Little Andrew: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15429. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on this very important piece of legislation the Royal Succession Bill. I did partake in the early discussions in the Justice and Electoral Committee when I was on that committee before I transferred to that other august committee the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is the latter committee that probably had a little more to offer this bill perhaps than even the Justice and Electoral Committee. Nevertheless the mere fact that we are dealing with this bill at this time in this House on this day highlights the kind of anachronism that now surrounds our relationship to the British Crown.The Minister of Justice noted that of the seven submitters some of them made submissions about our status as a monarchy and whether we should be a republic. I simply say that that is hardly surprising when we are in this humble little House in this humble corner of the Earth thousands of kilometres away from the seat of the throne of the British monarchy and the person who is constitutionally our head of State. Who would have thought? It behoves us really to question exactly why it is that we are in this position and for how much longer we can go on.Very nice it is that the previously sexist provisions under which only a male heir could succeed to the throne have gone. It is very nice that we should abolish the discriminatory provisions on those who accede to the throne in respect of marrying a Roman Catholic. We all know the history of the papists and the Catholics in Britain and how reviled they were and the big schism between the British monarchy and the Catholic Church that allowed Henry VIII to remarry not just once but several times more after that. We all know and understand that but in fact we have had these discriminatory practices and provisions built into our constitutional system for this long. I think that as an independent nation free to express ourselves and proud to express ourselves in the way we do at some time—and I suggest that that is now—we should stand on our own two feet and say that much as we respect that which has been achieved by Britain and its monarch and much as we respect what we refer to as the royal family—because let us face it there are many of them around the world—the one that appears most often in our glossy magazines our monthlies our weeklies and occasionally in our daily newspapers it is time for us to stand on our own two feet.We should not in this House have to be legislating for the removal of discriminatory marital practices. I mean we did that early this year on a much more momentous and well-received occasion than this. The Catholics have not had to park themselves out on the front lawn of Parliament House. They have not called on Tau Henare or Chris Auchinvole or Paul Hutchison or others to give stirring speeches about the removal of discrimination. We have not had that in relation to the Catholics.Hon Tau Henare: So what about the Treaty relationship?ANDREW LITTLE: I ask Tau Henare what it is that he has got against Catholics. Why has he so far not got up to give a speech on this bill about how poorly treated the Catholics have been by the British royal family for so long? Where is that speech? Where is Maurice Williamson and his great colourful rainbow over his electorate office? When is he going to talk about stopping the discrimination against Roman Catholics by the British royal family? Where is that sweeping speech? Where is the invitation to be hosted by Ellen DeGeneres on her show to talk about the discrimination against the Catholics?Oh yes it is all very well for the gay folks in our community to have the discrimination removed against them but what about the Catholics and what about the British royal family? I am waiting for those stirring speeches because it has gone on for far too long—hundreds and hundreds of years of discrimination—and I think that if you were a British Catholic or indeed if you were a New Zealand Catholic who aspired to be the spouse of an heir to the throne compensation almost certainly is in order! There will be those who have got that close to entering the relationship of marriage with an heir to the throne of our head of State and who have been deprived of that opportunity and I think that at the very least an inquiry into that prospect must be undertaken and if necessary compensation paid!But notwithstanding that notwithstanding our shuddering horror at the sorts of laws we are being asked to pass in this bill we will nevertheless support it because at this point in our history our head of State is the British monarch our head of State is the Queen of England and all her realms and everything else that goes with it. But I will be one of those who will be first at the barricades when the opportunity arises to say that it is time for a change and it is time for our country our proud nation State and everything that it stands for to press its case in the world on its own with its own domestically chosen head of State so that we can truly hold our heads up high and say that we are New Zealand we are our people and we are united under the Southern Cross and all those wonderful things that we get down this end of the globe and say that it is time that we did it for ourselves. As the Blood Sisters say in that great song wecan ring our own bell—I think that is the term. If the sisters can ring their own bell it is time for the entire nation of New Zealand to ring its bell and to proudly stand and choose our own head of State.But let us say that while we still have the British monarch as our head of State let us remove those last vestiges of discrimination. Let us have the Roman Catholics roaming Buckingham Palace without fear and with impunity and let us see those royal young women succeeding the throne without the vestiges of primogeniture and all the rest of it that goes with it.We do support the bill but we do so in a spirit of hope that this might be the first step to a period of reflection so that we might make a change so that we do not have to pass more laws about an institution that is increasingly less relevant to us and about a bunch of people who have less and less interest in us.