Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14781] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the motion on the part of the member. I think there is a lot of sympathy on this side of the House for the general cause that he is trying to promote but it is also fair to say this is late in the process. Also the motion is part of a process that does not involve the Government Administration Committee which members on this side would think was a very important part of a discussion about republicanism. Perhaps the member later on when he has his right of reply on this instruction to the House to consider something to be part of the Governor-General Bill can give a level of assurance that submitters would be able to debate it. He might have a process that after the Committee stage sends the bill back to a select committee for submissions or some other process. 
I think members around the House consider this issue to be serious. Although on occasions I myself have used shortcuts in order to get things into legislation or to have consideration of particular debates I think it is fair to say this issue is a major issue and is one that concerns many New Zealanders. I understand there is a fairly even balance in the approach that people take to it. But it is certainly one where it is appropriate to have a due process whereby New Zealanders have the right to come to a select committee and have a debate on it. I know that the member has previously brought legislation to this effect to the House; it has been considered by the House and rejected. More is the pity when that rejection occurred because although some of us thought that the member’s bill was not quite in a form that we could support I think most of us on this side of the House are of the opinion that a debate is worth having on the issue. In fact if we can shape something up to the form that we need it will be a very important debate. 
Having said that I say I am slightly surprised to get the call at this stage because I thought that on a relatively important issue like this the Minister who is in charge of the House would take a call to indicate the Government’s position on it. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a Minister; she is hiding. I think the member was looking to see whether a Minister was in the House. Kate Wilkinson might be described as head down and bum up working on her papers but she is in the House. 
I say to the member that from my understanding and experience he is procedurally correct in his approach. I have some pretty severe doubts as to whether without this motion his recommendations would be within the scope of the bill. I think a ruling from the Chairman of the Committee would not be to that effect. Therefore the member is attempting to avoid any doubt. It is more often done by Ministers when they have Supplementary Order Papers that they want to bring into debate on bills after they have been through the select committee process. In fact it is possible to do this with a bill that is at a select committee. It is possible for a notice of motion to go to the House—normally again a Government notice of motion—that says that notwithstanding the relevant Standing Order a Supplementary Order Paper that would otherwise be outside the scope of the bill can be brought within the scope of the bill and a select committee can consider it. I think that is more often done to a bill that is currently before a select committee when Government members want to make a pretty substantial change but at the same time want to provide the opportunity for there to be hearings and for submitters to be brought into the debate so that there can be discussions. 
I am looking forward. I warn the member’s colleague Kevin Hague that if he takes the next call the debate is finished. I ask him not to do that because I think some other people have some views on this particular matter and may want to contribute to the debate. But Mr Hague could do that. 
The interim position of the Labour members on this particular motion is that we will not support it because it looks as though the process may be abused. But we are not beyond convincing if the member has in his back pocket an arrangement that gets all of this back to the select committee. But the mere mention of the words “Governor-General” in the body of legislation would not normally bring it to the point of being the hook on which a referendum on republicanism or anything significant like that could hang. Although we are generally supportive of the cause we are not supportive of that sort of abuse of process. 
I always try to be friendly to my mates in the Greens but generally they are sticklers for process. There is a blog by Metiria Turei; there is something called Frogblog which comments quite a lot in the new media on the question of parliamentary process and which is very very critical of both National and Labour when there is any question that that process has been abused. I look forward to “Frog” blogging on Keith Locke’s amendment of this type. Again I may be misjudging the member. He is not normally one for secret agendas; he is normally a person who is opposed to secret agendas. He has done quite a lot of work over time in trying to expose secret agendas or to stop other people’s methods of finding secrets. But it may be that he has an agenda and I hope that if he does it is not one that stays secret for too much longer.