Sir Anand Satyanand has enjoyed an illustrious career as a Judge, Ombudsman, and Governor-General. Sir Anand talked to the University of Auckland Law School magazine, Verbatim. This interview, in its slightly modified form, is kindly reproduced with the permission of Verbatim and Sir Anand.
Q. You graduated in 1970. What do you think you took the most from your years at Law School?
A. I was firmly under the impression that I was completing my degree to join a stream of legal practitioners. I did not have the sights that people nowadays have at law school. These days, Auckland Law School is viewed as an institution which is one of the better ones in the world to study for an academic qualification. People can now go overseas after graduating to pursue postgraduate studies which didn’t happen very much in my time, except in the case of a very few top students. It was also not as common to study conjoint and LLM degrees.
In my time, those at law school were headed straight towards a legal career pathway. Obtaining employment, I might add, was much easier than today. This law school and others are pumping out hundreds of people every year. The population of legally qualified people has grown, but availability of places in firms has not increased at the same rate. On the other hand, students are coming out with a broader canvas in front of them. There are many more places today where a law degree is useful, although one must note, these places can be hard to find and require one to fight to get in. The opportunities in my day were much more clear.
Q. You’ve had a wide ranging career yourself, would you like to comment on that?
A. You would think it was all planned, but I have to say, it wasn’t. I’ll back up and explain. At University I was very involved in all that I could be, including the Law Review, the Law Students’ Society, and the Capping Book. However, I initially worked in an old fashioned “ham and salad” type of law firm—wills in the safe, many transactions to do with administration of estates and property acquisition, and a little bit of debt collecting. This was very good basic training. I learnt how to take documents to the IRD or the Land Transfer Office for stamping and registration, and to undertake basic conveyancing. This provided me with a rudimentary foundation for much of what I needed to understand later. However, in those three years, I realised I wanted to be a courtroom lawyer and not a conveyancing practitioner. I had my eye out for a job that would lead me there. Two mentors and friends, David Baragwanath and Mick Brown, who worked at Meredith Connell, informed me when a position became vacant at the Crown Solicitors firm. I was asked to put my name forward and was consequently employed.
I spent my initial time as a clerk there doing much of the gofer work to prepare cases for the Court. On the day I was admitted to the bar, I was literally in Court that same afternoon. Much of the work was mundane, but as time went on, more prosecutions came my way. After eighteen months I was in the District Court as a junior, and eventually made it to cases in the then Supreme Court. The firm had a wonderful practice whereby the person who undertook a trial could see it through on appeal. So I found myself acting as junior in the Court of Appeal for the first time, under the then Solicitor-General, Richard Savage. My experience at Crown gave me much airtime to figure out how a case should be constructed, how a witness’s evidence should be led, and what made a case fall apart. However, I also realised during this time, that I didn’t want to be a Crown prosecutor all my life.
An opportunity arose in 1975 to go to a really good Auckland firm, Shieff Angland. Roger Maclaren was a well-known court lawyer, with whom I worked and learned much from and I joined there with the now Justice Lyn Stevens. We had a wide ranging practice that focused on criminal law with lots of judicial review cases. The firm had an interesting practice of property and commerce at one end and acting for radio stations and the newsroom of South Pacific Television at the other.
Around the end-point of my time there, the court reforms came into force. The Supreme Court became the highest court and the District Court became a place of jury trials. The Government was on the lookout for young lawyers with a courtroom background. When the opportunity came to join the Bench, I was still in my thirties. I wasn’t the youngest judge appointed, but I was still only 37 years old. At the time, I was married with three children and not able to have put as much time into my family as I would have liked. If you have a successful courtroom practice, this is not possible as your time is spent keeping balls in the air. The opportunity to go the Bench was good because of three things. Firstly, you do one thing at a time. Secondly, you are given the space to put your own stamp of quality on things. Thirdly, when the phone rings at home, it’s likely to be a friend. These were the three crucial items. I joined the District Court with many people of similar backgrounds and then spent 12 happy years as a judge. I enjoyed the work and exposure to the ordinary people of the country and did a lot of jury trials in that time. In the District Court, you see the country at its best and at its worst. In 1994, I would have not expected there to be any change to being a judge, when I received a call asking me if I would put my name forward as an Ombudsman. My first thought was “Well, what an interesting job.” because I had become a friend, of Sir Guy Powles, who was New Zealand’s first Ombudsman and who made it his business to encourage people in the legal profession. He took me for lunch at the Wellington Club on more than one occasion and said to me “ I want to interest you in other things other than just the practice of law.” This meant things like the International Commission of Jurists of which I became a New Zealand chapter supporter. Sir Guy and I used also to talk about his Ombudsman work and I very much admired him.
I felt that taking on the Ombudsman role was a very good change because I had had a legal background requiring me to analyse, and a judicial background where I was required to to find where the weight of preference should go. Being an Ombudsman provides the added benefit of making a decision for the benefit of both parties and, if they can be persuaded towards a better course of action, the parties can often figure it out for themselves. It can be a very effective way of resolving problems and disputes. I became a real fan of the Ombudsman methodology. Job satisfaction no doubt improves one’s quality of life. I believe job satisfaction often comes from the ability to influence events and to deal with people. Ensuring a problem is left in a better place than where you found it, fosters this satisfaction. I very much enjoyed my time as Ombudsman, but I wanted to limit it in time to not more than two five year terms because to be a successful Ombudsman you need a guaranteed inquisitiveness, and inevitably this fades.
I was happy then to have a bit of time “free-wheeling.” I did a review of the Banking Ombudsman service, started up the Members of Parliament pecuniary interest scheme, and chaired a confidential forum for former patients of psychiatric hospitals. I thought of all this as a good series of less than full-time interesting roles. Then I received a request to be the governor general.
So, although these events look planned from the outskirts, they weren’t.
Q. What was illuminated to me throughout that narrative was the importance of non-legal activities, family, and (from what I have heard elsewhere), sports. Do you think especially we should focus more on mental health for students and lawyers? Are we just not getting enough leisure time?
A. I think these are all important issues that you raise. People who become overly focused in any one direction aren’t necessarily providing their best to society. There is a lot going on in New Zealand. If one submits to the “Kiwi way of life,” they can best enjoy what the country has to offer: the outdoors, access to water, and access to snow are all part of this. Sport also provides an important camaraderie and physical pursuit. One needs to embrace the country’s uniqueness which is also a result of positive relationships between European, Maori, Pasifika, and Asian people. Just heading down to the Otara or Porirua markets on a Saturday displays the wonderful mixture of people that make up New Zealand.
To answer your question, I think a long term connection with ordinary people and how they live their lives has been a definite benefit to me. I am often asked for my advice in how I should take the next step and I think considering the cultural, sporting and diverse dimensions of New Zealand is important.
Q. Do you think volunteering is also part of that?
A. Statistically, the amount of volunteering that New Zealanders do, stacks up positively against countries like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. In addition, the amount of volunteer work lawyers do is often given little credit. Almost every football club and school board of trustees will have a less than paid lawyer behind it. This is particularly because we have become a compliance based country.
Q. Should people do more than just legal volunteering?
A. I wouldn’t confine volunteering to just legal work, although legal skills can help. For instance, I have always followed rugby league. In the late 1960s, league did a dramatic thing and moved to the six tackle rule. This made for more intelligent and creative use of the ball once you had it. This revolutionised the game and made it far more attractive to televise. I was asked to help with the drafting of these rules. Once I had applied myself in that way, New Zealand was having trouble with Australian clubs pinching New Zealand players. So I became involved in negotiations that involved transfer fees and become involved in a lot of administration that arose more generally from an interest in the sport.
Q. I’d also like to touch on your time as Ombudsman and Governor General. We’ll start with the Ombudsman. What would you say was the most challenging part of being Ombudsman?
A. I don’t want to cop out of the question but I can’t bring to mind any particular one circumstance that sticks out from the others. In a country like New Zealand though, you have lots of complaints emanating out of prisons, the health system, out of the welfare system, benefits – those sorts of things. Those are the main areas of complaints where administration and failure in it is classic ombudsman stuff.
In the 1980s, New Zealand created the Official Information Act (OIA) jurisdiction. Lots of cases involving the release of information, in whole or in part, and it became part of my role to judge what was appropriate to release. This had teeth, because 20 days later, unless there had been a rejoinder from Cabinet, it has the force of the law. It is a matter of professional pride for the Ombudsman office that there has never been a rejection of a recommendation. This shows a healthy tension between accountability and the preservation of privacy and commercial sensitivity. At various times, there could be high tension when, for example, you have been sitting in a minister’s office, or with a senior government official, politely asserting the need to provide information. These were, of course, high adrenalin moments, but dealing with someone in a rural prison is just as important.
Q. You have been both a Judge and an Ombudsman, do you think Ombudsman is a more satisfying role because you can have a better influence on systemic issues?
A. I used to describe it in this fashion. The Judge at whatever point in the hierarchy of the judicial system, has a set jurisdiction, and a limited number of powers. The plaintiff establishes their case on the balance of probability. The judge makes a judgment, and makes an order. By comparison, an Ombudsman has unlimited jurisdiction, and no powers except persuasion. In one sense, it’s like being a Judge, but also like being a lawyer, as you have to be an advocate for your decision. Being an Ombudsman, however, also means that at the end of the day, no one goes to prison. The jurisdiction deals with the more ephemeral matters of administration, transparency, and the credibility of the government.
Q. Do you think the ombudsman should be greater resourced?
A. Every so often there is a need for there to be a serious reconsideration of the resources that are needed. It is not a problem that should only be applied to the Ombudsman office. Put it this way: each Ombudsman is appointed by Parliament. I have the personal view that in the event a government organisation does not want to comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendation, that matter should be referred to an appropriately devised select committee and that Parliament should take charge of the matter in order for appropriate accountability to be demonstrated to Parliament. It would also take a bit of steam off the Ombudsman.
Q. Can you describe your time as Governor-General?
A. It was a great privilege to undertake the role. There were three layers to it. First, the constitutional role which covered the legal aspect such as giving assent to laws, signing regulations and orders into law and making appointments. Secondly, the ceremonial facet included things to do with ANZAC and the Waitangi Day observance, and conferring honours. Lastly, there was the community dimension. This involves seeing the country put its best foot forward. This was all a considerable workload that needed to be the subject of a well-managed and planned operation. It was a job that I enjoyed nearly every minute of, but it is also true that myself and my wife Susan also greatly looked forward to an eventual return to normality.
Q. Of those three functions, what did you most enjoy?
A. The constitutional and the ceremonial, though that is not to downgrade the community aspect. However, for someone who has been a lawyer, it was extraordinary to see the legal and ceremonial responsibilities so close at hand – the mechanical aspects of elections for example. I could always politely put a view across, though I avoided nit-picking whilst also never wanting to give any impression I was a pushover that would sign everything.
Q. So you still had the role of providing an opinion?
A. Whatever one said was always listened to with interest and courtesy. I had an interesting exposure in retrospect, as half my time was with Helen Clark and the Labour government, and then another half with John Key and the National Government. This gave me the advantage of working with leaders from both sides of the political spectrum.
Q. There is some debate about the ability of the Governor-General to refuse to consent to the passage of a Bill. Do you think this is a theoretical point devoid of practicality
A. I think it is essentially theoretical because if you look at the history books, the last time assent was refused was something like 1707 in the United Kingdom. In the modern era, there has never been an occasion where assent has been refused. If a Governor-General felt that they could not provide assent, they would offer their resignation, and that would be the way forward. By the time legislation comes to the Governor-General, it has obtained a certificate form the Clerk of the House of Representatives that it has been passed by a majority in Parliament, a certificate signed by the Attorney-General that states there is nothing in the law that stands against making this law, and a certificate from the Prime Minister requesting assent. In light of this, it would be a pretty big call for anyone not to assent.
Q. Commentators such as Bruce Harris have noted that eventually there will be the demise of the Governor-General’s role if New Zealand moves towards becoming a republic. Do you think that we will always need a Governor-General?
A. In the instance of breaking ties with the Queen, I think there would need to be a mechanism put in place regarding the process that would be called for after a general election. At this point, evidence emergences as to who has the majority in the House and the Governor-General attends to the business of identifying that person and inviting him or her to be Prime Minister. Issues would arise as to who the replacement person would be and how that person ought be chosen – by Parliament, by the government or by people generally.
Q. From a community building perspective, is it important to have the role?
I think so because in a broad general and non-judgmental way, people do need affirmation that what they are doing is important. The Governor-General is able to encourage the community by showing such efforts are recognised and respected by others.
A. To finish, what would your final piece of advice be to law students here?
That is a big broad question, so I will give a big broad answer: absorb, discern, and do not specialise until it becomes absolutely necessary. Realise that law underpins so much in our society and community and that it does provide wonderful job satisfaction, if you apply yourself. There is an important future for people with legal qualifications that will be to the benefit of the individual lawyer, and to our community at large.
Sam Jeffs, a student at the University of Auckland, was the interviewer.
