Hipkins Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14786] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in this debate on whether the contents of Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Keith Locke should be able to be considered during the Committee stage of the debate on the Governor-General Bill. I think it is really important that the House and those listening in and watching on TV are aware of what the Supplementary Order Paper actually does because none of the speakers so far have talked in any detail about what it does. 
Chris Tremain 
: I actually did. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Chris Tremain mentioned what it does probably in more detail than most other speakers have done so far. I think it is really important that we know that Keith Locke is not trying to pull a swiftie here and slip republicanism into a debate that has nothing to do with republicanism. These are matters that could if we took a very wide-ranging approach to the scope of the bill argue were within its scope. That issue was debated at the Government Administration Committee. When the submitters put that forward we had some discussion about whether those submissions should be deemed to be within the scope of the bill. 
It is important that we talk about what the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 173 are. The first substantive amendment is the addition of a new clause 4A which deals with the appointment of the Governor-General. That is the one that basically requires that when the Governor-General is appointed a 75 percent vote of the House of Representatives confirms that appointment. The question then becomes whether that is something that is within the scope of this particular legislation. I will now talk about new clause 5A because the points I want to raise are relevant to both clauses. Additional clause 5A specifies in law that the term of appointment for the Governor-General is a 5-year term. The term should not exceed 5 years and a person who has been appointed as the Governor-General cannot be reappointed as the Governor-General. The question is whether those two changes—providing for a specified term and requiring a 75 percent vote of Parliament to confirm a Governor-General’s appointment—are within the scope of this bill. 
The bill deals with annuities for Governors-General but there is no fixed term for a Governor-General. It deals with payments on conclusion of office for example. The idea of the term of a Governor-General being specified is relevant to the payment of annuities and so forth which are matters contained within the bill. It is not too big a stretch to say it could actually be considered as part of the debate on this particular legislation. As Keith Locke mentioned both of these issues were raised during the select committee process. As David Parker pointed out they were ruled to be outside the scope of the bill. In that case there are other process options that a member of Parliament could choose to take. 
I have the select committee’s report on this bill here. There is no minority report in the select committee’s report on the bill. That of course is one option that is available to members if they feel significant issues have been raised that are outside the scope of the legislation that is being considered by a select committee. Members retain that option to put forward a minority report within the select committee’s report arguing that additional issues had been raised during the select committee process that are worthy of consideration and alerting the House to those things. The select committee works on a very cooperative basis. It is chaired by the Hon David Parker and I can imagine that there would not have been any issue if a member chose to raise that particular matter and alert the House to it. I think that is an important part of our constitutional arrangement—that right of select committees to alert the House to matters that fall outside the strict scope of legislation that is being considered. That did not happen in this particular case. 
The question becomes whether this is a case for which there should be a specific exemption. Is this something that there should be an exemption for and should we therefore widen the scope of the bill? I am a little uncomfortable about doing that because having sat through the select committee hearings on this particular bill I think several submitters put forward quite compelling cases for doing so. I should point out that I personally am very sympathetic towards the two amendments. Two of the submitters argued that yes in fact those amendments should go ahead. However the other submitters to the select committee did not get the opportunity to comment on that because it was not in the original bill. So before the House was to consider those amendments at the Committee stage I would prefer that they went back to a select committee so that the public could have a say. It may be that there is a different appointment process for the Governor-General that someone in the public may wish to submit on and maybe a 5-year term is not be what people want. People may have a more compelling argument for a 4-year term a 6-year term or some other term. 
I think given the significant constitutional nature of these amendments and the extent to which they change the role the appointment process of the Governor-General—if we make it a fixed-term role that would change things—it is important that any such change be subject to a pretty rigorous examination process. The problem with doing so in the Committee of the whole House is that the public would not have a chance to have a say on it and members would not have a chance to get their heads around it and do any additional research and so on. We are talking about the Committee stage effectively being over and done with potentially in a day. That does not give people much time to give the matter the depth of consideration that I think something of this constitutional significance should be subject to. 
I think it is really important that Parliament as a whole treads very carefully when it comes to amending constitutional issues. 
Hon Annette King 
: The Government could send it back to select committee. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: As Annette King has pointed out if the Government were of a mind to consider this issue it could send the bill back to a select committee. I indicate as a member of the Opposition that I would be very comfortable with this bill going back before a select committee with such provisions in it. As I said I think they are very worthy provisions. I agree with Keith Locke on many things about republicanism but also about the role of the Governor-General which is a separate issue. It is really important that we do keep those things quite distinct. This is not a republican issue. This is to do with the Governor-General the appointment of the Governor-General the annuities paid to a Governor-General and the term of office of a Governor-General. That is within the scope of the bill in terms of the annuities and what the Governor-General is paid. But I argue that the issues are on the margin and they are just on the other side of the margin in terms of whether they are within the scope of this particular legislation. 
So with some reluctance I do not support the resolution put forward by Keith Locke to allow Supplementary Order Paper 173 to be considered by the Committee of the whole House. There are other avenues available to the member and I indicate that I would be very supportive of him should he choose to pursue those avenues.