Twyford Phil: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
Twyford Phil: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12448] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleague Darren Hughes has said Labour is supporting the Governor-General Bill at its first reading. This legislation as has been pointed out sets up a stand-alone legislative framework for the office of Governor-General. It is an acknowledgement of the important role the office plays in our constitution and it acknowledges that it is time to modernise the arrangements to do with salary and the funding of the Governor-General’s programme of activities. 
It is Labour’s position that it is no longer appropriate for the Governor-General to be exempt from paying tax. It is an anachronism that that situation has continued to this day. We believe that it is time to modernise all the arrangements to do with the Governor-General’s office and these clearer funding arrangements are certainly an important first step. 
We will support this bill’s referral to a select committee and we look forward to a debate there about New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. It must be said that the Governor-General is the most important figure in our constitution—he or she is at the apex of our constitution—and this is a great opportunity to discuss the arrangements surrounding that office. 
The bill does not make any sweeping changes; it is simply about a gradual modernisation of the arrangements supporting the Governor-General’s office. But I think there is some important symbolism to do with the Governor-General paying tax. The values of responsibility and equality of opportunity are core Labour values and core New Zealand values. We strongly support the removal of the tax exemption as an important symbol of that fundamental equality. 
The Law Commission has made a number of recommendations on this bill which we support. One of them concerns the definition of “family” which has never been set out clearly in legislation until now. The salary rate will be set by the Remuneration Authority. It cannot be reduced during the Governor-General’s term of office. There is provision in clause 7 for a sum to be payable at the conclusion of a Governor-General’s term. 
When we put all these provisions together we find that the employment package for the Governor-General is very satisfactory and that is as it should be. In fact the payment of a lump-sum equivalent to the gross salary for the last 6 months of office is really a kind of redundancy payment. It is not really redundancy; the position is not being abolished. But it is good to see members on the other side of the House supporting something that is in substance very much like a redundancy payment. I call on them to extend the same kind of generosity and logic to other New Zealanders. Until this time we have not seen that kind of generosity of spirit from members on the other side of the House. 
There is much in the current arrangements that is anachronistic and overdue for an overhaul. In the current legislation the Governor-General is entitled to a trip by sailboat from Britain to New Zealand at the beginning of his or her term—[ 
Interruption 
]. Unbelievable yes. It is good that we are getting rid of that provision. It is timely and in fact it leads one to wonder whether this is the step change that we have all been waiting for. Looking for the step change is a bit like playing a game of  
Where’s Wally? 
 with this Government. Where is the step change? 
We wondered for about 2 minutes whether the Prime Minister’s cycleway would be the step change but that is clearly not the case. We hoped that Gerry Brownlee would unleash a wave of economic development by mining our national parks but that is clearly not the case. We are left wondering whether this measure is in fact the step change—whether this could be the Holy Grail of this Government’s economic development plan. 
Other provisions in the bill include providing for an annuity for a former Governor-General after he or she has left office an annuity for a former Governor-General’s spouse setting up a permanent legislative authority for the funding of the Governor-General’s programme—that is taking it out of Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet—and amendments to the Civil List Act and the Income Tax Act. 
Labour does not have a firm view about republicanism and I mention that now because any discussion about the arrangements for the Governor-General’s office deserve some discussion about the future structure and status of our head of State. We are however of the view that now is the time for New Zealand and this House to have a debate about our future constitutional arrangements. It is not time to progress immediately to establishing a republic. There are conversations that we need as a country to have. 
It is clear from earlier discussions about Keith Locke’s bill that there needs to be discussion about the future status of the Treaty the reserve powers of the head of State and whether the head of State should be elected or appointed. Labour does not have a firm view about those things but we think it is inevitable that one day New Zealand will become a republic. It is time now for us to have this debate. I think it is a shame that this bill is not a bit more ambitious in opening up a conversation on some of those matters. It is my personal view that it is time for us not only to have a debate about the way we appoint or elect our head of State but to really explore the possibilities for electing our Governor-General. 
As I said it is an incredibly important role. The Governor-General has the ability to appoint and fire Governments Prime Ministers and their Cabinets. The Governor-General can call an early general election and can potentially refuse the Royal assent—that is the signing of a bill passed by this Parliament into law. That position is so important that I believe the position should be fully accountable and I think it would be worthwhile for this House and our country to have a debate about whether that office should be elected. It would not be the same as becoming a republic. In fact many other countries including Ireland elect a Governor-General who has a package of powers that is similar to those our Governor-General has currently. Other members of the Commonwealth elect their Governors-General. 
The Hon Peter Dunne the leader of United Future was preparing a member’s bill and was very disappointed that this National Government chose not to support it. I quote him: “There is an inconsistency bordering on full-blown Nanny Statism” in the Government’s refusal to allow that debate to happen. He states: “National seems quite happy to let people have their say on the electoral system—although even then it is reserving the right to itself to change the MMP system in the future even if people vote to retain it—and to do deals with the Maori Party to retain the Maori seats under the guise of constitutional reform but will not give New Zealanders a say on the most constitutional issue of all—how our Head of State is chosen.” I want to associate myself with those words. 
If we were to consider the idea of electing the Governor-General it would simply require an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1986 and it would be advisable that more than a simple majority—probably a majority of three-quarters or two-thirds—be required in order to pass it. As I said Ireland does this. It elects its President at large and that office has a very very similar package of powers to those exercised by our Governor-General currently. 
The idea is not so radical. In fact it was proposed by Governor George Grey twice—once when he was the Governor and once when he was the Premier in the drafting of the New Zealand constitution in 1856. The British Colonial Office vetoed it. It did not want that to happen. It did not like the idea because it meant it would not be able to control who became the Governor. In fact George Grey tried again in a member’s bill to this Parliament which was defeated in 1857. One hundred and nine years later commentator and journalist Colin James made a very similar suggestion that we consider electing the Governor-General. I reiterate Labour’s view— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired.