Governor-General Bill

The first question I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Heatley, is that although the commencement date indicates that the legislation comes into force on the day after the date—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The first question I refer to concerns the title of the legislation, the Governor-General Act 2010. Unlike a number of title debates that might be semi-facetious, there is a real and live question left with this one, which is whether we think it is necessary to have separate legislation. Matters previously have been very well dealt with under the Civil List Act in particular, and under the legislation covering the Remuneration Authority. The Committee has agreed to the amendments to the bill—I think it is fair to say there has been some debate around them, but, by and large, there is agreement to them—but I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Carter, to explain to us why he thinks it is necessary that we have additional legislation of this type, rather than doing what Parliament would normally do, which is to incorporate this sort of change into the primary legislation.

The problem I see now, as we are dealing with this, is that people who go to, for example, the Civil List Act, and the functions of the Remuneration Authority under that Act, will not be able to see in the Act the Remuneration Authority’s role vis-à-vis the Governor-General—or that appears to be the case. It appears that it has been subsumed into this new legislation, which is to be known as the Governor-General Act. I think there is a live question there. I am not so much of a Geoffrey Palmer, or at least like him when he wrote “the fastest laws in the West”—what was the title of his book?

💬 Grant Robertson: Unbridled Power.

That is right. In the period especially between 1981 and 1984 Geoffrey Palmer made many, many speeches about how we had far too many Acts in New Zealand, and that we should be working on consolidation rather than proliferation. So that is the first question of the series that I want to ask the Hon David Carter.

I congratulate the Hon David Carter on acting for the Prime Minister. I think it is fair to say that the Minister looks and sounds a little bit more like the Governors-General of my youth than does his friend Phil Heatley; it might be to do with the history of the landed gentry. I am sure that Mr Carter will be better at responding across the detail of this legislation, and in particular the need for having a separate Act rather than taking what I thought was generally the policy of the Government, which was to consolidate and bring together legislation, and to make it easier for people dealing with legislation going forward to find things.

What we will have here is a Civil List Act, on the face of it. At least, if the Minister can explain to me that I am wrong, I will be happy to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Phil Twyford.

I have had only one call.

💬 Phil Twyford: I could defer to my colleague Trevor Mallard.

No, it’s all right. I will go. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have called Phil Twyford.

If you sit down, I will take the call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have given the call to Phil Twyford.

Yes, he can sit down. He still gets another three calls.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Members stand up and seek the call. It is perfectly within the purview of the Chair to call whoever is the next speaker. I have called Phil Twyford. If Phil Twyford does not want to take the call, he can sit down. I will call again.

Would the member be prepared to yield to me?

💬 Phil Twyford: Yes, I would be prepared to yield to the member.

I thank the member for yielding to me, in order that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): This is too cute by half. That is not a yield. The call is for Phil Twyford. I will give the member one last chance. If the member does not take the call this time—this is the third time—it will be gone.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you explain to the Committee why you have ruled that out? A member seeking and being yielded to is not a usual occurrence, but it has occurred on a number of occasions in the past. I have been discussing with people recently the changes to the Standing Orders in the last 20 years. There have been some, and it may be that yielding is no longer available. Could you explain to me why you ruled that that was out of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 59/1. It is consistent with my understanding that yielding occurs where there is an interchange between members over an issue, and one member asks the other member to yield so that the member can take up the matter. It is an interchange—a contest between two members interjecting over ideas. One yields to the other so that the other member may carry the point.

That is simply not the case in this particular instance. The fact is that the member Trevor Mallard was speaking and at the end of his call Phil Twyford and a number of other members sought the call. I thought the member had made his point. It is up to me to consider the point of the speech. The member had gone round and round over several points, and I thought he had made every point he was going to make, and would continue to plough up and down exactly the same part of the paddock. The Chair was looking forward to some fresh information, and was ever optimistic we were going to hear a fresh speech, so I gave the call to Phil Twyford. I say to members that if the honourable member Phil Twyford does not want to take the call—it is being given to him for the third time—I will not call him for the rest of this debate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. That is a powerful incentive to take this call. I will do my best to plough a fresh corner of the paddock.

💬 Grant Robertson: The furrowed brow.

The furrowed brow.

We are now debating clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement. This is the moment in the debate when traditionally we can recap and explore some of the broad themes in relation to this bill. The title of this Act is the Governor-General Act 2010. I think by now colleagues in the Committee will be clear that Labour’s position on this bill is that we support its passage. We have spent a considerable amount of time considering whether Keith Locke’s Supplementary Order Paper should be debated. If it had been adopted, it would have seen the insertion of a mechanism for electing future Governors-General with a 75 percent majority of the House. I think we traversed the ground quite well. We are in favour of streamlining, and bringing transparency and clarity to bear around, the arrangements for remuneration for the office of Governor-General.

Labour supports these measures. We see them as overdue reform. The bill is a modernisation of the arrangements. It amends the Civil List Act, establishes its own legislation to deal with these matters, recognises the importance of the office of Governor-General, and updates and modernises, for instance, the definition of “family”, and the way that family is recognised in the payment of the annuity for the Governor-General and the payment when the Governor-General has left office. We support all of those things. We think they are sound.

But we believe that at this moment the Committee could go further. Now is the time we are debating the status of, and the arrangements around, the office of Governor-General, so it would be a great time for Parliament to lead a national conversation about the future of the office of Governor-General. Keith Locke’s Supplementary Order Paper took us some way down that track towards considering how the Governor-General is appointed. But, ultimately, I think we need to have a debate as a country about the future status of, and arrangements for, our head of State.

This bill is called the Governor-General Bill. When it is enacted it will be called the Governor-General Act 2010. It could be called the “Governor-General (Modernisation) Bill”. It could be called the “Governor-General (Transparency) Bill”. It could be called the “Arrangements for the Partners, Spouses, and Family of the Governor-General Bill”. I think we are indebted to the Hon Trevor Mallard for ploughing the paddock, as you so eloquently put it, Mr Chairperson. Trevor Mallard really shed light on the possibilities under this bill for future, polygamous Governors-General to be adequately catered for by this legislation. I think within our multicultural, modern New Zealand that is only appropriate. The law should recognise that.

There are other possible names for the Governor-General Bill. It could be the “Tidying up of Arrangements around the Governor-General’s Remuneration Bill”, but without the vision and the appetite for comprehensive reform in thinking through the long-term future of the office of Governor-General or the arrangements that we have for selecting and appointing heads of State. I will leave my contribution there.

I move, That the question be now put.

I promise to be interesting. I too obviously am referring to clauses 1 and 2. I will pick up on what my colleague Trevor Mallard was talking about before, because it is a relevant consideration. We are creating here an Act specifically in the name of the Governor-General, and that is something different from the situation we have had before. In my previous intervention, I mentioned one of the specific ways in which that is playing itself out: the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will now no longer have the level of responsibility for the office of Governor-General. That would perhaps justify an Act in the name of the Governor-General—that is, this Act recognises the specific and unique status of the position of the Governor-General. I think that is, therefore, one of the justifications for a bill or an Act on its own. Mr Mallard said that the proliferation of Acts of Parliament is one of his particular bugbears, and those of us in the caucus with him often have to hear from him about whether there always needs to be legislation. This is an issue where it is a lineball call, in many ways.

I agree with Phil Twyford that the title of this bill could easily be called the “Modernisation of the Governor-General’s Role Bill”, because that really is what it is doing.

It is also introducing an element of fairness, so it could be called the “Governor-General’s Taxation Fairness Bill”. That element of the bill I think will get the most attention from the media when they are reporting on it. No doubt, when it takes up many column inches in tomorrow’s newspaper, there will be a focus on the fact that this bill makes the next Governor-General pay income tax. That is also worthy of mention, perhaps, in the title.

It could be called the “Next Governor-General Bill”, because one of the things that I think was missed in the early part of this debate was that this bill does not apply to the incumbent Governor-General. His terms and conditions remain unaffected by this legislation. So we very much could easily have called this bill the “Next Governor-General Bill”, but we have not done that; the Government has focused on a more generic title, giving it an enduring sense by calling it the Governor-General Bill.

💬 Chris Tremain: It is quite elegant, isn’t it?

It is elegant. It is elegant in its simplicity, I say to Mr Tremain. I am really pleased that the Government is now taking a role in this debate, because it is very, very interested in being part of the debate on the title of the bill. The Government is now interjecting, showing that this is an issue that needs further debate. Quite clearly, over on the Government benches there is now concern about whether this should be called the Governor-General Bill.

💬 Chris Tremain: We have no confusion over the title.

Has Mr Tremain got an alternative title?

💬 Chris Tremain: No, I am quite happy with the Governor-General Bill.

He is quite happy with the Governor-General Bill. Well, I think that is a moot point over here, because we on this side of the Chamber do not feel that the title of the bill captures the vigorous debate we have had in the Chamber tonight.

💬 Jacqui Dean: No, you’re not happy at all, over there.

Jacqui Dean, who served on the Government Administration Committee, is itching to take a call, stand up, and say what she thinks the title of this bill should be. She knows that this bill is so much more than the simple title that Mr Tremain is giving it. This bill will bring about a fundamental set of changes in respect of how we view the Governor-General, how the Governor-General is paid, and the future annuities for people who come after the Governor-General.

I think we have had an interesting debate on Mr Mallard’s views about why we have such a broad definition of the Governor-General’s partner. In my earlier speech, I said that it is reflective of modern life that a Governor-General may have more than one partner. That could easily be reflected in the title of the bill before us today.

As Mr Twyford said, although the Governor-General Bill represents a modernisation of the position and a modernisation of the conditions that sit around that position, it misses the main point of the debate in New Zealand at the moment about the constitutional position of the Governor-General and head of State in New Zealand. There has been useful and interesting debate on this bill, but many New Zealanders want to have a big-picture debate about our future constitutional arrangements. It would be good to see from the Government some leadership on this issue, but we have not seen that. It has been pushed off for another day. On this side of the Chamber we think a conversation needs to begin. It may be that we need to work through some difficult issues, such as the place of the Treaty, what it would mean if we moved on from having a Governor-General who is a representative of the Queen and the head of State in another country. We on this side of the Chamber would like to see a debate on that. This bill could be called many things other than the Governor-General Bill.

I am pleased to take a call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Governor-General Bill. In talking about the title, I am reminded of a piece of advice that the Law Commission gave to the Social Services Committee quite recently. We were hearing evidence on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The Law Commission, as it turned out, was very, very clear about titles of bills. Its advice to the select committee was that bill titles should describe what is in the bill and do no more than that. The Law Commission expressed some frustration at the fact that, over the years, titles of bills really have become little Trojan Horses for the branding of the particular ideas of the Government of the day. It was on that basis that the title of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill was changed. That bill went through the House under a different name; it was not the “Future Focus Bill”.

So if we take that advice quite seriously and apply it to the title of this bill, the Governor-General Bill, we see that the title almost falls on the side of being non-descriptive, whereas there was an opportunity for the Government to use the title to signal the elegance, if you like, of this bill.

The Governor-General Bill traverses, as we have debated for several hours now, really, really important transitional arrangements; from the present ones to a new set of arrangements. Any one of several of those kinds of images or directions could easily have been incorporated into the title to give the bill the status of being much more descriptive of what it is about. This bill is about the notion of entitlements. It sets forth, in some detail, what the entitlements will be for the next Governor-General. It has done that very well—there are some very good provisions in the bill. It changes provisions and brings in some new provisions, and those could have been incorporated into the title, thus making it a much more accurate description of what the bill is about.

Another notion in the bill—one that my colleague Phil Twyford has talked about—is transparency. It could easily have been incorporated into the title in some form, and it could have shown, in a creative way, anyone reading the Act in the future that it is about transparency. So that was another notion in the bill that could easily have been incorporated in the title.

Then there is the notion of salaries, taxation, and annuities. Those kinds of financial arrangements are spelt out in great detail, and that is also very important. Maybe the most accurate title would be the “Governor-General (Financial Arrangements) Bill”. Maybe that title would have said much more than the current title signifies to the reader.

But perhaps most important for me—and every stage at which I have spoken on the bill, I have been very impressed—is the way the bill defines the modern family and applies it to the families of Governors-General. There is reference to “family member” and “spouse”, so those are very, very important aspects of this bill that could easily have been incorporated into the title, thus making it far more descriptive of what is involved in the bill.

Then there are the notions of modernisation. Modern arrangements, such as transparency, could easily have been incorporated in the title. There are ideas about compensation, allowances, etc. So there was plenty of scope for this title to be much more descriptive. I think the select committee was not bold enough to take the advice of the Law Commission and take it further. I would have welcomed that. It is interesting to reflect that the present Governor-General is the last one who will be covered under the old provisions, so it is interesting that he will be the one who signs this off.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the title of the Governor-General Bill. My colleagues have already made some excellent points around the substance of this bill, but there is much more to be said that is specific to the title debate. The first point is that the Government has gone for a very traditional approach to the title, whereas every other element of the bill has been a modernisation of parts, except, I would have to say, the existence of the Governor-General generally. But the title of this bill is also traditional, which is, I guess, taken as a bit of a given, and that this is really the only title we could end up with. But I want to challenge the Government somewhat and say that if we were to modernise the reference, then that probably would be out of step with everything else the Government has done in this area generally. We need only reflect back, for instance, on the recent debates we had under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill around the existence of QCs—Queen’s Counsel. Of course, Labour attempted to modernise that system within the judiciary by moving to the notion of Senior Counsel. I think that was an excellent move, and one that came after a long round of consultation. But what did the Government do? In office, it moved us back to the notion of Queen’s Counsel.

This bill, again, has lost an opportunity to modernise in that regard, but it seems we have a general theme when it comes to the notion of our constitutional issues, whether it be within the judiciary, or the governance arrangements of our relationship with the monarch. I really believe we are missing a beat. When it comes to the title specifically, I am led to question why the Government has been unwilling to have a wider debate around the role of the Governor-General in New Zealand. It is a distinct—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Or a “Republic Bill”?

I am getting to my grand title. I want a little bit of a drum roll. I wonder, then, because it seems so obvious that the titles—for instance, the titular titles—seem to be so that former Ministers can get titles when they leave their job. Perhaps this bill should have been called the “John Key (Next Prospective Job) Bill”. Perhaps that is what the Government is angling for here. It was unwilling to have the discussion about the role of the Governor-General, beginning with this bill, because Ministers—and potentially the Prime Minister—are lining themselves up for this job.

💬 Grant Robertson: The Prime Minister could smile and wave.

I would not wish to undermine the role of the Governor-General by referring to it as simply a “smile and wave” role. But I have seen that the Prime Minister is well versed in the gesture of the wave.

This bill has been arranged to try to meet public expectations. It seems that that is what the Law Commission’s piece of work was around, but in the general principles of this bill I feel we refuse to meet their expectations around the public debate over the role of the Governor-General. I would have preferred the title “Governor-General (Wider Constitutional Debate) Bill”. We could have started something in New Zealand, because we have always heard that when it comes to our constitutional arrangements, and the existence of the Governor-General, it will happen in our lifetime, and that eventually we will move away from the structure of a Governor-General—the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. But there seems to be an unwillingness—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: “Our lifetime” means something different to all of us!

I should add some caveats: it depends on whose lifetime it is, but, generally speaking, there is an acknowledgment that that is where New Zealand is progressing towards, and this bill would have been the perfect opportunity to perhaps launch into an additional discussion over the future of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. I do not believe that the argument “If it is not broke”, actually sits well in terms of where New Zealand is progressing as a country. In the same way, we could argue that this legislation was not necessarily broken but it was out of line with public expectation, which is why the Law Commission did the piece of work that it did.

So I challenge the Government, in keeping with the notion of this bill, with modernisation, to begin the debate over whether it is sufficient for us to be discussing simply a Governor-General Bill, and I say that we should discuss, in future, the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand. We should be realistic about where we are going as a country.

After focusing on clause 1 “Title” in the first discussion, the Minister in the chair has changed in that time so I will just reiterate my question to the Hon Jonathan Coleman. Before that, I ask: “Do most Ministers read with their fingers like that?”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Members are invited to speak and are to speak on the bill. I invite the member to continue.

I apologise; I have not seen that done since Tariana Turia did it.

I reiterate that question very briefly: why are we not continuing within the Civil List Act; why do we need separate legislation, which will be called the Governor-General Act when it is passed, I understand. I might be wrong, but that is my understanding.

I will now go on to what I think is a bigger constitutional issue and a debate that is probably more important than what we have had to date on the title of the bill—that issue is the commencement and, in particular, the Royal assent. The question I have for the Minister in the chair is who will give the Royal assent to this bill. Unfortunately, this legislation affects the interests of the Governor-General in one way or another. It either—[Interruption] No, I am talking about a system with integrity not someone who signs off their own housing—

💬 Nikki Kaye: Treason!

Treasonable?

💬 Nikki Kaye: Treason!

No, no, I am questioning whether it is appropriate that the Governor-General sign this legislation. I was going to suggest that it go for Royal assent at the time that the Administrator is in charge because the Governor-General is out of the country. But unfortunately even the salary of the Administrator, who is generally the Chief Justice, can be affected by this legislation.

💬 Phil Twyford: The Queen could sign it.

That could be an answer, although given her reluctance to tour to one of the other former colonies recently for her games, it is unlikely that she will be in town in the requisite period to do that. I do not want to draw Her Majesty into the debate any more than that.

But there needs to be a focus on whether there is any conflict where an individual’s conditions are affected or where the system of changing an individual’s conditions is affected, and whether it is appropriate for that person to sign the legislation into law. As I indicated, most of the arrangements affect the Governor-General. I want to make it clear that it is not like the arrangements are advantaging the Governor-General. There is not some big, sneaky thing happening in this bill. In fact, members on both sides of the Chamber think there is transparency. But it is clear that there is a change in arrangements and a change of systems that could affect that person. It is my understanding with regard to the Administrator that there were periods in the past where there was a possibility of an Administrator being paid at a different rate of pay for the period that he—it was probably both times “he”, rather than “he or she”—was acting as Administrator as opposed to Chief Justice or some other role.

Again, I say as a former Minister of some experience that we worked our way through those arrangements and had Executive Council meetings—pretty rarely—with the Administrator. Often when the Governor-General was out of the country we would have a smaller group of Ministers acting as the Executive Council without the Administrator. But the Administrator was still the person when it came to the assent; the assenting could not be done on behalf of the Administrator in the way that the Executive Council could be run. It had to go—

I move, That the question be now put.