Hon Christopher Finlayson

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Attorney-General: Has he received any reports of the suggestion by David Garrett MP that the concerns expressed in the interim report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill were not his personal views but those of “some oik in Crown Law”; if so, is Mr Garrett’s suggestion correct?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Yes, I have seen reports to that effect. An “oik” is an unpopular or disliked fellow pupil, an obnoxious or unpleasant person, a nitwit, or a clot. With respect to Mr Garrett, who has spent the bulk of his career working for victims of crime, I do not really think that that term accurately describes lawyers at Crown Law. When I receive a draft report from Crown Law, I also ask Crown Law to provide source material including case law. After reviewing all the material, I form my own view as Attorney-General on the issue before me. The section 7 report is mine.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Herald editorial of last Friday, 6 March that said of the “three strikes” proposal: “More fundamentally, the approach is flawed in imagining that putting criminals away for much longer periods will improve the crime rate. It does not.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I refer the honourable member to the section 7 report, where I set out my views in detail and where I say that the proposal raises an apparent inconsistency. I do not think I could be clearer in giving an answer now than I am in that report.

Amy Adams: What other reports has the Attorney-General seen in relation to the reporting requirements under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am aware that a former Labour Party Attorney-General considered the Taxation (Annual Rates, GST, Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill sufficiently inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to warrant a report under section 7. That stands in stark contrast to the oppressive Electoral Finance Bill, which restricted freedom of expression, where there was no such report.

Hon David Parker: Has the Attorney-General confirmed with his ministerial colleagues that, as Rodney Hide claimed, the National Party has agreed to support the “three strikes” legislation through all stages in return for ACT’s support for the passage of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have not confirmed anything with any of my colleagues other than by tabling the section 7 report, as I am required to do in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Standing Orders.

David Garrett: How many laws passed by the previous Labour Government were considered inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; and does the Attorney-General think there is some irony in the Labour Opposition’s being so quick to condemn the National Government for supporting the “three strikes” legislation, which would have saved 78 lives had it been in place?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am advised that around 30 reports pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act were tabled by the previous Labour Government. These reports included reports on the Housing Restructuring (Income-Related Rents) Amendment Bill and the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. This stands in stark contrast to the Electoral Finance Bill, for which there was no report. Having been in Parliament for 3 years, I am no longer surprised by anything Labour members say or do. I do not consider their behaviour ironic, but merely true to form.

Hon David Parker: Given the Attorney-General’s recently restated high professional standards, how can he be comfortable voting for such ineffective policy when, in his own judgment, it amounts to a clear breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am surprised that that question was raised by a person who has held this great office. My responsibility under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is to provide a report and table it in Parliament. That is my responsibility as Attorney-General, independent of the executive, and that is what I have done.

John Boscawen: Is the Attorney-General saying that when the Electoral Finance Bill was introduced in July 2007 it was, in his judgment, inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if so, does he have any idea why the then Attorney-General, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, failed to advise Parliament of that inconsistency?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think I can answer the first part of the question, because the member is asking me to give a legal opinion. I will not do so, because that would contravene the Standing Orders. As to the second part of the question, I say that it is impossible to discern what is in the Hon Dr Cullen’s mind, and I will not attempt it.