Adams Amy: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12447] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to speak to the Governor-General Bill and unlike the previous member who has just resumed his seat Darren Hughes I do not intend to waste the bulk of my contribution rubbishing the importance of the Governor-General’s position or the necessity for this bill. In fact it is odd that Mr Hughes spent so much time ridiculing the need for this bill when as he knows it was the previous Labour Government that called for the Law Commission to investigate the relevancy and the appropriateness of that piece of the Civil List Act. As we have heard from the Prime Minister the Law Commission has now reported and amongst its recommendations is that the position of Governor-General should be governed by a stand-alone piece of legislation which I think is appropriate and takes the opportunity to modernise and update those provisions. 
As Mr Hughes said the Prime Minister has run through a number of technical provisions. One of the things that I think is worth touching on in the current context that we all find ourselves in is the issue of tidying up the transparency around the administration of a Governor-General’s position. It is not something I admit that I was aware of until I looked into this bill but up until now the office of the Governor-General was paying for many of its official duties through what was loosely termed the Governor-General’s personal allowance. In the environment we find ourselves in with intense scrutiny of spending of taxpayer funds—and appropriately so in my view—I think it is important that we carve out from those allowances matters such as the holding of official functions and international travel that is undertaken at the behest of the Government. It is important that we ensure that that sort of funding is separately appropriated. 
In addition to clarifying that spending through the Governor-General’s office we will also see as part of the drive towards transparency under this bill an annual report to this House of the Governor-General’s expenses. As I say in the environment that we have—in particular the media and public interest in and the scrutiny of spending—I think that that is a good thing. It is certainly the direction that this House has been moving in in general. I know that Governors-General will welcome that as they have called for and are welcoming the removal of the income tax exemption. 
I wanted to comment that it is not just income tax that Governors-General up until now have been potentially exempt from. The legislation provided a power to exempt Governors-General from any local tax rates fees levies and the like. That harks back to the day when Governors-General were appointed from Britain and were generally British residents so it was not then appropriate for them to pay taxes. But we have moved on considerably in the 160 years since our first Governor. We have moved on from the days of William Hobson. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 meant that Governors-General were simply the Queen’s the monarch’s representative here; they no longer represented the British Government. Since 1967 we have had New Zealand - born Governors-General which was a step in the right direction. It is certainly one that I think everyone would endorse. 
Now it is appropriate that the highest office-holder in the land is subject to income tax and all other taxes and charges that every New Zealander pays and contributes to the running of this country. I support that. I also support—as a matter of wrapping up my contribution—tidying up the rules around the payment of the annuity to a surviving spouse of a deceased Governor-General. It was not appropriate in this modern environment that that should be subject to restrictions such as not being able to remarry or to move overseas. The spouses of Governors-General play an important role. I think they are widely recognised for the work they do. The current spouse is certainly in that position as others have been. There will be widespread support for ensuring that their annuity is not subject to some sort of anachronistic restriction of not being able to remarry and the like. I think the bill is timely and it is worthwhile. I am pleased to be able to commend it to the House.