Parker David: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14443] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am quite happy to respond to the comments of Jacqui Dean who has just resumed her seat. I was out of the Chamber when Mr Mallard started his speech on the Governor-General Bill. I was doing a radio interview about foreshore and seabed issues I say for the record. I can explain why I was out of the Chamber in respect of the first call on this bill but where is the Prime Minister? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh Mr Assistant Speaker! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure what the attitude of the member was when he so vibrantly said: “Mr Assistant Speaker!” but we will stick to the rules. Members cannot refer to the absence of a member and the member knows that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I did not refer to the absence of the Prime Minister and I will not do so. I said that the first address on this bill was not given by the Prime Minister; I am entitled to do that in accordance with the Standing Orders. I repeat that because it is true and because it is relevant. 
At the first reading of this bill which is in the name of the Prime Minister he deigned it important enough to come here and tell this House that the bill was important because the office of Governor-General is important. He told this House that. He was at question time today but he did not take the first call in respect of this second reading of the bill; rather he left it to the Attorney-General. It is quite within my power as a speaker in this House of Representatives to ask why he did not take that call particularly when that same accusation has just been made of me by a Government member. To hear Government members now heckling me for having the temerity to question why the Prime Minister was not here to defend the Governor-General—and indeed to defend his recent record in respect of the Governor-General—is just too galling for me to accept. 
Why did the Prime Minister not take that first call? I know why: because he was exposed recently for his inconsistency in respect of the office of Governor-General. We all across both sides of the House know where that exposure was. It was on TV. What have the newspapers said in respect of that inconsistency? I think the newspapers will again be adopting it after today’s performance given the fact that he did not give the first address on the second reading of this bill. Why did the Prime Minister not react to what Paul Henry said? According to the  
Sunday Star-Times  
at the time Key’s buddy Paul left him looking flat-footed and silly. The newspaper said that it was not because he was a closet racist or that he was playing dog-whistle politics. I agree with that; I actually do not think that John Key is a racist and I do not think that our party has accused him of being so. But I agree with the next reason which is that Key is just not very quick. That is what the editorial in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
said on 10 October and that is the same reason John Key did not take the first call in the second reading of this bill today—because he is not very quick. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Get out of the gutter. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Jacqui Dean is very quick to shout out and make accusations about my not taking the first call. As I have said it was because when Trevor Mallard took the call I was doing a radio interview in the lobby. But why is the Prime Minister not here taking the first call? We have not heard him. Is it because as the  
Sunday Star-Times  
has said Key is just not very quick? He could not properly defend himself against the allegations that had been made against him. 
The Governor-General is as Jacqui Dean has said the Queen of New Zealand’s legal representative in New Zealand. It is a very important office in our constitutional affairs so when anyone makes an attack upon the Governor-General—particularly an attack that is as distasteful as the one that Paul Henry made—the Prime Minister should slap it down. But of course we have a Prime Minister whom the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 says is just not very quick. We had a Prime Minister who was quick to defend Rodney Hide’s handling of David Garrett recently. He said that he thought Hide’s handling had been very good. The Prime Minister was quick enough to do that but not quick enough to defend our Governor-General when he was attacked by Paul Henry. 
I agree with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that John Key was left looking flat-footed and silly because he is just not very quick. I am sad to say that he is not as quick as our Governor-General. If the Governor-General had been in an interview and the same attack had been made against the Prime Minister I am sure that the Governor-General would have leapt to the defence of the Prime Minister. Although I did not vote for him he is my Prime Minister; the office of Prime Minister is an office that I want to look up to and respect—indeed I do respect the office. It saddens me that my Prime Minister let me down in not upholding the standards that I want upheld for my country when someone makes an inappropriate comment like that. Rather than giggling and being left flat-footed I want my Prime Minister to stand up for what is correct—not just in respect of the Governor-General but also in respect of other antics that bring this House into disrepute such as those we saw from the ACT Party David Garrett and— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have been more than tolerant. I will read the member Speaker’s ruling 106/2: “On the second reading of a bill discussion must be confined to the bill before the House as printed.” I have shown a degree of tolerance and references can be included but the member has spoken for nearly two-thirds of his time and he has not got to the bill. If he is not prepared to get to the bill then I will terminate his speech. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This bill is the primary legislation that governs payment for the services the Governor-General provides as the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. Given the importance of that office and given the importance that the Prime Minister attached to it at the bill’s first reading—indeed it is quite unusual for the Prime Minister to turn up and speak to a bill in this House so it was with pleasure that we heard him speak at the first reading of this bill—I am contrasting that with the fact that he did not take the first call in today’s debate. I hope that he will take a subsequent call in this second reading debate. It is all the more important in the context of what has happened over the last 2 weeks with Paul Henry that the Prime Minister takes a call in this debate today—as he did in the first reading—to make it clear what he thinks of the importance of the office of Governor-General and to show the office of Governor-General the respect that it deserves. 
In terms of the mechanics of the bill only one small amendment was recommended by the Government Administration Committee and that is referred to in the report back. We recommend a small amendment in respect of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 which we suggest should be achieved by way of a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House stage. It is not so substantial an amendment as to require a redrafting of the bill in the meantime but perhaps we could hear from the Prime Minister about whether that amendment will in fact be brought forward in the Committee stage. 
The office of Governor-General is an important office. I know there are people who think we should move towards republicanism and have a Governor-General who is not appointed by the Queen but rather by some other method. That idea of course fell outside the scope of this bill and as a consequence it could not be considered by the select committee. I do not propose to comment upon it much here. Suffice it to say although I personally do not have a very strong view either for or against republicanism if there was a move towards it in New Zealand I would be attracted to the idea that we make the move through replicating our current status of having a head of State in the form of a Governor-General. He or she would have the same powers prerogatives and traditions that the existing Governor-General has in a way that would keep the Governor-General appointed. One of the strengths of our model at the moment is that our Governor-General is apolitical; I would not want to move to a presidential-style system in the place of a Governor-General if we ever moved towards becoming a republic. 
I will not take any further time on this speech because I want to leave time for the Prime Minister to take a call in the second reading as he did in the first.