Robertson Grant: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14809] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I too want to refer firstly to clauses 16 and 17 in the Governor-General Bill. I appreciated Mr Hayes’ intervention to clarify his interpretation of clause 16 and although it may have dealt with some of the issues that Mr Mallard raised it certainly did not deal with all of them. It definitely did not deal with Mr Mallard’s principal issue about clause 10(2) which we have had no answer from the Minister in the chair on. 
I do think that the circumstances in which there could be conflicting claims are reasonably simple in terms of the way in which we live our lives in New Zealand beyond any extension to the possibilities of the backgrounds of the kinds of people who might become Governor-General at some point. Basically this is about a situation where a Governor-General may have had two partners during the time that he or she was Governor-General. It is quite a reasonable circumstance to imagine. Somebody may enter into a relationship and the job of Governor-General is a stressful and difficult one at times and involves long hours and that could lead to somebody separating and having a new partner. So I think the issue of conflicting claims is a sensible clause to have within the bill as it is about something potentially quite real. 
On that point it is worth noting that this bill is very modern legislation. Clause 4 lists the definition of partner as “a civil union or de facto partner”. The bill brings us forward into the 21st century in terms of the kinds of relationships that people can enter into. I think that clause 16 is a sensible clause but I take the point from Mr Mallard that if we move through to clause 17 then the question of who makes the decisions on this matter is something that is up for debate. Again in the interpretation clause the definition of authorised person is “a person authorised to make decisions under section 16 by the Minister who with the authority of the Prime Minister is responsible for Ministerial Services”. At this moment that is the Prime Minister. So the Prime Minister will be appointing a person to listen to such claims. 
I agree with Mr Mallard that a public servant in that position could be placed in a very difficult position in making those sorts of decisions. It may be a public servant who has a role that is subservient to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. I think that could lead to some unfortunate pressure being placed on a public servant to make that kind of decision. It will be a decision that if one can imagine the circumstances I mentioned before people will be particularly concerned about. No doubt it would attract a great deal of public interest and it would be a matter that the person would have to take very seriously. I do note that subclauses (2) and (3) in clause 17 refer to various rules that will apply in particular the High Court Rules and the Judicature Act in relation to appeals against a decision of the High Court. There is clearly a judicial element to this role and I think it is important that someone appointed to it can be independent and can make decisions like this without any particular pressure. 
The other clauses in Part 2 that I will refer to in particular are clauses 25 and 26. I do this because throughout the debate a number of people have mentioned the current Governor-General. They have said what a nice person he is and that he has related well to these proposed changes. 
Phil Twyford 
: A great New Zealander. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I absolutely endorse those comments—he is a great New Zealander I say to Mr Twyford. But I think it is important to note that clause 25(2) exempts the incumbent Governor-General from the changes in this bill. Clause 25(2) specifically states that all of the Governor-General’s allowances “… are as if this Act had not been passed.” Although it is worth saying that the current Governor-General is a humble man which he is and that he is a person whom we all greatly admire and who deserves our support on any occasion he actually will not be covered by this law. However under clause 26 the annuities are “in accordance with this Act.” So I guess from the point of view of a buyer-beware situation the Governor-General is already in this situation. Therefore the conditions under which he took up his position are being protected but at the end of the day his annuities are not. 
Although I think we all see this bill as a good step forward and we are also dealing with the changes to the Income Tax Act in this part those changes will not apply to the incumbent Governor-General. He does not have too much further to run in his term but a number of members have mentioned that point and it is probably important for us to clarify that. Part 2 puts in place what is being done in Part 1. Although the Labour Party is supporting this bill I think it is clear from the speeches we have heard that we would like some further conversation on constitutional arrangements.