Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14801] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was very interested in Clare Curran’s excellent speech. She talked about our egalitarianism and I think we should always bear in mind that our nation is built on a feeling that we are all the same in terms of rights and in terms of status and that no one person is superior to another. It goes back to our early pioneer history the whole bicultural nature of our nation and that intersection of destinies. It goes through the great reforms of the 1930s under the first Labour Government etc. I think that is very much part of our history. 
In some ways this bill is in that tradition of egalitarianism overcoming the history of the monarchy—and its expression through the Governor-General of New Zealand—as being somehow superior richer and not subject to taxation etc. This bill is making a very good move to reflect that egalitarianism. 
One particular half-sentence in this bill grates a bit against that egalitarian tradition and that is in clause 11 “Payments in respect of other benefits and privileges”. Clause 11(1) states: “The terms of the appointment of a person as Governor-General may include an agreement for that person and his or her spouse or partner to be provided with specified benefits or privileges by way of payments in respect of domestic travel and the use of chauffeured cars when he or she no longer holds office as Governor-General.” 
I think the first part of that subclause is OK—it talks about agreement on benefits appropriate to the situation—but not the last bit about the use of chauffeured cars when he or she no longer holds office as Governor-General. Firstly why do we have to have that level of specificity in legislation; and secondly is that not grating against the egalitarian tradition? I sat next to Sir Paul Reeves on the plane coming from Auckland to Wellington this morning. He is a very humble chap. I cannot speak for him but I am sure that several former Governors-General would not say that they have to have written in legislation the use of chauffeured cars when they want them for the rest of their lives. 
Look at the era we are in now. We are in an era where we have a Green mayor of Wellington who rides a bicycle. She is setting the standard and I am sure that when she retires after several terms as mayor of Wellington she will not demand the right to have a chauffeur-driven car in Wellington. Perhaps she will demand the right to have her bicycle serviced periodically or something like that. 
So why should the provision about chauffeured cars be written into the legislation? I have not actually written out an amendment—I should have done that—but I think the Committee should remove this particular provision. I cannot speak for Anand Satyanand but he seems to be a pretty humble chap as well. [ 
Interruption 
] My good colleague has indicated that he is a fellow New Zealander along with Sir Anand so he would know a lot about these things. 
Hon Member 
: He looks like one. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: He sounds like one. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: He must be one. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: That is right. I thought I would just bring up that point because the whole history of the monarchy if we go way back through the centuries which we are starting to get beyond—and there have been speeches on that—is a history of privilege. The monarch is up there above us and in fact the more wealth and privilege the monarch has the more he or she deemed to qualify to be a monarch whereas we live in the very opposite form of society—an egalitarian society.