Twyford Phil: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Twyford Phil: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10377] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill. As my colleague Charles Chauvel said Labour supports the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We believe that it is time that as a nation we have the conversation about becoming a republic. There are some very important issues to be discussed and this is not the kind of issue that any Government or party would want to advance by stealth. It must be discussed openly so that New Zealanders can form a view and forge a consensus about our constitutional future. Sending this bill to a select committee would be an excellent way to begin that conversation. 
I will not repeat the explanation that members have already given about the basic mechanism set out in Keith Locke’s bill but I will say that it takes a minimalist approach to constitutional change. It simply sets up a democratic decision-making process for determining how we select our head of State. It does not address the myriad other issues that usually come up when republicanism is discussed. This is no technical bill. How we choose our head of State cuts to the heart of our constitutional status: constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic. The head of State is the most powerful symbol of our nation we have. These are huge issues that deserve to be taken seriously. The late Bruce Jesson said that republicanism was not merely about making a nominal change to the head of State but about reviving and extending the concepts of citizenship and democracy and combining the issues of national identity egalitarianism and democracy. If we take those issues seriously we must surely recognise that how we choose our head of State is important. 
To me it is an anachronism for the Queen of England to be our head of State for the living embodiment of our nation to be a hereditary position. That is the opposite of democracy. The living symbol of our nation is someone the people never get to choose. Our head of State can never be a New Zealand citizen; he or she lives 12000 miles away and he or she represents the British Crown not us. It was noticed as Keith Locke said that the British royal family did not send anyone to attend the funeral of Sir Ed Hillary the greatest New Zealander of our time. It was noticed that our head of State farewelled British troops when they went off to take part in the illegal invasion of Iraq an invasion that this country declined to take part in. 
To those of us who ask what does it matter I say that symbols are important. What does it say about our nation’s values when our head of State cannot be a Catholic—in fact the head of State would be relieved of the role if he or she were to marry a Catholic—and the male heirs to the throne always take precedence over their female siblings? The process of choosing our head of State is an archaic feudal institution that is rooted in a land on the other side of the globe. It says nothing of the vibrant diverse South Pacific democracy that we have become. Symbols are important. They denote values and values inform debate. I say that because the themes of egalitarianism democracy and nationhood underpin almost every debate that we have in this House. 
There is a view that it would be a mistake to change the way we choose our head of State without also addressing all other constitutional issues that touch on it. Former Prime Minister Mike Moore argues for a constitutional convention. I am not persuaded that we cannot move ahead in changing the way we choose our head of State without also addressing all those other issues. I think our constitution is most likely to evolve in a piecemeal way. If we tried to solve all the issues at once I fear it would mean that none would be resolved. 
It is often commented that New Zealand will inevitably become a republic one day but not tomorrow. I call it the Simon Bridges argument. Many people who say they support a republic quickly add that we do not need to rush the process because there are many more important issues. I like to think that as a nation we are capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time. 
Others say that we are already a de facto republic and that we already choose our Governor-General who is selected by the Government of the day. That argument overlooks the importance of symbolism. The Governor-General is not the head of State; he or she is merely the Sovereign’s local representative.