Bridges Simon: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10375] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Monarchism and republicanism can stir strong feelings in people. I can understand why that is so. In centuries gone by people could be murdered for being one or the other. Today in New Zealand I accept that there are Kiwis who have strong views on the institution of our head of State but I also suspect that many New Zealanders feel the way that I do. To the extent that they think about the issue they are agnostic. 
I for example accept in theory that an appointment on the basis of who one’s parents are is an anachronism. But I also in practice have respect for the Queen. I was chuffed like I think many New Zealanders were to see Prince William who seemed like a good bloke having a beer and a barbie with our Prime Minister. In truth I do not concern myself much with the question of our head of State. 
This nation has so many more pressing and real issues to grapple with such as Government deficits in an age of ubiquitous entitlements; funding issues for schools hospitals fire stations and libraries; job creation in the face of unemployment; safer communities—we have taxi drivers being killed for a few dollars dairy owners being robbed for a packet of ciggies and an elderly woman being badly assaulted in broad daylight for seemingly no reason at all—and a nation that deserves to be more prosperous than it is. Over time New Zealand may look more seriously at becoming a republic but many New Zealanders will share my view that now is not the time. Today our nation has so many pressing and frankly real issues to grapple with that a head of State debate may well be a divisive distraction. 
I want members to be in no doubt that a distraction is what it would be. Becoming a republic is necessarily a far more complex issue than replacing a figurehead with a crown with one without a crown. A debate on a different head of State will almost necessarily involve the need to examine our broader constitutional arrangements including issues such as the place of the Treaty of Waitangi and tangata whenua within our system of Government. National is not averse to these debates but they need to be taken carefully and responsibly. 
In addition we would need to think through what the referendum questions would mean in practice. In moving to a different head of State would we be moving by stealth from our Westminster parliamentary system to something much more presidential? Even if what we move to is not entirely like the American set-up it may be that as I think Keith Locke has acknowledged a head of State elected in whatever way would feel more independent and the dynamics of our entire system would subtly but potentially substantially change. 
I do not raise these questions to pretend that I have the solutions but to demonstrate that this issue is not an easy swap between a head of State with a crown and one without. It will throw up bigger issues and complexities. Through this bill Keith Locke raises an interesting debate but not one I think to be resolved by a member’s bill that goes to a select committee one day and becomes law the next. In conclusion when there are more pressing issues let us not get caught up in the spur of moment in a divisive and potentially wide-ranging distraction. If we are to change our head of State let us do it more carefully and responsibly than the member’s bill process allows.