Hughes Darren: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12446] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 As the Prime Minister has indicated the Governor-General Bill enjoys a lot of support around the House. The Labour Opposition will be voting for its first reading this afternoon. The Prime Minister has indicated that this legislation is intended to act as a stand-alone legislative framework for the office of Governor-General which recognises the very important role that the position holds in New Zealand’s unwritten constitution. The modernisation of the salary arrangement and increased transparency of funding is an entirely appropriate way for that high office to be treated and the legislation that is now before the House should be considered in light of the gradual modernisation that New Zealand is taking with regard to its constitutional evolution. 
As Mr Key mentioned this legislation is the result of a recommendation of the Law Commission. The work of the Law Commission was set up by the previous Labour Government and its recommendation came at the end of last year. The Minister of Justice Mr Power has ensured that the recommendation of the Law Commission was turned into a nice tidy bill for the Prime Minister to use because the Prime Minister is always so busy doing many other things and bouncing from cloud to cloud that there would not be time for him to come up with legislation like this if it was not for the workhorse of the Government the Minister of Justice. In that respect I note that when Prime Ministers occasionally change position and abandon previously strongly held positions often it is the workhorse of the Cabinet who steps into their shoes. We saw that in the Australian example just recently so if I were Mr Key I would be looking Rudd-like at Mr Power when it comes to any matter about the changing of any constitutional position whatsoever. 
In a way this legislation has been preceded by similar legislation in other Commonwealth countries. Her Majesty the Queen has paid income tax since 1993—for quite a significant period. In fact the change was probably made in the period when Mr Key was in the United Kingdom for the many many years that he lived offshore. In that time no doubt he acted as a financial adviser to the Queen because he is able to write himself into almost every single story that has ever happened. He probably told the Queen to kick a few tyres on her financial affairs and to mine the depths of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that those investments could be realised. 
Hon John Key 
: You don’t know how close to the mark you are. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: He claims that I am close to the mark but we know that the claims of the Prime Minister could mean anything. Today he is telling us that he advised the Queen on her financial affairs; by tomorrow he will be saying “Elizabeth who?”. I am very close to transgressing the Standing Orders by invoking the Sovereign and I will pull back from that. I am sorry; I correct myself on that. It is the inconsistency of Mr Key’s position that acts as such a distraction from the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings. Who indeed would know? 
In Australia since 2001 it has been a practice of the Governor-General to pay income tax. So the measure in this bill is not a bold deviation from what occurs in other countries. This is not quite the step change that we associate the Key-led Government with in terms of any change that it makes. But this could be the economic transformation that this country needs. Now with every other idea knocked over this country will be transformed by the addition of one taxpayer: the Governor-General of New Zealand. Mr Key has charged into the House of Representatives today with a new bold plan: the Governor-General will pay tax and our country will never be the same again as a result of this additional taxpayer making a contribution to the Inland Revenue Department. I think that is probably as close to a step change as we are to get in order to turbocharge the economy. In fact if I recall it correctly during the Speech from the Throne His Excellency was forced to use the words “turbocharge the New Zealand economy”. 
I ask members to remember the summer of late 2008 and early 2009 when the office of Prime Minister was such an easy job to do and people hung on every word and laughed at every joke. It was an easy job in those days but it was much different from that at question time today when any little interjection on the Prime Minister caused him to stop dead in his tracks and look over in a sort of pouting way at the Opposition as if to say this was not fair and this used to be his stage where he got to say whatever he wanted. The problem for the Prime Minister is that things keep adding up. The cycleway was to transform the economy and we were to become the financial hub for China and for all the financial agencies in the world. We were to have a party central that would change all of Auckland and our tourism strategy all around the world. Of course that measure went through every possible iteration before we found out that the Auckland Regional Council’s position which was said to be dreadful at the beginning of last week was a good idea by the end of the week. 
All of the things that come along for consideration as a step change to the economy never seem to end up going anywhere. National members talk big at the beginning of the process but by the end the idea whimpers out. Today zero hectares of schedule 4 land will be available for mining but in February just half a year ago making that land available was said to be the sort of thing that New Zealand needed to do. Notwithstanding public comment the Prime Minister was going to be bold in his advice to the Governor-General on matters of legislation. He was going to be so bold that public comment would not matter. The problem is that the statement that the Prime Minister makes to Parliament is meant to last for an entire year. That one did not even last for 6 months—two quarters of a year—before the policy had gone. 
I return to the first reading of this bill. We do support this legislation. We think it is a very good idea to review the Civil List Act 1979 which is not necessarily widely known about in the country. Although many items referring to the Civil List have been brought to our attention more recently this recommendation came through in 2009. It ought to be supported. The office of Governor-General is an important one constitutionally. It has been held by some extremely distinguished New Zealanders who have served our country well. I note that the present Governor-General—although we do not bring him into the debate obviously—is in support of these measures as well and I think it is important to put that on the record of the House. The Prime Minister has gone through the other technical aspects of the bill which are not worth canvassing again but I say there will be support from the Labour Opposition to send this bill to a select committee. We are keen for this debate to be short because we do not want the Government’s position to change by the conclusion of the debate. Therefore I think the best thing that we can do is to hurry up and pass the bill’s first reading.