Curran Clare: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Curran Clare: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14799] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Labour supports the Governor-General Bill because as previous Labour speakers have pointed out the previous Labour Government asked the Law Commission to look into the funding arrangements for the Governor-General which is the substance of Part 1 of this bill. We are pleased that the commission’s findings are being implemented in full. 
Labour welcomes discussion about New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and a bill about one of the most important figures in our constitutional arrangements is a good opportunity for that. It is good to start with a focus on streamlining the financial arrangements of the Governor-General. Labour members are always keen to hear people’s views about the future of our constitution a keenness we have shown through voting for Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill at first reading to go to a select committee and by moves to encourage debate about the New Zealand flag. 
I do not think that anyone is in any doubt about my support for New Zealand having its own head of State. I would also like to put on record my great deal of sympathy for Supplementary Order Paper 173 put forward by my colleague in the Greens Keith Locke. We absolutely need to have a public debate about the length of the Governor-General’s term and also about the role of the Governor-General and how that might change but that debate must occur in select committee and in other public forums where the public has adequate opportunities to put forward its views. 
We have also shown our support for constitutional discussion—apart from our support for Part 1 of the bill about funding arrangements for the Governor-General—through our active participation in a recent constitutional conference in Wellington where several present and past Labour members of Parliament talked freely about the importance and inevitability of constitutional change in New Zealand. Interestingly the Government’s participation in that conference was fairly minimal with only Simon Power participating. He restricted his views to MMP reform and did not address the wider constitutional issues. Labour however was ably represented by Charles Chauvel. We also heard from the former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen who laid out a clear road map for New Zealand to become a republic. He talked about the need— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We are confining this debate to Part 1. If the member is giving examples she must relate them to some portion of Part 1. This is not a general debate. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: He talked about the need to at least make a start on the law changes required so that we can get ready to elect our own head of State. Although this bill introduces the concept of constitutional change it does not exactly light one’s fire. It does deal with some important issues in particular egalitarianism and equality—both of opportunity and of responsibility—which have always been core Labour values along with fairness. Certainly the removal of the Governor-General’s tax exemption which will be discussed in relation to the next part of the bill is an important symbol of the fundamental equality that New Zealand is built on and that we hold dear. 
The particular clauses that we are addressing in Part 1 of the bill are clause 4 which clarifies the definition of “family member”; clause 5 which sets out salaries; and clauses 8 and 9 which talk about the annuity paid to the Governor-General after leaving office. There is also an important clause I think recognising the Governor-General’s spouse if the Governor-General dies after ceasing to hold office. That is a very important clause because it values the role that the spouse of the Governor-General plays. 
We note that this bill promotes transparency. It will also modernise the old-fashioned language found in the parts of the Civil List Act relating to the Governor-General which will also be considered in Part 2. Of course we welcome discussion about any legislation based on transparency modernity openness and the upholding of ethical standards and principles as the cornerstones of democracy because that is the kind of party that Labour is in contrast to the Government which seems to have as its modus operandi a habit of saying one thing to one audience and something completely different to another. I will refer to a comment made by my colleague Trevor Mallard during his speech on the second reading of this bill.