Twyford Phil: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14792] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will quote from the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer the president of the Law Commission. When he presented a report on this bill the Governor-General Bill in December 2009 he stated: “We need a new statute to reflect the nature of the modern office of Governor-General. The office is vitally important to New Zealand’s Constitution. The Office of Governor-General is an important symbol of our nation. The Governor-General stands above political differences to provide a sense of national unity and identity.” That is why members on this side of the Chamber support this bill. It is a modest but useful step in the direction of modernising the arrangements of the office of Governor-General. 
There are many useful elements in this bill that we have begun to discuss. But I have to say that I am struck by the bankrupt and contradictory impulses that are driving the National Government’s approach to issues of national identity and the office of Governor-General. I say that because this is the Government led by John Key that is bringing back knights and dames and bringing back Queen’s Counsel. Any moment I expect that we will have medieval jousting— 
Hone Harawira 
: “Sir Shane Jones” sounds pretty good to me. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —on the forecourt of Parliament. I expect we will see Mr Hone Harawira being transported into this House in a gold-encrusted carriage pulled by white horses. Nothing would surprise me given this Government’s fondness for medieval regalia. 
On the one hand a bill has come to the House from the Government Administration Committee to modernise the office of Governor-General and to sort out the arrangements and make them more transparent to provide clarity around the payment of annuities and so on. On the other hand the Government is festooning our national Parliament with medieval regalia that I thought we had got rid of 200 years ago. At the same time we find that the Prime Minister is besotted with the trappings of our colonial heritage but simultaneously he goes on to a morning television talk show and completely fails to defend the person and the office of Governor-General against some of the most racist and offensive attacks on the office of Governor-General that I have seen in my lifetime. I think the inability of the Prime Minister to open his mouth and defend Anand Satyanand our Governor-General against a gutter attack shows that the motives behind the clauses that we are debating in Part 1 are an inch deep. 
Government members are quite happy to warble on about annuities and the arrangements for sums payable after the Governor-General leaves office but they cannot find it in themselves to speak from the heart and defend our Governor-General when he is the subject of the most baseless and scurrilous attack by Paul Henry on  
Breakfast 
 who questioned whether our current Governor-General looks and sounds like a New Zealander. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have motioned to the member to stay within the scope of Part 1. Yes we have a tradition that members can use examples but the member needs to relate his examples to some clause or some aspect of the bill. This is not a general debate. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I was simply trying to make the point that Part 1 sets out some modest but useful provisions that will modernise the arrangements around the office of Governor-General and that bring some clarity and transparency to the payment of salary and to the definition of family. It is important that we do have clarity and transparency about those arrangements. 
It is appropriate that the Remuneration Authority is tasked with setting the level of remuneration for the Governor-General. It is important that there is clarity and transparency and one of the reasons is that the Governor-General because of the office that he or she holds is unable to defend himself or herself. We do not want the individual who is holding office engaging in political debate.