing tonight. I'm going to ignore the advice of a lawyer who was much better than I ever was—Harvey Specter—and ask a question to which I don't already know the answer. My question is this: are there any other nations in whose parliaments or equivalent institutions it is acceptable to swear an oath or declaration or affirmation in Māori or in New Zealand Sign Language or in English other than in English-speaking countries? I suspect there are not very many. We've heard a number of pragmatic objections to this bill and those have been well canvassed but I do want to touch on a couple of points that seem to be the subject of some confusion. One is the statement that English is not an official language. Now I do accept that there is not an Act of Parliament that says as its heading or similarly prominently that English is an official language of New Zealand. However English is used for official business in this country and is recognised in some statutes for example the Tax Administration Act as Dr Deborah Russell will no doubt know where it's actually mandated that returns for example must be in English—perhaps only in some circumstances; I'm out of my depth on that matter. But it's simply not accurate to say that English is not an official language of New Zealand any more than it is to say that we don't have a constitution in this country just because we don't have a single piece of paper that has at the top of that page the word Constitution". Of course we have constitutional arrangements both written and non-written alike. I will agree with the comment made by Mr Ball in relation to the fact that in the explanatory note of the bill by its own admission it is a "starting point". I had highlighted those words in my own notes and added the word "floodgates" because it seems to me unclear what the starting point is leading to by way of end point. That leads me as well to reiterate the point which may have been lost in translation so to speak in relation to the scope of the bill whereby it's true that the title of the bill and the stated purpose is that it apply only to MPs. New section 4B in clause 5 says that "If an equivalent in any other language of any of the oaths or affirmations set out in this Act is prescribed by regulations" etc. then using that would have the same effect. Now the Oaths and Declarations Act does not contain only oaths and declarations that relate to the affairs of this House. So perhaps inadvertently—and perhaps it is a seemingly minor but technical detail but nevertheless it is an important one in understanding what this bill is not only intending to do but what in fact it would actually do. It seems to me slightly self-absorbed to the point of being elitist that we are concerned about this if indeed we are only to be concerned with oaths and declarations for members of Parliament as distinct from the many oaths declarations and other such important statements to be made throughout this land. So perhaps the scope of the bill should be either narrower or broader. But in any case to pitch it only at members of Parliament seems to me slightly ill-conceived in a way that makes me feel a bit embarrassed as a member of Parliament that we would concern ourselves with this right of ours but not extend that to other New Zealanders and other professions. A couple of more general points I think have some symbolic value. One is relating to certainty and that speaks to uniformity but also I think unity—and I think the point made by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith is important in this regard. If in this country we are standing in this country's Parliament and able to give an oath in a way that is the same as all the other members of the House then that speaks to a unity that is perhaps lacking in certain other regards in the way that our Parliament is run. So it seems to me that it would be a shame to derogate from that. I'll conclude my remarks by noting that it seems a bit disappointing no doubt for the Government that its own partners don't support this bill—or at least one of them—and it disappoints me to say that I agree with New Zealand First in this regard. So I along with my colleagues will not be supporting this bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki—five minutes in reply."