Hipkins Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14789] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Governor-General Bill. It was worked over by the Government Administration Committee which I have the privilege of being on. The Committee stage is the relatively technical part of the debate on the Governor-General Bill so I thought I would talk about some of the significant changes that Part 1 makes. 
The first significant change relates to the definition of “family” for the Governor-General. I think people would be surprised to learn that although the funding arrangements and so on for the Governor-General have always included the concept of covering certain things to do with the Governor-General’s family whom the Governor-General’s family actually consists of has never been defined. This legislation now clarifies that matter and makes it very clear what the Governor-General’s family is. It defines a family as the partner or spouse and children under 18 who are being provided with ongoing daily care are being maintained as a member of the Governor-General’s family and are not living with another person in a marriage civil union or de facto relationship. I think it is important that that definition is spelt out very clearly. When we are providing Government assistance to somebody who is not an office holder himself or herself but is a family member of an office holder it is important that we are very clear about who may or may not be entitled to be supported in that regard. 
Clause 5 deals with the salary of the Governor-General. There has been significant debate about this clause in particular. A lot of the debate in the media has been about whether the changes Parliament is making increase the remuneration of the Governor-General. Editorials in our local paper the  
Dominion Post 
 
have decried the supposed increase in the amount of money being given to the Governor-General. That is not the case. The nature of some of the changes could lead to confusion though so I think it is important that we take some time to go through those changes quite carefully. 
Under clause 5 the salary rate of the Governor-General will be set by the Remuneration Authority. The same authority establishes the salary rates for members of Parliament and I believe for the judiciary and other important constitutional offices. It is independent. It is not motivated by politics; it is motivated by a whole range of factors. The public of New Zealand can be confident that by having an independent Remuneration Authority establishing what the Governor-General should be paid there is some integrity in that process. The salaries that come out of it will not be a pittance that does not reflect the status of the office but they will not be exorbitant either. Clause 5 deals with that and establishes that the Remuneration Authority establishes ultimately what the Governor-General is paid. 
Clause 7 is the provision about which there was considerable public debate through the news media. It is to do with the sum paid to the Governor-General after vacating the office of Governor-General. Once a person ceases to hold the office of Governor-General other than if they die they will be paid a lump sum equivalent to the gross salary for the last 6 months in office. That is a change from the arrangements under the previous Civil Lists Act 1979 which provided for the lump sum paid to be the equivalent of 3 months’ salary and in addition 3 months of the previous allowance arrangements. This bill makes significant changes to the allowance arrangement; the recommendation put to the select committee and enacted through this bill was that in order to maintain the quantum that the Governor-General is paid on leaving office at about the same level rather than having 3 months of the new salary arrangements plus 3 months of the new allowance arrangements it would be better simply to have 6 months of the new salary arrangements and not include the allowance arrangements in the payment to the Governor-General on leaving office. 
The intention of this provision rather than to increase the amount of the payment—or the golden handshake as I think it was reported in some media outlets—was to maintain the status quo and ensure that when Governors-General leave office they end up in roughly the same position as they end up in now. The Cabinet secretary wrote to the  
Dominion Post  
to outline these changes and because it is important that this is clearly spelt out I will quote directly: “To ensure that a future governor-general receives a payment on leaving office that compares broadly with that available under the current law …”. As the changes to the Governor-General’s allowance will lead to a smaller personal sum the previous payment of 3 months’ salary and 3 months’ allowance would be more than under the new arrangement. 
This bill overall—I probably should have said this at the beginning—removes the tax exemption from Governors-General which is why such significant changes are being made to the way that they are paid and to the nature of their allowances. Previously the Governor-General did not pay tax. That will not be the case any more. Governors-General will be taxed in just the same way as you me or any other New Zealander which is in the great egalitarian New Zealand tradition. I think it is great to see our de facto head of State subject to the same taxation arrangements as the rest of the country. 
John Hayes 
: Do you mean you’re not going to tax his vegetables either? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We will not put GST on his fresh fruit and veges. That is a very good point from Mr Hayes and I thank him for pointing it out for me. If the Governor-General chooses to lead a healthy lifestyle he will not pay GST on his fresh fruit and veges under a Labour Government. Under a Labour Government he will not pay GST on his fresh fruit and veges. I thank Mr Hayes for pointing that out and highlighting that very very good policy from the Labour Opposition. 
Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the annuities paid to former Governors-General and their spouses. An annuity for Governors-General is payable 6 months after they have ceased being Governor-General. The reason it is 6 months after they have ceased being Governor-General is that for the first 6 months they receive the payment on leaving office. The annuity basically kicks in after they would have used up that 6-month payment. A lot of New Zealanders would question having annuities and other allowances paid to people who no longer hold public office. There is scrutiny on the travel of former members of Parliament on what former members of Parliament get and so on. I put forward the pretty strong argument that a former Governor-General should receive an annuity. I would have thought that there is a pretty limited range of career opportunities within New Zealand for a former Governor-General so I think it is only fair. They have taken probably 5 years—or 6 years because their term is often extended for an extra year—out of their lives to serve this country. It has probably narrowed down the career options available to them when their term finishes. It is important that our former de facto heads of State which is what Governors-General are can live the rest of their lives in reasonable comfort and with dignity. 
Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the annuities that can be paid to a former Governor-General. If a person dies after ceasing to hold office his or her spouse or partner is entitled to an annuity at half the previous yearly rate until he or she dies. When former Governors-General pass away their spouses will still be provided for. It will not be at the same rate; it is obviously at half the rate they would have received were the former Governor-General still alive. 
An important point here is that if the Governor-General dies whilst still in office which is a possibility his or her spouse or partner is entitled on the date of death to an annuity at half the rate that would have been paid to the Governor-General had the Governor-General resigned. Unlike the annuity for the Governor-General this one comes into effect straight away because the spouse will not get the 6-month payment on leaving office that a Governor-General receives when he or she leaves office. This annuity kicks in straight away. That provision is important because it recognises the contribution of the spouse which can be quite significant. Governors-General’s spouses do a lot of ceremonial work. They represent New Zealand. It is a significant role in its own right. So allowing for an annuity to be paid to that person should his or her partner die is really important. It modernises I guess the legislation relating to annuities for former Governors-General. 
Clauses 13 and 14 which I may have an opportunity to talk about a little further down the track deal with the funding for the Governor-General’s programme.