Ardern Jacinda: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14816] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the title of the Governor-General Bill. My colleagues have already made some excellent points around the substance of this bill but there is much more to be said that is specific to the title debate. The first point is that the Government has gone for a very traditional approach to the title whereas every other element of the bill has been a modernisation of parts except I would have to say the existence of the Governor-General generally. But the title of this bill is also traditional which is I guess taken as a bit of a given and that this is really the only title we could end up with. But I want to challenge the Government somewhat and say that if we were to modernise the reference then that probably would be out of step with everything else the Government has done in this area generally. We need only reflect back for instance on the recent debates we had under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill around the existence of QCs—Queen’s Counsel. Of course Labour attempted to modernise that system within the judiciary by moving to the notion of Senior Counsel. I think that was an excellent move and one that came after a long round of consultation. But what did the Government do? In office it moved us back to the notion of Queen’s Counsel. 
This bill again has lost an opportunity to modernise in that regard but it seems we have a general theme when it comes to the notion of our constitutional issues whether it be within the judiciary or the governance arrangements of our relationship with the monarch. I really believe we are missing a beat. When it comes to the title specifically I am led to question why the Government has been unwilling to have a wider debate around the role of the Governor-General in New Zealand. It is a distinct— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Or a “Republic Bill”? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am getting to my grand title. I want a little bit of a drum roll. I wonder then because it seems so obvious that the titles—for instance the titular titles—seem to be so that former Ministers can get titles when they leave their job. Perhaps this bill should have been called the “John Key (Next Prospective Job) Bill”. Perhaps that is what the Government is angling for here. It was unwilling to have the discussion about the role of the Governor-General beginning with this bill because Ministers—and potentially the Prime Minister—are lining themselves up for this job. 
Grant Robertson 
: The Prime Minister could smile and wave. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I would not wish to undermine the role of the Governor-General by referring to it as simply a “smile and wave” role. But I have seen that the Prime Minister is well versed in the gesture of the wave. 
This bill has been arranged to try to meet public expectations. It seems that that is what the Law Commission’s piece of work was around but in the general principles of this bill I feel we refuse to meet their expectations around the public debate over the role of the Governor-General. I would have preferred the title “Governor-General (Wider Constitutional Debate) Bill”. We could have started something in New Zealand because we have always heard that when it comes to our constitutional arrangements and the existence of the Governor-General it will happen in our lifetime and that eventually we will move away from the structure of a Governor-General—the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. But there seems to be an unwillingness— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Our lifetime” means something different to all of us! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I should add some caveats: it depends on whose lifetime it is but generally speaking there is an acknowledgment that that is where New Zealand is progressing towards and this bill would have been the perfect opportunity to perhaps launch into an additional discussion over the future of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. I do not believe that the argument “If it is not broke” actually sits well in terms of where New Zealand is progressing as a country. In the same way we could argue that this legislation was not necessarily broken but it was out of line with public expectation which is why the Law Commission did the piece of work that it did. 
So I challenge the Government in keeping with the notion of this bill with modernisation to begin the debate over whether it is sufficient for us to be discussing simply a Governor-General Bill and I say that we should discuss in future the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand. We should be realistic about where we are going as a country.