Robertson Grant: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14814] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I promise to be interesting. I too obviously am referring to clauses 1 and 2. I will pick up on what my colleague Trevor Mallard was talking about before because it is a relevant consideration. We are creating here an Act specifically in the name of the Governor-General and that is something different from the situation we have had before. In my previous intervention I mentioned one of the specific ways in which that is playing itself out: the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will now no longer have the level of responsibility for the office of Governor-General. That would perhaps justify an Act in the name of the Governor-General—that is this Act recognises the specific and unique status of the position of the Governor-General. I think that is therefore one of the justifications for a bill or an Act on its own. Mr Mallard said that the proliferation of Acts of Parliament is one of his particular bugbears and those of us in the caucus with him often have to hear from him about whether there always needs to be legislation. This is an issue where it is a lineball call in many ways. 
I agree with Phil Twyford that the title of this bill could easily be called the “Modernisation of the Governor-General’s Role Bill” because that really is what it is doing. 
It is also introducing an element of fairness so it could be called the “Governor-General’s Taxation Fairness Bill”. That element of the bill I think will get the most attention from the media when they are reporting on it. No doubt when it takes up many column inches in tomorrow’s newspaper there will be a focus on the fact that this bill makes the next Governor-General pay income tax. That is also worthy of mention perhaps in the title. 
It could be called the “Next Governor-General Bill” because one of the things that I think was missed in the early part of this debate was that this bill does not apply to the incumbent Governor-General. His terms and conditions remain unaffected by this legislation. So we very much could easily have called this bill the “Next Governor-General Bill” but we have not done that; the Government has focused on a more generic title giving it an enduring sense by calling it the Governor-General Bill. 
Chris Tremain 
: It is quite elegant isn’t it? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is elegant. It is elegant in its simplicity I say to Mr Tremain. I am really pleased that the Government is now taking a role in this debate because it is very very interested in being part of the debate on the title of the bill. The Government is now interjecting showing that this is an issue that needs further debate. Quite clearly over on the Government benches there is now concern about whether this should be called the Governor-General Bill. 
Chris Tremain 
: We have no confusion over the title. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Has Mr Tremain got an alternative title? 
Chris Tremain 
: No I am quite happy with the Governor-General Bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He is quite happy with the Governor-General Bill. Well I think that is a moot point over here because we on this side of the Chamber do not feel that the title of the bill captures the vigorous debate we have had in the Chamber tonight. 
Jacqui Dean 
: No you’re not happy at all over there. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Jacqui Dean who served on the Government Administration Committee is itching to take a call stand up and say what she thinks the title of this bill should be. She knows that this bill is so much more than the simple title that Mr Tremain is giving it. This bill will bring about a fundamental set of changes in respect of how we view the Governor-General how the Governor-General is paid and the future annuities for people who come after the Governor-General. 
I think we have had an interesting debate on Mr Mallard’s views about why we have such a broad definition of the Governor-General’s partner. In my earlier speech I said that it is reflective of modern life that a Governor-General may have more than one partner. That could easily be reflected in the title of the bill before us today. 
As Mr Twyford said although the Governor-General Bill represents a modernisation of the position and a modernisation of the conditions that sit around that position it misses the main point of the debate in New Zealand at the moment about the constitutional position of the Governor-General and head of State in New Zealand. There has been useful and interesting debate on this bill but many New Zealanders want to have a big-picture debate about our future constitutional arrangements. It would be good to see from the Government some leadership on this issue but we have not seen that. It has been pushed off for another day. On this side of the Chamber we think a conversation needs to begin. It may be that we need to work through some difficult issues such as the place of the Treaty what it would mean if we moved on from having a Governor-General who is a representative of the Queen and the head of State in another country. We on this side of the Chamber would like to see a debate on that. This bill could be called many things other than the Governor-General Bill.