Chauvel Charles: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10376] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I begin by congratulating Keith Locke on bringing the issue of the republic before this House and to say right at the outset that Labour will be voting in favour of the Head of State Referenda Bill. We think the bill should go the Justice and Electoral Committee so New Zealanders can have a say on the important issues that it raises. 
It is high time for the debate. There is no reason why the debate should be divisive or acrimonious as the member who has just resumed his seat Simon Bridges suggested he fears. There is no reason why a civilised and intelligent debate should not happen on this question. That debate ought to raise many important questions some of which will need to be addressed immediately and others of which will require longer-term thought. Some of the immediate questions include whether when and how to have a resident head of State; the method by which he or she is appointed; and that person’s tenure titles and powers. There are wider longer-term questions about our symbols of nationhood and our relationship with the rest of the world that ought to be part of the debate. They all involve careful thought about our unique identity and values as an independent vibrant diverse prosperous stable egalitarian Pacific nation. 
The bill also needs to go to a select committee so that the sole inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 identified by the report of the Attorney-General can be rectified. The inconsistency is minor and the bill’s sponsor has already indicated that he intends to move an amendment to remedy it if he is given the chance. The inconsistency is that clause 32 provides for the same electoral roll to be used in both the referenda contemplated by the bill which would inadvertently exclude those who come onto the roll as new voters in the period between the two referenda. Accordingly the electoral rights of young people who become eligible to vote in the intervening period would be prejudiced without demonstrable legal justification in a free and democratic society. That is an erroneous provision. It should go and it will if we give the bill the chance to go to select committee. But it is noteworthy that in a bill as substantial as the one that we are now considering it is the only inconsistency identified. 
On a personal basis I am committed to seeing New Zealand become a republic. We should have a resident for president. The bill would need only one or two National or ACT members to vote for it in order for us to start down that path tonight. I still hope that we will see that happen although the last speech and some of the interjections from members opposite give me little hope as far as National goes. I hope this is our opportunity and that there will be a mature debate that is not marked by spurious claims. If we follow the course mapped by the bill we can remain a member of the Commonwealth. We can and we will continue to honour our traditions including on days like Waitangi Day Dominion Day and Anzac Day. The State will retain all the obligations that have been inherited by the Sovereign in right of New Zealand concerning the Treaty of Waitangi and otherwise. We will remain a democracy and in fact democracy will be strengthened because we will be required to take responsibility for the final and perhaps the most important aspect of it the choice of our head of State. 
If as I fear having heard the speeches so far tonight does not mark the occasion on which we begin the republican journey the reality is that the day surely does not lie far away. Speed that day so that we can take the final logical step towards repatriating the New Zealand constitution.