Hon Christopher Finlayson

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that he has shown the attention to detail in his role as Attorney-General necessary to maintain public confidence in the office?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : That is not a question for me to answer. I serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and I am humbled and grateful every day that I am able to enjoy his confidence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of that answer, does the Prime Minister’s comment that “he wasn’t attempting to rort the taxpayer but they are stupid mistakes, silly mistakes, and I wouldn’t expect my Ministers to make them.” apply to him?

Mr SPEAKER: The Attorney-General is hardly responsible for anything the Prime Minister might have said. I invite the honourable member to try again.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he believe that the Prime Minister’s comment that “he wasn’t attempting to rort the taxpayer but they are stupid mistakes, silly mistakes, and I wouldn’t expect my Ministers to make them.” applies to him; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I said earlier, I am grateful and humble to serve in the administration of such a great Prime Minister. It goes without saying that everything he says is correct.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he made any misleading declarations as Attorney-General?

Mr SPEAKER: I note the question states “as Attorney-General”; it does not apply to a member of Parliament. So the Minister may answer it in respect of any declarations the Attorney-General has made.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, the member has to distinguish between a declaration made by me as Attorney-General, and any declarations made by me as a member of Parliament. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, I do not think I have ever taken any declaration as Attorney-General.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How does he, therefore, explain his changing description of his relationship with Justice Wilson from “close friend” in November 2009, to “a professional relationship” in December 2009, and to someone he “worked with” in March 2010?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The documents the member refers to are documents he obtained under the Official Information Act, and they are memoranda written by me to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. I did not think that life hung on an adjective. The reality of the position is that the judge and I were partners in a large law firm 14 years ago, and I have very friendly relationships with all my former partners, with the exception of a few—which, I can assure the member, is probably more than can be said about him and his caucus.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he shown more attention to detail in his official duties than he has in his personal affairs?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think, regardless of whether people think I am a good Minister, people would say I have done my very best as a Minister, and the implication behind that question is pathetic.

Mr SPEAKER: Ministers may not necessarily like questions but they should not pass opinions on them.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I recall the question from the member, it had two parts to it. The first related to the Minister in his capacity as Attorney-General, for which he has ministerial responsibility, and he should be answering that part. The second part related to his personal affairs, as I recall the way it was put. He does not have any particular ministerial responsibility for those matters. Given the flick at the end of the question, the flick at the end of the answer was perfectly justified.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear any more on this. If Ministers are not careful, I might invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to repeat his question so that everyone can be quite sure of exactly what he said. I do not think it deserved the Minister saying it is pathetic. Ministers have plenty of opportunity to express a view when answering a question without doing that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he as Attorney-General sought advice on parliamentary law and procedure from a lawyer who specialises in trust and estate planning, as he did in his personal capacity?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have sought no advice from any trust lawyer as Attorney-General.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is not about any of the specific answers or questions asked, but about something I think we need to give some consideration to. It is the absence now of Ministers having to declare their pecuniary interests by way of the Cabinet Manual, and the reliance we now place on the Standing Orders for declarations of pecuniary interests. Previously, before members of Parliament were required to do the same thing, Ministers were bound by the Cabinet Manual to declare their personal financial affairs so that they could be questioned or probed if there was any conflict, perceived or otherwise, with their ministerial duties, and that was right and proper. The Prime Minister was responsible for it. When Parliament decided to have its own register of pecuniary interests for members of Parliament, a perfectly logical decision was made not to maintain two registers but to maintain just one, and that register is now governed by the Standing Orders.

A couple of times this week there has been reference to Ministers not having to answer questions about things that they had declared to the registrar of pecuniary interests, because, as I said, they did that in their role as members of Parliament. But before members of Parliament had to do that, Ministers had always been required to do so. Mr Speaker, as a long-serving Minister you will be more familiar than I am with what happened under the Cabinet Manual in those times. It was precisely to make sure that any questions about the way that Ministers were managing their portfolios and their personal financial affairs could be open to transparency and questioned.

What I am asking you to do, Mr Speaker, is to think about how that change to being governed by the Standing Orders has the potential to allow Ministers not to answer any questions that they would have had to answer previously under the Cabinet Manual procedures, simply because the matter is now governed by Appendix B of the Standing Orders. My point has nothing to do with the specific thing that we have been questioning the Minister about today; it is just a general point about Ministers and the declarations they make.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a serious issue, and I fully accept that, and there may be an opportunity to look at it. I have already indicated, I think in response to a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, that I think the Standing Orders Committee needs to have another look at the way that we define what is required in the register of pecuniary interests. But in respect of the particular issue around Ministers, questions can be asked about Ministers and any conflicts of interest that a Minister may have, and the change to the register of pecuniary interests does not change that; it is just that private interests of members are matters that relate to them as members of the House, and they are not responsible for those matters as a Minister. But conflicts in respect of their ministerial role do relate to their responsibilities as a Minister, and nothing has changed in that regard. They can still be questioned about those kinds of conflicts. I am not saying that there is nothing that should be looked at. When the Standing Orders Committee has a chance to look at these matters, everything can be canvassed. I am not going to rule anything out; it is just that I do not want members in the meantime to feel they cannot question Ministers about conflicts of interest, because indeed they can. Nothing has changed there. It is just their register of pecuniary interests is always as an individual, as a member of Parliament, not as a Minister.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reference to the last comment you made concerning where questioning can or cannot occur in respect of the register of pecuniary interests, I took that what you meant was that that occurs in relation to their capacity and responsibility for those conflicts as a Minister. Is that correct?

Mr SPEAKER: Indeed. The actual return made to the registrar of pecuniary interests is made by members of Parliament. I know that it sounds a little odd, when a member is a Minister, to say that the Minister, as a responsible Minister in his or her portfolio area, is not responsible for that return and cannot be questioned directly on it. I am sure, however, that experienced members can find all sorts of ways round the directness of such a question, as was achieved today. But conflicts of interest in respect of Ministers’ portfolio roles are matters that are very much open to questioning.