Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14817] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Treasonable? 
Nikki Kaye 
: Treason! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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—