Jones Shane: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Shane: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14802] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the enormously important Part 1 of the Governor-General Bill. I note—and I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence—that the bill’s definition of “family member” includes a child who is under 18 years of age. I would like it noted that I have yet to discover a member of the Maori community who has a child over 18 who is independent and no longer in need of either patronage or financial succour from their parents. I must say before I continue in a more serious vein that I think it is very bad form that Mr Bakshi stood without contributing to this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot do that. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I was just noting that I am looking for a comprehensive level of participation from the other side of the Chamber in this matter. 
I want to move our attention towards an annuity for former Governors-General. I will recount some of these former Governors-General. I recall Sir Keith Holyoake arriving—I think the year was 1978 or 1979; my whanaunga Hone Harawira will attest to that—at the Waitangi Marae waiting to be welcomed and the Ngapuhi Governor-General Dun Mihaka delivering a royal salute. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Come back to the bill. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I am talking about former Governors-General and whether the level of the annuity is appropriate for the travails and the hazards that these men and women during their time had to tolerate. However I will move on from “Kiwi Keith”. 
I am also following up because the name Sir Paul Reeves was mentioned. He is a former Governor-General a man whom I Parekura Horomia and a host of others regard as having great mana because before he became the Governor-General he was our bishop. That role gave him a suitable level of preparation which is why both the allowances and the annuities need to be appropriate to the breadth and the difficulty of the role that that man and these people have had to endure. There was lots of very strong Treaty-based preparation for that particular individual. 
The name of an additional former Governor-General was alluded to but not enunciated in relation to certain commercial activities. I do not think that that person needs an annuity. I am not entirely sure whether his family still are the beneficiaries of the Civil List entitlements. 
We have had several fine female Governors-General and Parekura Horomia and I had occasion to meet one of them recently while she was back from South-east Asia. Whatever has been allocated to that particular individual she has earned it. We need to pay a great deal of attention to that particular portion of the bill because that person has gone on to represent our nation fantastically in a host of different venues and positions. 
I think I should draw our attention to clause 10 whose heading contains the words “adversely affected superannuation rights”. That expression has enormous resonance; in fact it animates all over New Zealand. I do not think that anyone of any seriousness would actually decry or want to reduce what the Governor-General may or may not be entitled to enjoy through a superannuation regime. If only such entitlements charity or foresight were spread around in general public policy.