Twyford Phil: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15143] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
:  
It is my pleasure to contribute to the third reading debate on the Governor-General Bill. Labour is supporting this bill. It is quite a non-controversial bill which streamlines the financial arrangements for the office of the Governor-General. It brings in an element of transparency and the new arrangements are clearer and simpler. The bill will also modernise some of the language that is found in the parts of the Civil List Act that deal with the office of the Governor-General. 
It is our view and I think it is on the record now that we believe it is no longer appropriate for the Governor-General to be exempt from paying income tax. That change is an important piece of symbolism in modernising the office of the Governor-General and it carries with it the symbolism that the Governor-General is the first among equals if you like in New Zealand and the idea that we are all equal under the law. 
The origin of this bill was a request by the previous Labour Government to the Law Commission to consider the arrangements surrounding the office of the Governor-General and make recommendations on how they could be modernised and improved and we are pleased that the findings and recommendations of the Law Commission are being implemented in full. As my colleague David Parker said we welcome the progress of this bill. 
The bill achieves a number of things that I think are worth mentioning in this third reading speech. The definition of the Governor-General’s family was not clear in the existing legislation but in this bill “family member” is now defined as meaning a partner or spouse or a child aged under 18 and that is important in terms of the funding arrangements. The salary of the Governor-General will now be set by the Remuneration Authority and that is also an improvement. There is a new sum payable after the Governor-General leaves office and there has been an interesting exchange in the  
Dominion Post 
 in which the Cabinet secretary wrote to explain that the change made here from a lump sum equivalent to 3 months of the Governor-General’s salary to a sum that is now doubled to 6 months’ salary reflects the removal of the tax exemption. We then saw the political editor of the  
Dominion Post 
 point out that the Cabinet Office had failed to explain how 3 months’ untaxed pay is roughly equivalent to 6 months’ taxed pay at a 33 percent tax rate. But I do not think anybody in this House begrudges this Governor-General or future Governors-General that payment. 
Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the annuity for a former Governor-General or spouse payable 6 months after a Governor-General leaves office. The bill also provides for the expenses for the Governor-General and his or her family for fulfilling the duties of office including travel and so on and provides legislative authority for that funding. Finally the Civil List Act has been amended and this bill establishes stand-alone legislation which I think is an appropriate way to recognise the importance of the Office of the Governor-General. All that I think is good and satisfactory. 
This debate as it has progressed through the stages has provided a welcome opportunity for some debate and discussion on the office of the Governor-General in New Zealand in the 21st century. I will say again that Labour welcomes the chance to begin a conversation about the future role of our Governor-General and the future status of our head of State. Phil Goff and others in the Labour caucus have said that now is the time to begin a conversation about our constitutional arrangements. Many people believe that the current Queen Queen Elizabeth II popular as she is occupies such a place in the hearts of New Zealanders that not many people really want to begin a conversation about shifting to a republic during her reign. But there are also many people who believe that when the current Queen leaves office—dies or abdicates—that will be a time when many New Zealanders would in fact like to have that conversation about our future constitutional arrangements. Michael Cullen’s recent intervention sparked a useful public debate about the need to have this conversation in advance of the current Queen’s death or abdication. We may need to do that. 
In modernising the arrangements for the office of the Governor-General it is appropriate that we should begin to kick off a conversation about what true modernisation would look like for the Governor-General and indeed for our head of State. I am glad that submitters to the Government Administration Committee came along and proposed some simple amendments to this bill that would have modernised it even more than these provisions do. We believe as many people do that it is inevitable that New Zealand will become a republic. There are many in this House across a number of parties who believe that it is something we should begin to talk about now and not put off into the never-never. 
So Labour supports this bill. It fully implements the recommendations of the Law Commission and we appreciate the work of the officials and of the select committee in getting the bill to this stage. 
I suppose the other thing finally that I will mention is that the public debate around the racist and offensive comments made by the broadcaster Paul Henry really shone the spotlight on the office of Governor-General when this rather technical and uncontroversial bill was proceeding through the House. I think those comments stirred up quite a useful and healthy debate about how we feel as a nation about the office of Governor-General and the institution of our head of State. Paul Henry perhaps inadvertently cut right to the heart of what is important about the office of the Governor-General which is that the office is a symbol of who we are as a nation who we are as New Zealanders and it gives us our sense of national identity. By attacking in such a nasty and cheap way the current incumbent Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and questioning whether he looked and sounded like a New Zealander Paul Henry stirred up a real debate about the office of Governor-General and what it means to us as a nation. Thank you.