Robertson Grant: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14802] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take my first call on this Governor-General Bill— 
Hon Member 
: First call? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
:—first call that is right—which is a very important bill as my colleague Shane Jones just stated. 
We are talking about people who in our system play both a very important ceremonial role—and I think most of us are very aware of the ceremonial role of the Governor-General—but also as we know a constitutional role that although controversial for many in this Committee is no doubt important. 
When I look at Part 1 it says to me that democracy is not cheap. I think that when we look at this bill and work our way through the clauses in it we see that there is a range of costs associated with being Governor-General and that is as it should be. If we are going to have somebody in our society who is the head of state and they have as I said a ceremonial role that takes them all over New Zealand and all over the world representing New Zealand and New Zealanders as well as undertaking their constitutional role then it is very important that we are able to resource that role well. 
One of the criticisms levelled at republicanism is all of the cost associated with moving to a republic but I think that this bill actually shows us that there is plenty of cost involved in being the Governor-General. When we look for instance at clauses 6 7 and 8 we begin to see what the allowance of the Governor-General is. As I said the allowance that somebody should be paid to undertake this role is quite reasonable but it is expensive. 
With regard to the annuity for former Governors-General which I think is something that Mr Jones mentioned just before it is sometimes hard for people to see why somebody who is a former Governor-General—who has undertaken the role but has now moved to another role in life—is still being paid. But the annuity is in recognition of the status of the role. I certainly respect what Keith Locke had to say in his intervention about whether references in clause 11 to chauffeur-driven cars are appropriate in an egalitarian New Zealand. I think that sometimes the phrase “chauffeur-driven car”—with all due respect to Ministerial Services and VIP drivers—makes it a little bit bigger than it really is. It is in fact a service that is given to Ministers. In this case I respect the fact that former Governors-General will have the continuing respect of New Zealand society by having that particular travel service provided to them. 
It is true that this bill shows us that it is not cheap for us to retain the form of democracy that we have. We need to openly acknowledge that fact here in the Committee and say that this bill and Part 1 of this bill in particular is about recognising those costs and putting them in an orderly way. From that point of view I am certainly a strong supporter of the idea of the Governor-General after this bill passes paying some form of taxation. If it is good enough for the Queen then it is good enough for the Governor-General. If it is good enough for Dr Prasad then it is good enough for the Governor-General. If it is good enough for me then it is good enough for the Governor-General. I am not sure about whether some of National’s mates are paying tax. But if it is good enough for the Governor-General to pay tax then I hope that National members will be looking around and perhaps talking to some of their wealthy benefactors and making sure that they take the opportunity to pay their tax as well. 
The role of the Governor-General is protected in this bill. I will refer specifically to some clauses that I do not think have had much discussion today in relation to the Governor-General’s programme under clauses 13 and 14. In particular I refer to the notion that the Governor-General is now essentially being de-linked from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Certainly up to this time the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has had a key role in overseeing the Governor-General’s office. I guess that that came about as a result of people trying to find a place to locate the Governor-General given that he or she stands a little outside the normal departmental framework. 
It is now clear from the bill that the Governor-General’s programme is being de-linked from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I think that is something a Minister would want to take a call on in order to be absolutely clear for us on what now will occur when the Governor-General’s programme is separated out. That will put a great deal more responsibility on to the Governor-General’s staff and on to the offices that support the Governor-General to ensure that they are in fact continuing to operate in line with all of the things that we would expect from a public office. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been able to play the role of linking people with the service of the Government; I think it is important that that can continue in one form or another so perhaps a Minister might like to tell us how that would occur.