Hipkins Chris: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14447] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Governor-General Bill. I want to pick up a few points from Keith Locke. I come to this debate both as a republican myself as I believe that in due course New Zealand will become a republic and as a democrat in the sense that I believe it is up to the people of New Zealand to determine when we become a republic. Those in the United States may be a bit confused by somebody claiming to be both a republican and a democrat at the same time but that is indeed what I am doing here this afternoon. 
We had a very interesting discussion at the Government Administration Committee about the issue of New Zealand becoming a republic because there was a submission from republicans arguing that this bill needs to go a lot further than it does and look at the way in which the Governor-General is appointed. It was interesting that as we debated that with them there was a general view that there is no pressing desire for a constitutional change of that significance in New Zealand at the moment but that at some point in the future there may well be an event that brings the issue much more to the fore and people may start to think about the Governor-General a bit more than they have previously. 
Of course that was exactly what happened last week when Paul Henry made the comments that he did. The Governor-General who has I think served New Zealand with great dignity but in a fairly unassuming low-key low profile manner was suddenly brought into the headlines much more than he had been for the rest of his tenure in his role as Governor-General. So there has been much greater focus on the role of the Governor-General in the last few weeks and maybe in time that will lead to further debate about whether New Zealand should become a republic. 
I will pick up on that a little. I begin by complimenting the current Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand for the fantastic job that he does as our head of State our effective head of State who represents the Queen. I believe that he serves New Zealand with great dignity. I believe that he embodies New Zealand in the way that he does his job and I am very proud to have him as our effective head of State here in New Zealand. I think it is really important for all of us in the House regardless of which side we sit on and regardless of our own views on what the appropriate constitutional arrangements are for New Zealand to show some respect to the effective head of State the Governor-General of New Zealand who is here on behalf of the Queen. 
I think it is important also that we as parliamentarians uphold the dignity of that office which means that if we encounter people who say something blatantly racist about the Governor-General we should respond very promptly and say we do not think that is good enough. I do not think it upholds the dignity of Parliament of the Governor-General or of the office of Prime Minister that when the Prime Minister is faced with racist comments about the Governor-General he should laugh. I simply do not think that is acceptable. I think the Governor-General Parliament and the people of New Zealand are entitled to expect more leadership than that from the Prime Minister. I think all New Zealanders should be disappointed with that kind of response because the Governor-General has served New Zealand very well and he does embody I believe the values of New Zealanders. He has served this country with great distinction. 
To turn to the specific provisions of this bill I say the Labour Party is supporting this bill because we do not believe that it is appropriate any longer for the Governor-General to be exempt from income tax. We think it is pretty basic and quite consistent with the republicans’ argument that the Governor-General should not be exempt from income tax. I am a fairly non-hierarchical type of person an egalitarian so part of my desire for New Zealand to move towards a republic is a desire to move away from the sort of inherited privilege that the current monarchy represents and to move to something that is more democratic. So the idea that the effective head of State—and I think the Governor-General is the effective head of State—should be tax-exempt is not right. 
The previous Labour Government asked the Law Commission to conduct the review that led to this bill coming before Parliament and we are pleased that the findings of the Law Commission are being implemented in full by this legislation. We think that the debate on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements is important. Although the Governor-General as our effective head of State may have a relatively low-key low-profile role we should not underestimate the importance of that role. That came into stark relief not just in the last few days regarding the comments Paul Henry made but also with some other comments that the Prime Minister made on the role of the Governor-General to do with the Canterbury earthquake Orders in Council. The Prime Minister said that if the Governor-General was not happy with the Orders in Council then he could refuse to sign them. 
I think that shows an incredible lack of understanding of New Zealand’s constitutional framework by our current Prime Minister because it would be unprecedented in New Zealand’s short history for the Governor-General to refuse to sign something that the Prime Minister had advised him to sign. The constitutional convention is that Governors-General sign whatever is presented to them by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is their chief adviser. 
Nikki Kaye 
: But he still could refuse to sign. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: He could but it would be a rewriting of the constitution without any reference to Parliament or to the people of New Zealand. It has never happened before. It was incredibly naive for the Prime Minister to bat away criticism of the Canterbury earthquake legislation simply by saying the Governor-General could just veto it. So are we now giving the Governor-General the power to simply go ahead and veto the stuff that he decides he does not like without any reference to Parliament? That is absolutely ridiculous. It was a crazy argument for the Prime Minister to put forward and I think it suggests a lack of understanding on his part of a pretty fundamental provision in our unwritten constitutional framework that Governors-General follow the will of Parliament and the will of the executive acting under delegated authority from Parliament and sign the legislation or the orders put before them. The Prime Minister’s argument that they can just veto them is a whole new ground. I think he probably needs to take a bit of a break and think that through a little more carefully before he makes those claims again in the future. 
Labour has always been very keen and I am certainly very keen to hear people’s views on what our future arrangements should be and on what kind of head of State we should have in the future. I was disappointed to see that Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill did not quite make it through the House. I would have liked to see that debate happen and I would have liked to see New Zealanders have the opportunity to have a say on it. I think the country is probably quite evenly divided quite evenly balanced on whether we want to be a republic now or whether we want to wait until later. But I think if we ask the second question which is whether we want New Zealand to become a republic eventually then most New Zealanders would like to be a republic eventually. A lot of people say that when the current Queen’s reign ends that would be the time for us to become a republic. Well we cannot wait. If that is what we want to do then we cannot wait until that event happens. We need to take steps in the intervening period to put in place whatever alternative arrangements we would want to have. 
I say as somebody who spent some time living in the United Kingdom that my desire for New Zealand— 
John Hayes 
: What’s this got to do with the bill? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is about the Governor-General. My desire for New Zealand to become a republic and to have a more democratic local head of State as opposed to somebody on the other side of the world— 
John Hayes 
: Your visits to India have nothing to do with the bill. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: This is directly relevant to the bill. My desire for that is not driven by any criticism of the royal family; I think they do a fantastic job. When I was living the UK I would almost go as far as to say I was a monarchist because I thought they were very appropriate in their conduct in so far as it related to the United Kingdom. But I think here in New Zealand on the other side of the world it would be very appropriate for us to have our own head of State in New Zealand someone in whom we can see ourselves reflected. The Governor-General effectively fills that role at the moment. 
John Hayes 
: Which clause of the bill have you got in mind when you’re discussing this? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Mr Hayes can go through the bill and pick any clause that he wants to pick. The Governor-General is our effective head of State at the moment and I would like to see something a little more democratic than that. 
I also refer to the suggestions put forward to the Government Administration Committee which Mr Hayes was on by the republicans who argued that there should be additional clauses in this bill to deal with the appointment process for the Governor-General. Although this bill makes significant changes to the way that the Governor-General’s office operates at the moment it does not deal with the way that Governors-General are appointed which is something that this House should deal with in due course. 
My concluding remarks are simply to once again extend some compliments to the current holder of the office and also to the previous holders of the office. I think we have been very fortunate in New Zealand to have had some very good-quality distinguished Governors-General. I hope that trend will continue until such time as New Zealanders feel it is an appropriate time— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member; his time has expired.