Dame Cath Tizard, former Governor-General, responds to the Monarchist League's Treasurer Chris Barradale in this week's edition of The Listener:
Whatever Chris Barradale's views on our constitutional arrangements, or on politicians "forever seeking to enhance their own powers" (Letters, May 3), he should get his facts straight. The appointment (on advice) of the military chiefs, the head of police and control of the Security intelligence Service has been the prerogative of the Government for many years longer than Helen Clark has been in office. I can speak from personal knowledge about his comment that she “has absorbed the Governor-General's office into her own department”: Helen Clark had nothing to do with it.Changes came about as a result of a State Services review in 1989, which identified problems of control and responsibility, some dating back to colonial days. At that time, Government House was answerable to at least three different Government departments and had no overall budget of its own. Stories from the past were legion – like a request for a new vacuum cleaner having to be approved by the Prime Minister, and household purchases being arbitrarily cancelled by Internal Affairs bureaucrats.
A second review in 1990 found the existing arrangements incompatible with the provisions of the State Sector Act 1988 and the Public Finance Act 1989 and that it would be better to make Government House a unit of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and to give it its own budget to manage.
I inherited this system in 1990, and the relationship between Government House and the Prime Minister’s Department was nearly always cordial and co-operative. The budget we were allocated was fairly generous and we ended up in the black despite have embarked on much-needed repairs and renovations of the historic house. For the first time, Government House managers had the independence to do their jobs without going cap-in-hand to some government department.
I restrain myself from commenting on Barradale's recommendation that the Governor-General should have the right to arbitrarily refuse assent to bills that he or she believes to be contrary to the people's wishes and to call for a referendum. So much for democracy!
Catherine Tizard, Governor-General 1990-1996 (Herne Bay, Auckland)
While Dame Catherine corrects Mr Barradale on which Prime Minister did what when, her comment at the end makes no sense. If the Governor-General (or perhaps more correctly a President) were to send a Bill of Parliament to a referendum, how could that be undemocratic? As this blog previously pointed out though, this power would be useless because the Prime Minister could still have the Sovereign recall the Governor-General at any time, and the Governor-General's option in that instance would be to fire the Prime Minister before they could do so.
I see the logic. The G-G isn't elected and has, like everyone else, a political stance. If they had a veto, they could exercise it to refer perfectly reasonable legislation that they personally disliked. Conversely, even if a Bill were the subject of public outcry, if the G-G approved, it would go through untouched.
Also, I think our democracy works well when the people elect a parliament (and hence a government) and they have a fair chance to get through their elected program over three years. If they are subject to continual single issue vetos, then that detracts from that and actually removes democratic accountability.
I do think our system needs more checks and balances. Making the Bill Of Rights Act supreme law would, IMHO, be the best place to start, not a veto power.
Well, I don't think a veto was what was being proposed - just the power to refer Bills to referendums. I think an absolute veto of the US kind is really out of the question - as you say, a democratically elected government should have the ability to get its legislative program passed unhindered. However, I do think a head of State should have the ability to question, and in order to do that a general power of reference is useful. I should add that while the Presidents of Iceland, Ireland and Austria have such powers, it's very rarely used. In Iceland the power was used by the President to put a controversial media law to a referendum, but the government withdrew it and watered it down before the referendum was held.
The important part is they have something in the tool kit to keep their Prime Minister coming back to at least keep them informed - something our Governors-General struggle with. That's a more subtle check than referendums every five years.
The main purpose of this power in the Republic of Ireland is to diffuse disputes between the upper and lower houses of Parliament, not something we have to worry about in NZ. However, if we're moving towards an entrenched Bill of Rights, the head of State should have the power of reference to check that Bills comply with the Bill of Rights - or for enactments to be challenged in the Supreme Court. Either way you need a final court of interpretation to decide on legislation's validity.