Governor-General Bill

on behalf of the Prime Minister: I move, That the Governor-General Bill be now read a third time. The bill repeals and replaces Part 1 of the Civil List Act 1979 with new financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and his or her programme, including removing the tax exemption for the Governor-General’s salary. Although the bill will simplify the financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and for his or her programme and will modernise the antiquated drafting from the part on the Governor-General in the Civil List Act, it will not affect the constitutional position of the Governor-General in any way.

The Law Commission considered a number of options on how the legislation supporting the Governor-General should be framed. It ultimately concluded that there is symbolic importance in setting out the provisions relating to the Governor-General in separate legislation. The Governor-General Act will enhance the apolitical role of the Governor-General in our constitutional arrangements and align the New Zealand statutory arrangements with those in Australia and Canada.

The key reforms of the bill relate to the changes to how the office of the Governor-General is funded. The bill will consolidate all funding for the Governor-General’s programme with a single permanent appropriation, leaving annual appropriations to account for Government House’s operational budget only. The Governor-General’s international travel will be provided for under a separate appropriation. These arrangements will be much simpler and easier to administer than the current system under the Civil List Act. Although permanent appropriations remove certain payments from annual parliamentary approval, separating out the existing permanent appropriations into distinct categories provides additional transparency in so far as each appropriation will show up as a different line item in both the estimates and the annual reports from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Governor-General’s salary and allowance are exempt presently from income tax under the Income Tax Act 2007. The salary is calculated on this basis. This is a historical anomaly, which the bill rectifies. The bill contains savings and validations clauses to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Civil List Act and any determinations of the Remuneration Authority or Orders in Council made under the Act continue to apply to the incumbent Governor-General and previous Governors-General and their spouses. Only the annuities provisions, which remove outdated restrictions on the availability of annuities already discussed, will apply to the incumbent Governor-General and his spouse. I thank the Law Commission and the Government Administration Committee for their work on this issue.

First of all, I congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the Prime Minister on reading out the right speech. I was somewhat amused to learn that in respect of the previous bill the wrong speech was read out. In fact, it was one that is already in Hansard. I would like to put on record that one of the reasons that the Deputy Speaker declined our application to seek leave to table the earlier speech was that the fact that it is already in Hansard—and it is now in twice.

The Governor-General Bill is a relatively simple bill. It is supported by the Opposition. The bill, as the Minister said, updates the way in which the Governor-General is remunerated. It updates that and makes it clear that the salary of the Governor-General ought to be taxed and grosses it up so that after tax it is roughly the same amount that the Governor-General currently receives. It clarifies how allowances are to be paid, and it does that in a way that the Opposition agrees is appropriate. I think it has already been put on record in earlier stages of this debate that the old legislation is so antiquated that it refers to the fact that the Governor-General upon appointment, who way back then was often appointed from the United Kingdom, had a right to a trip by boat—

💬 Phil Twyford: Sailboat.

—sailboat—from the United Kingdom to New Zealand as part of his or her conditions of appointment. Obviously, that is a bit out of date.

Another matter I would put on record once again is the constitutional importance of the position of Governor-General. It is a very important position. The Governor-General stands as the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. The Queen is the head of State in New Zealand, and her representative in New Zealand is the Governor-General. The Governor-General holds a very important constitutional position, both in the day-to-day administration of justice and in the various reserve powers and prerogative powers that sit with the Governor-General.

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: This is breaking news!

Well, it might not be important to Mr Heatley, but Mr Heatley does not understand these issues very well.

💬 Phil Twyford: No respect for the monarchy!

No respect for the monarchy! Various submissions made to the Government Administration Committee suggested that the mode of appointment of Governor-General ought to be changed. Those submissions generally came from people who thought that New Zealand should move from having the Governor-General as a representative of the Queen to having the Governor-General appointed as a New Zealand official by some process that would effectively move New Zealand from having a monarchy-based system to having a republican system. That was obviously outside the scope of this bill. I am not a person who has a strong view about that but I do have a strong view that if there is ever a move to republicanism, the appropriate method of doing it will be by way of having a Governor-General with the same form and functions as the current Governor-General rather than moving to an elected or presidential system, which would cause all sorts of changes and problems, including bringing to a head constitutional issues such as the proper place of the Treaty of Waitangi in a constitutional sense, when these issues are perhaps best worked through gradually as they currently are through the Treaty settlement process.

I will not say much other than that. Labour supports this legislation. I thought it was appropriate that the Prime Minister attended Parliament and spoke on the first reading. He has not made contributions to subsequent readings, which is not all that unusual for the Prime Minister since the Prime Minister is obviously very busy. Perhaps, given the controversy we had around Paul Henry’s comments that were quite insulting to the current Governor-General, it would have been appropriate for the Prime Minister to take a call and show his support for the Governor-General. Having made those comments, I say that Labour will be supporting the third reading of this bill.

I stand in the third reading of the Governor-General Bill. This bill is timely legislation and it is important for New Zealand, as the Governor-General plays a very important role in New Zealand’s constitution. The bill implements the recommendation in the Law Commission’s report 112, which reviewed the Civil List Act, subject to minor changes of a technical nature that the Government Administration Committee made. The bill repeals and replaces Part 1 of the Civil List Act 1979, with updated financial arrangements concerning the allowances, salary, taxation, and travelling expenses of the Governor-General and the administrator of the Government.

As noted by David Parker, the chair of the Government Administration Committee, the committee received submissions on this bill, and they were interesting and thought-provoking—for example, some submitters believed that a proper process should be defined for the dismissal of a Governor-General; some submitters wanted to set a fixed term for which Governors-General are appointed, suggesting that a maximum of 5 years or a term decided by Parliament would be appropriate; and some submitters wanted the Governor-General to become the head of State of New Zealand. The committee determined that although those submissions were interesting and perhaps could be picked up at another time, they were outside the scope of the bill. A couple of minor technical amendments were noted, for which the committee did not feel it was worth reprinting the bill, but they are noted in the commentary.

I will make just a few comments to finish off my contribution on this bill. As the Sovereign’s representative in New Zealand, the Governor-General helps maintain the legitimacy and continuity of Government. The Governor-General has a very important role in New Zealand society, and it is a position that is well regarded. The office of the Governor-General makes a symbolic link between the community and the State, and the Governor-General also represents the New Zealand public in a non-partisan way on important public occasions. As those of us who are privileged to have seats in this House will know, the current Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, fulfils his duty with a good deal of grace.

New Zealand Governors-General always support many community organisations. That is also noted and important. It is vital for us in New Zealand that the office of the Governor-General is properly supported in those important roles. With those remarks I commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to contribute to the third reading debate on the Governor-General Bill. Labour is supporting this bill. It is quite a non-controversial bill, which streamlines the financial arrangements for the office of the Governor-General. It brings in an element of transparency, and the new arrangements are clearer and simpler. The bill will also modernise some of the language that is found in the parts of the Civil List Act that deal with the office of the Governor-General.

It is our view, and I think it is on the record now, that we believe it is no longer appropriate for the Governor-General to be exempt from paying income tax. That change is an important piece of symbolism in modernising the office of the Governor-General, and it carries with it the symbolism that the Governor-General is the first among equals, if you like, in New Zealand and the idea that we are all equal under the law.

The origin of this bill was a request by the previous Labour Government to the Law Commission to consider the arrangements surrounding the office of the Governor-General and make recommendations on how they could be modernised and improved, and we are pleased that the findings and recommendations of the Law Commission are being implemented in full. As my colleague David Parker said, we welcome the progress of this bill.

The bill achieves a number of things that I think are worth mentioning in this third reading speech. The definition of the Governor-General’s family was not clear in the existing legislation, but in this bill “family member” is now defined as meaning a partner or spouse, or a child aged under 18, and that is important in terms of the funding arrangements. The salary of the Governor-General will now be set by the Remuneration Authority, and that is also an improvement. There is a new sum payable after the Governor-General leaves office, and there has been an interesting exchange in the Dominion Post, in which the Cabinet secretary wrote to explain that the change made here from a lump sum equivalent to 3 months of the Governor-General’s salary to a sum that is now doubled, to 6 months’ salary, reflects the removal of the tax exemption. We then saw the political editor of the Dominion Post point out that the Cabinet Office had failed to explain how 3 months’ untaxed pay is roughly equivalent to 6 months’ taxed pay at a 33 percent tax rate. But I do not think anybody in this House begrudges this Governor-General or future Governors-General that payment.

Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the annuity for a former Governor-General or spouse, payable 6 months after a Governor-General leaves office. The bill also provides for the expenses for the Governor-General and his or her family for fulfilling the duties of office, including travel and so on, and provides legislative authority for that funding. Finally, the Civil List Act has been amended, and this bill establishes stand-alone legislation, which I think is an appropriate way to recognise the importance of the Office of the Governor-General. All that, I think, is good and satisfactory.

This debate, as it has progressed through the stages, has provided a welcome opportunity for some debate and discussion on the office of the Governor-General in New Zealand in the 21st century. I will say again that Labour welcomes the chance to begin a conversation about the future role of our Governor-General and the future status of our head of State. Phil Goff and others in the Labour caucus have said that now is the time to begin a conversation about our constitutional arrangements. Many people believe that the current Queen, Queen Elizabeth II, popular as she is, occupies such a place in the hearts of New Zealanders that not many people really want to begin a conversation about shifting to a republic during her reign. But there are also many people who believe that when the current Queen leaves office—dies or abdicates—that will be a time when many New Zealanders would, in fact, like to have that conversation about our future constitutional arrangements. Michael Cullen’s recent intervention sparked a useful public debate about the need to have this conversation in advance of the current Queen’s death or abdication. We may need to do that.

In modernising the arrangements for the office of the Governor-General, it is appropriate that we should begin to kick off a conversation about what true modernisation would look like for the Governor-General, and indeed for our head of State. I am glad that submitters to the Government Administration Committee came along and proposed some simple amendments to this bill that would have modernised it even more than these provisions do. We believe, as many people do, that it is inevitable that New Zealand will become a republic. There are many in this House, across a number of parties, who believe that it is something we should begin to talk about now, and not put off into the never-never.

So Labour supports this bill. It fully implements the recommendations of the Law Commission, and we appreciate the work of the officials and of the select committee in getting the bill to this stage.

I suppose the other thing, finally, that I will mention is that the public debate around the racist and offensive comments made by the broadcaster Paul Henry really shone the spotlight on the office of Governor-General when this rather technical and uncontroversial bill was proceeding through the House. I think those comments stirred up quite a useful and healthy debate about how we feel as a nation about the office of Governor-General and the institution of our head of State. Paul Henry, perhaps inadvertently, cut right to the heart of what is important about the office of the Governor-General, which is that the office is a symbol of who we are as a nation, who we are as New Zealanders, and it gives us our sense of national identity. By attacking in such a nasty and cheap way the current incumbent Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, and questioning whether he looked and sounded like a New Zealander, Paul Henry stirred up a real debate about the office of Governor-General and what it means to us as a nation. Thank you.

The Green Party is supporting the Governor-General Bill. It modernises and normalises a lot of the arrangements around our Governor-General in terms of making his or her income taxable and things like that. I tried to modernise the bill even further by moving an amendment to remove the specification in the bill that the Governor-General will have the use of chauffeured cars when he or she no longer holds office, as it seemed a bit excessive to specify that in this legislation. Unfortunately, it only gained the Greens’ votes. I tried to move another two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 173, which rose out of submissions to the Government Administration Committee. There were three submissions to the select committee, with two oral submissions. The two oral submissions were by the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand, represented by Lewis Holden and Dean Knight, and there was also a submission by Derek Round. The two oral submissions both proposed that the nomination to the monarch for Governor-General be from a 75 percent majority of Parliament, rather than just determined by the Government of the day.

Unfortunately, it did not proceed to a vote in the Committee stage. Although I moved a motion to say it be an instruction to the Committee on the Governor-General Bill that it have the power to consider it and, if it thought fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173, it was not supported by the other parties in the House. That amendment was just to make the procedures more democratic. The Labour members said that they could not vote for it, even though they were a bit sympathetic to those amendments, because they would have to be referred back to submitters and another lot of submissions would have to be called. Well, it is a pity if that was the case, as when they were on the select committee they did not push for that extra submission process to take place.

In the first part of my Supplementary Order Paper, proposed new clause 4A on the appointment of the Governor-General simply read: “The Governor-General is appointed by the Sovereign on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The recommendation must be agreed to by at least 75 percent of all members of Parliament.” It was a very simple proposal, and I wish the vote had been in favour. The second part of the Supplementary Order Paper was clearly, in my view and in all respects, very relevant to the bill. It was also a proposal that came from the written and oral submission by the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand. It must be said that neither of the two proposals it raised were specifically republican; they were about democratising the institution of the Governor-General in terms of a recommendation to the Queen.

The second part of the Supplementary Order Paper was about the term of appointment of the Governor-General. My proposed new clause 5A said: “Term of appointment of Governor-General (1) The Governor-General is to be appointed for a term not exceeding 5 years. (2) A person who has been appointed as Governor-General cannot be reappointed as Governor-General.” I thought that was quite important because there is no set term for Governors-General in legislation. There is nothing to stop Governors-General being reappointed forever. That amendment was very relevant to the bill because in the bill there is a section on annuities, and, clearly, annuities should be based to the length of service. In fact, in clause 8 on the annuity for former Governors-General, it states that to get an annuity one has to have completed 2 years or more in office. What happens if the Government appointed a Governor-General for 1 year? He or she would miss out on an annuity altogether. There is absolutely nothing in the present legislation to stop the Government from appointing the Governor-General for 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, or 10 years. It could be anything, because there is no legislative control over that. Not having a specified term for the Governor-General mucks up the whole of clause 8 on annuities.

The other thing the bill talks about is the Remuneration Authority and how it determines things in relation to the level of annuity for former Governors-General, or their spouses if the Governor-General dies early on. That is good, because one of the things the Green Party has been proposing is a greater role for the Remuneration Authority in determining MPs’ salaries and allowances, and putting them all together and giving them over to the Remuneration Authority rather than us determining things ourselves. In that context, with all this debate about perks and MPs determining their own perks, clause 11 seems very odd. We as MPs have voted for particular specified perks for the Governor-General in relation to domestic travel and even down to the detail of the use of chauffeured cars when he or she no longer holds the office of Governor-General. That is repeating the error we made in relation to our own salaries and allowances.

💬 John Hayes: Of course it’s not. Mean-spirited Green Party!

It is not a question of being mean-spirited. I am not saying that the Governor-General does not deserve some consideration of free travel. If a former Governor-General who is living in Auckland has to go to a function in Christchurch in his or her role as a former Governor-General, I am not saying that their travel costs should not be covered in some respect. But to actually specify it as chauffeur-driven cars is, I think, going beyond our democratic mandate, particularly in this era when there is so much concentration on privileges.

It is true that in terms of travel privileges the new Green Mayor of Wellington, Celia Wade-Brown, is setting the standard. When she met Hillary Clinton the other day she did not go to the expense of charging up a big bill to the Wellington City Council for a taxi; she biked around to Wellington Airport to meet Hillary Clinton. I think that sets a very good example. There is a parallel here that we can specify in general that there should be an entitlement to travel, but exactly what that is should be left up to the Remuneration Authority. That is all I am saying.

Overall, yes, we are modernising the role of the Governor-General. Phil Twyford talked about this as preparing to move to a republic. As members know, I had a bill that unfortunately did not succeed, which would have moved us to a larger discussion on whether we should have a referendum on a republic. This bill before us today is not particularly relevant to a republic at all, but it is true that republicans are often interested in democracy and democratising institutions, which is one reason why I am personally quite keen on this bill. I just wish it could have gone a bit further. It is part of the democratic constitutional debate that we are involved in day by day. With those few words, the Green Party will support this bill. We had hoped that it would go a bit further. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Members will be aware that there has been a lot of kōrero recently about entitlements, the appropriate use of expenses, and reimbursements related to the role of a politician. The Governor-General Bill fits within that broader context of public accountability and transparency for a prudent use of the public spend. This bill in itself, as other speakers have alluded to, is pretty innocent. Its purpose is to simplify the funding of the office of the Governor-General and to bring the taxation treatment of the Governor-General’s salary into line with that in other Commonwealth countries.

This bill is a consequence of the 2007 Law Commission review of the operation and provisions of the Civil List Act 1979. The bill provides that the Governor-General must be paid a salary at a rate determined from time to time by the Remuneration Authority and that rate must not be reduced during his or her term. The bill also concludes that the Governor-General must be paid an allowance, at a rate fixed from time to time, for official expenses. The bill has many other aspects to it. There are provisions for compensation for superannuation rights lost during the term of being a Governor-General; for the annuity that is paid to the surviving partner of a Governor-General who has died after or during his or her term of office; and for other benefits or privileges by way of payments in respect of domestic travel, and the use of chauffeured cars, when a Governor-General no longer holds the office of Governor-General.

Like the Hon David Parker, I say it is important that we recognise the role of the Governor-General within the constitutional framework of Aotearoa, a context that was shaped by the Declaration of Independence, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the relationship between the Crown and the Treaty partner, tangata whenua.

Arā anō atu tētahi take kua puta mai e hāngai tonu ana ki a ngāi Māori, arā, ko tērā ko te tū o te tangata whenua, me kī, hei Kāwana-Tianara mō Aotearoa. Ki tā mātou e kite nei, mēnā ka whakatūria tētahi Kāwana-Tianara Māori, he mea āwhina tērā ko te noho tahitanga o te Ao Pākehā me te Ao Māori i te mata o te whenua i Aotearoa nei. Ko te mea pai o tērā momo tū, ka noho he Māori me kī, hei kanohi, hei waha kōrero mo te Kuini o Ingarangi. Me maumahara anō tātau, ko te Kāwana-Tianara te kau mā ono o Aotearoa ko Tā Paora Reeves, ko ia tērā i tēnei wā tonu nei, ko ia anake o ngā Kāwana-Tianara katoa, he whakapapa Māori tōna, ā, ko ia tērā i whakatūria ki tērā o ngā tūranga whakaharahara. I te wā i whakatūria a ia i te 22 o Whiringa-ā-rangi i te tau 1985, e hia kē nei ngā Māori i mihi nei, i whakanui nei i te āhuatanga o tā Paora tū hei Kāwana-Tianara mō Aotearoa. Ko Tā Hēmi Hēnare tētahi, ko tana kōrero e pēnei ana: “It must be a fruit of the Treaty of Waitangi to see a person from our people.”

Arā, koia tērā, te kōrero a Tā Hēmi Hēnare. Ko Tā Pāora, he uri o roto o te hapū o Puketapu o Te Āti Awa o Taranaki, ā, he tangata, me ki, i roto i ngā take nui o te wā, ko ia tērā i kaha whakahē nei i te haerenga mai o te tīma whutupōro o Wherika ki te Tonga, arā, ko te Springbok Tour i te tau 1981. Ko ia tērā i whakatūria hei Pīhopa mō Aotearoa, ā, ka mutu, ko ia tērā anō hoki i haere hei tumuaki mō te Whare Wānanga o te Rau Kahikatea mō te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa.

Nō reira, he aha te tikanga o tērā kōrero mō Tā Paora ki tēnei pire? Ka mutu, ko tā mātou e whakapono nei, me whakaaro tātou mō tērā āhuatanga o roto i tēnei momo pire.

[There is another matter that has emerged relating directly to the Māori people, and that is for someone of indigenous descent to become Governor-General of New Zealand. In our view, if there were to be a Māori Governor-General, it would improve relations between Pākehā and Māori. The great thing about that is that a Māori would become the representative and spokesperson for the Queen of England. We must not forget that the 16th Governor-General of New Zealand was Sir Paul Reeves, who remains the only person of Māori descent to have been appointed to this highly significant role. At the time of his appointment on 22 November 1985, many Māori groups welcomed the appointment, with Sir James Hēnare saying: “It must be a fruit of the Treaty of Waitangi to see a person from our people.”

So that is what Sir James Hēnare said. Sir Paul Reeves is a descendant of the Puketapu subtribe of Te Āti Awa of Taranaki, and opposed the 1981 Springbok Tour. He was an ordained bishop, later serving as dean of the St John Evangelist Theological College or the theological college of the Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa.

So how does all this fit into this bill? In the end, we believe that in a bill of this type we should take that situation into account.]

We believe that this bill, in maintaining respect for the position of the Governor-General, maintains respect for the core elements of our constitutional understanding that have retained an importance in Māori consciousness. In many respects, until the constitutional review is in progress the Governor-General must stand as the representative of the Queen, the embodiment of the Crown. In doing that, we will continue to place that role in the context of respect for the Treaty of Waitangi as the nation’s founding document and constitutional blueprint. Despite the policy and legislative changes of the last 35 years to better recognise the Treaty of Waitangi, shortfalls remain that adversely affect the lives of hapū, whānau, and iwi. These shortfalls also affect the quality of cross-cultural relationships and the operations of society more generally. Enhancing respect for, and giving better effect to, Te Tiriti o Waitangi will enhance the quality of life for all.

This bill does not do any of that by a long shot, of course, but it is a part of the conversation that must be had as a nation. In that sense, we support this bill at its third reading.

Before speaking on this third reading of the Governor-General Bill I will do something that I probably should have done previously, which is to declare an interest. My interest is specifically that I belong to a group called the Monsoon Munchers, a group that includes the Governor-General. We are a lunch group of people, a mixture of diplomats, journalists, and others, who have lived and worked in Asia. I just declare that interest.

I turn now to the comments of Phil Twyford. It seems to me that it is worth reflecting on where we have come from in the last 160 years, when Hobson was appointed as the first Governor of New Zealand, and thinking about how the role has changed from the days when New Zealand was a dependent colony to our present situation as an independent nation that is able to make its own decisions. In the beginning Governors-General were appointed on the advice of the British Government, not only to undertake the duties of the Sovereign but also to represent the interests of the British Empire here in New Zealand. The Statute of Westminster in 1931, which came after the 1926 Balfour Declaration, changed that. No longer could the British Parliament make laws for New Zealand unless it was at our request, as we are doing tonight with this bill.

That declaration also changed the role of the Governor-General. Instead of simultaneously representing the Sovereign and the British Government, the Governor-General became just the Sovereign’s representative here. That continued until about the late 1960s, with Governors-General who were mainly drawn from the minor aristocracy or the British military. Following the appointment of Sir Arthur Porritt, who as I recall was the first New Zealand - born Governor-General, back in 1967, we have had the first Māori Governor-General, Sir Paul Reeves, the first woman Governor-General, Dame Cath Tizard, and the first Governor-General of Asian-Pacific descent, the present Governor-General, who does a very fine job—the Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: All New Zealanders.

He was appointed, as that member would well know, in 2006. The backgrounds of those Governors-General have also been varied.

At the request of the Government, over the years Governors-General have increasingly travelled overseas, apolitically representing New Zealanders at major international events and in general promoting New Zealand interests abroad. We have moved from a situation—and I think the bill reflects this—of being an agent of a once-global empire to a situation now in the 21st century where the Governor-General is a New Zealander who represents the head of State in New Zealand and represents New Zealand to the rest of the world. I do not think we should get too tangled up with the views of Mr Twyford or Mr Locke as to where this constitutional arrangement should head.

Overall, this bill represents a great leap forward in the way that the Government supports the office of Governor-General. Apart from one or two exceptions in the new legislation it will not apply to Sir Anand Satyanand, but it will apply when the next Governor-General is appointed. The bill creates a new funding structure for the office of Governor-General. Currently the Governor-General’s personal allowance pays for a variety of official functions that would be better paid for by a separate programme and appropriation. International travel that the Governor-General undertakes at the Government’s request is provided for in the new travel appropriation, and domestic travel will form part of the programme’s appropriation. The present exemption of the Governor-General’s salary from income tax will be removed by this bill, and there will no longer be justification for it. Successive Governors-General have requested that this exemption be discontinued. The Queen, after all, has chosen since 1993 to pay income tax on her private income, and the Aussie Governor-General and state Governors have paid income tax on their salaries since 2001. The Minister of Finance’s power to exempt the Governor-General from paying any public or local taxes and other State duties will also be removed.

With those words of support, I commend the bill to the House.

I think that was a great example from John Hayes of filibustering. If not, I have to say I did not otherwise feel the need to know about the Monsoon Munchers.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.