Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14805] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will start by focusing on clause 16 which covers the first of these arrangements. I turn to the question of conflicting claims that was the subject of discussion in the second reading. Clause 16(1)(b) makes it clear that there is an ability to have a proportion of an annuity payable to more than one surviving spouse or partner of a former Governor-General. 
John Hayes 
: Or children. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member has raised another issue for me which is the question of whether the arrangements in clause 10(2) could be in the form of an annuity that is not a lifetime annuity but an annuity that could be inheritable. I am obliged to Mr Hayes for his interjection because I had not contemplated the possibility of something that is inheritable other than in the circumstances of a spouse or partner being amongst the arrangements that could be made here. One of the questions I would like to ask the Minister—because we know that on occasions for example a lump-sum arrangement can be made for superannuation at the time of the death in office of a Governor-General—is whether it is possible that if the arrangements that have been made under clause 10(2) are then disputed under clause 16 a lump sum could be debated by children. 
I must say that I would be relatively surprised if that was the case because I think that clause 9 refers to spouses or partners of late Governors-General. I do not think it refers to children. But I do not know whether under clause 10(2) the type of superannuation arrangement that could be entered into would involve a lump sum that could then be disputed. Clause 16 would not cut the mustard for a dispute because this is only for clause 9 disputes. This is a dispute around the annuity payable to a former spouse or partner. But if clause 10(2) covered a lump-sum arrangement it could well be a single Governor-General or someone whose wife or spouse or husband—sorry I am being politically correct here—predeceased them then if there is a dispute amongst the children or the other people who will be inheriting the money the question is whether there is any role for a clause that is similar to clause 16 as clause 16 deals only with claims arising under section 9 of the Act. 
I wonder whether instead of “entitled to an annuity” as provided for in section 9 of the Act it might be worth introducing an amendment that states “or for an annuity pursuant to clause 10(2) where a lump sum is involved.” I think Simon Power would agree with me that it would be a little ugly if the children of a former Governor-General appeared before the High Court to dispute the will of a Governor-General especially the part of the will that covered a lump-sum arrangement which I think we have now agreed could arise from clause 10(2). 
The question to the Minister of Justice—and I know he is avidly following this bill—is whether clause 16 “Conflicting claims” should include a reference to clause 10(2) as well as to section 9 of the Act. I can see some members at the back of the Chamber shaking their heads but so far no Minister has been able to explain to me why an arrangement as set out in clause 10(2) could not include a lump sum. If it did include a lump sum and there were conflicting claims as to who that lump sum should be paid to there should be a mechanism for sorting it out. As the Minister has provided for clauses 16(1) and (2) essentially apportion the annuity in the case of there being multiple wives or partners and I think that is fair. Generally in the way that these things work I hope that clause 16(1) will not be brought into play. I think having the authority to make the decision is important. 
The next question is who the authorised person is under this sort of arrangement. It is not clear from clause 16 who the authorised person is. My view is that it should not be a public servant. The idea of a serving public servant making a decision about the appropriate payments to be made to the wives of a former Governor-General is not appropriate. They could be wives seriatim or they could be wives at the same time. We have had a discussion about the possibility of whether John Key and his moving this bill is taking a liberal view and looking to the future when we could have a Mormon Governor-General or a Muslim Governor-General. Such Governors-General could have a proper polygamist arrangement according to the laws of the countries they have visited lived in or been married in. Although polygamy is not recognised in New Zealand law I think many of us will be aware through our constituency cases of that sort— 
John Hayes 
: Even our own cases. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not know—in fact Tim Groser could be the one. The member’s friend Tim Groser was the one who had multiple Muslim marriages but I do not know whether they were serial or concurrent. According to the law of the country that he was living in at the time they could have been concurrent. So we might have a good example here. Tim Groser has the voice of a Governor-General—of the sort that I can remember from when I was a kid. If Tim Groser on some occasion became Governor-General would this clause be the one to sort out the claims of the wives including serial and concurrent? However leaving that aside because I understand that there has been a change of faith and a change of relationships in that case I ask whether it is the intention of the Government that clause 16 be used for that sort of arrangement. 
The other question which I think is an important one that we need to work through is who the authorised person is. It is an answer that either Mr Hayes or Mr—what is his name? 
Grant Robertson 
: Heatley. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Heatley who is currently acting Prime Minister— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: New member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No he has been around a while; he is just slightly forgettable as to his name. If either of those members could advise who the authorised person is that would be useful.