Locke Keith: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10383] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This debate has been a good discussion. I think that people have dealt with the issues in a range of ways which shows that a debate on this question around my Head of State Referenda Bill particularly if that bill went to a select committee would not be divisive. People have been listening to each other and expressing a wide range of views. 
There are different sections of society with regard to the issue of our head of State. There is the 30 or 40 percent of people in the polls who regularly support a republic; the number goes up and down a bit. Then there is the category that Simon Bridges represents. He described himself as being an agnostic who is not quite satisfied with the present situation. He said it is a bit of an anachronism that the head of State should be there because of who his or her parents are. Those two blocks together the agnostic dissatisfied people and the republicans make up the majority of our community. The people who are monarchists are a very small proportion of society. If we are not satisfied with the present situation—and most people in this House are not—why should we not have a discussion on my bill in a select committee? 
As for the idea that somehow the bill is a distraction I say we discuss a range of bills in this House and we do not get people standing up and saying this bill or that bill is a distraction. We discuss a bill on its merits and go forward. As for the issue of whether the bill is minor or not very important I say this afternoon in this House we had a bill which we all supported referring to a select committee on whether there should be compulsory secret ballots for unions that are engaging in industrial action. The unions said they already conduct secret ballots. Was that a minor bill or a major bill? We could say it was quite minor if nobody could see much reason for it but we supported the referral of that bill to a select committee for discussion there. Why should we not do that for my bill? 
The question of the Treaty of Waitangi is a sort of a contradiction. Simon Bridges said he did not want this bill to go through to a select committee because it might bring up issues related to the Treaty of Waitangi. I understand that the National Party and the Maori Party are setting up a body to discuss the constitutional nature of the Treaty of Waitangi. That will happen fairly soon. I ask why we should not refer this bill to a select committee. What is the Maori Party scared of? I ask how the provisions of this bill would undermine the Treaty of Waitangi and why the Maori Party will not respond to my point which I have made very directly that since 1947 there has been zero—and I repeat the word “zero”—constitutional relationship between the Queen or King of Great Britain and the Treaty of Waitangi. That was severed in 1947 so how can discussing this issue undermine a relationship with the Treaty? 
Yes the Crown is important but the Crown is in this room. The Parliament and the Government are the Crown and that determines the relationship between Maori and the Crown. It is a relationship between Maori and what is represented in this room which is Parliament and the Government. If the Maori Party refuses to accept that reality—and it seems that the Maori Party is strangely refusing to accept that—it is actually undermining the Treaty because it is not directing its relationship towards the people who are responsible. The Queen of New Zealand is completely separate constitutionally from the Queen of Great Britain. They are totally separate. The Queen of New Zealand has to obey the advice of the Government of New Zealand; the Queen of Great Britain plays absolutely no part in that constitutional relationship. The Maori Party is misleading Parliament by saying that the Treaty is in any way in danger. In fact it is misdirecting people over the nature of the relationship between Maori and the Crown. 
As for Simon Bridges’ fear that the new head of State might be more of an executive President that is a pretty weak one really. Clearly although there might be slightly more independence shown by an independently elected New Zealand - based President the powers in my bill do not allow that person to override Parliament whatsoever. 
The real question is one of national identity. We are an independent bicultural multicultural nation in the South Pacific not off the shores of Great Britain. We need to have an independent New Zealand - based head of State who is selected by a democratic process. It is tragic that so many MPs in this House do not accept that and it is tragic that parties like the National Party the Maori Party and the ACT Party in spite of the fact that all of them have in their ranks people who support this bill have whipped those people into opposing it. There is a majority in support of my bill in this House. It has been denied by the party whips and by a fear of really facing up to the issue. I think that is quite disgraceful.