Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14440] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow the Attorney-General who is acting on behalf of the Prime Minister on this bill. I understand why the Prime Minister is not prepared to come to the House and debate this bill today. I think it would be a very brave Minister in the  
Yes Minister 
 sense who would lead the debate on this bill given the events of the last couple of weeks. I am happy to follow the Attorney-General here; I would not be happy to follow him in a backroom tour of Te Papa when his officials have indicated that pregnant or menstruating women would not be welcome to go on that tour. I say to the Attorney-General— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the member is rather disturbed but that comment is completely irrelevant to the debate. He should focus on the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me make this point first: the Minister should not refer to any attitudes he has about a member when he raises a point of order. That was out of order. However in regard to the nature of the content of a second reading debate the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings are precise. I ask the member to look at page 106 of the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. His comments must pertain to the matters contained in the bill. In that regard the member is outside what is permitted in a second reading debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes Mr Assistant Speaker. Without referring to your ruling at all I say that it is good to see the Government being so sensitive to the requirements of the Standing Orders. 
I was saying that it is a pleasure to follow the Attorney-General on this legislation; I would not follow him very far in other areas. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Like Te Papa. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Including Te Papa on a backroom tour. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Because he’s weird. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of reasons why I would not follow him in that particular circumstance. But I am pleased to follow the Attorney-General because there is a sense of nostalgia for me in dealing with the Civil List Act and now with the Governor-General Bill in that while I was a member of the Statutes Revision Committee—which at the time was chaired by Trevor de Cleene and on which the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer sat—the very first piece of legislation that I dealt with was in this area. 
I think the focus of this debate today is likely to be slightly different from what it would have been had it been debated a couple of weeks ago because the type of person who is likely to be the beneficiary of these changes has become an issue for the public. The Prime Minister’s views on that as expressed on Television New Zealand when the issue was raised of future Governors-General who are to be the beneficiaries of this legislation have been widely condemned. In fact one of the themes I am going to develop is whether the affordability of this legislation has been affected by the Prime Minister’s comments on television and on Radio Waatea—where he indicated that Television New Zealand as well as Mr Henry were to blame for the comments—given that the size of the payout to Mr Henry would have increased as a result of the Prime Minister’s comments. 
It is interesting to see the approach that has been taken to this legislation by the Government. In one sense the Government is being very liberal. When we look at clause 16 we can see the preparation the Government is making for possibly having Mormon or Muslim Governors-General. Those are people who as a result of relationships they have entered into outside the New Zealand jurisdiction have the ability to have more than one spouse at a time and that ability to split the spousal arrangements is part of the legislation that we are dealing with today. 
On the one hand we have to congratulate the Government for what it is doing in terms of preparing for a wider range of Kiwis to become Governors-General but at the same time we have to condemn it for the attitude of the Prime Minister when he appeared to go in the opposite direction while being interviewed by Paul Henry. I think most New Zealanders have now seen a replay if not the original showing of the Prime Minister giggling and smiling at the suggestion that someone who was of a different colour could not be a New Zealander and could not look like a New Zealander. We know that as we go forward we will have a range of New Zealanders of a variety of colours as our Governors-General and they are the people for whom we are currently preparing and for whom we are considering legislation. Certainly in clauses 6 8 9 and 11 there are references to benefits for Governors-General former Governors-General and spouses of Governors-General. 
This legislation would have gone through the House very very easily and possibly without debate if the Government had chosen a more auspicious time to debate it rather than a time that followed so soon after the Prime Minister’s decision to smile and giggle at Paul Henry’s suggestion about people who were “of colour” as the old expression used to be. “Black” is probably the expression that many people would now use although knowing the Prime Minister it could be “brown” as well. The suggestion was that people who were not white-skinned— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will caution the member. He is getting away from the bill. I quite expressly referred the member to—and I am guided by—Speakers’ rulings. The member is now stepping outside what the bill actually prescribes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This bill prescribes for future Governors-General and I am saying that as we pass this bill we should be passing it for Governors-General of all colours and that no Prime Minister should giggle or smirk at the suggestion that someone who is not white is not suitable to be a Governor-General of New Zealand. I say that that is the key to this bill. The bill is a preparation for all Governors-General not just for white Governors-General as was the theme of the Paul Henry comments to which the Prime Minister responded with a giggle. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is now challenging my ruling. I have ruled. The member can refer to the bill and make examples but I believe that the member is debating in a way that is outside my ruling. I have ruled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I acknowledge that you have ruled in that way and I would like to refer you to start with to clause 16 of the bill and suggest that you read it very carefully. That clause allows for people with multiple spouses. It allows for annuities to the former spouses of Governors-General. That provision allows for people who are Mormon and Muslim where there is a conflict about the arrangements for the allowances those people can get. Clearly those people cannot marry in a New Zealand system but there is nothing stopping a New Zealander from entering into a multiple-spouse marriage offshore and returning to be Governor-General. 
If we had a truly liberal Prime Minister that is something that we would be contemplating now but we do not have a Prime Minister who is prepared to lead the debate on this bill and that is where I want to finish. I ask why he left it to the Attorney-General to lead the debate. Why did the Prime Minister not lead it? The bill is in the name of the Prime Minister; it is his responsibility. The Prime Minister is the person who has been making the recent giggling and smiling comments about non-white Governors-General and I just say that a Prime Minister who had backbone and who believed in a multicultural society would be here to lead the debate. Instead he has left it to his fellow giggler Chris Finlayson.