Prasad Rajen: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prasad Rajen: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14815] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Governor-General Bill. In talking about the title I am reminded of a piece of advice that the Law Commission gave to the Social Services Committee quite recently. We were hearing evidence on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The Law Commission as it turned out was very very clear about titles of bills. Its advice to the select committee was that bill titles should describe what is in the bill and do no more than that. The Law Commission expressed some frustration at the fact that over the years titles of bills really have become little Trojan Horses for the branding of the particular ideas of the Government of the day. It was on that basis that the title of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill was changed. That bill went through the House under a different name; it was not the “Future Focus Bill”. 
So if we take that advice quite seriously and apply it to the title of this bill the Governor-General Bill we see that the title almost falls on the side of being non-descriptive whereas there was an opportunity for the Government to use the title to signal the elegance if you like of this bill. 
The Governor-General Bill traverses as we have debated for several hours now really really important transitional arrangements; from the present ones to a new set of arrangements. Any one of several of those kinds of images or directions could easily have been incorporated into the title to give the bill the status of being much more descriptive of what it is about. This bill is about the notion of entitlements. It sets forth in some detail what the entitlements will be for the next Governor-General. It has done that very well—there are some very good provisions in the bill. It changes provisions and brings in some new provisions and those could have been incorporated into the title thus making it a much more accurate description of what the bill is about. 
Another notion in the bill—one that my colleague Phil Twyford has talked about—is transparency. It could easily have been incorporated into the title in some form and it could have shown in a creative way anyone reading the Act in the future that it is about transparency. So that was another notion in the bill that could easily have been incorporated in the title. 
Then there is the notion of salaries taxation and annuities. Those kinds of financial arrangements are spelt out in great detail and that is also very important. Maybe the most accurate title would be the “Governor-General (Financial Arrangements) Bill”. Maybe that title would have said much more than the current title signifies to the reader. 
But perhaps most important for me—and every stage at which I have spoken on the bill I have been very impressed—is the way the bill defines the modern family and applies it to the families of Governors-General. There is reference to “family member” and “spouse” so those are very very important aspects of this bill that could easily have been incorporated into the title thus making it far more descriptive of what is involved in the bill. 
Then there are the notions of modernisation. Modern arrangements such as transparency could easily have been incorporated in the title. There are ideas about compensation allowances etc. So there was plenty of scope for this title to be much more descriptive. I think the select committee was not bold enough to take the advice of the Law Commission and take it further. I would have welcomed that. It is interesting to reflect that the present Governor-General is the last one who will be covered under the old provisions so it is interesting that he will be the one who signs this off.