Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16728] 
8. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he agree with Colin James’ assessment of his handling of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill that “yet again the Government—pale shades of the dark days of Sir Robert Muldoon—has discarded constitutional niceties this time for expedition. Not a good look for Mr Finlayson who as Attorney-General is the Cabinet’s guardian of constitutional propriety …”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 No I do not. Mr James was talking about the work of the Maori Affairs Committee. As a member of the executive I have no responsibility for the select committee—that committee reports to Parliament and determines its own processes—nor do I have any responsibility for its excellent chairperson Mr Henare. On the point of constitutional propriety I tell the member that I take my duties very seriously. For example I have produced reports under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—a constitutional requirement that the previous Government ignored in order to ram through its universally reviled electoral finance legislation. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Attorney-General agree with the  
Nelson Mail 
 editorial of 12 February 2011 that rushing the marine and coastal bill back to Parliament “invites nothing so much as despair. It provides even more ammunition to those who have argued that the new law will fail abjectly in healing the festering sore which has opened up since the seabed and foreshore issue was sparked into life the best part of a decade ago. It reinforces the sense that the bill has become a source of inconvenience for both National and the Maori Party.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No I do not. I actually read that editorial when I was in Nelson on Saturday night and reflected on it. I think the author of the editorial has not read the legislation because what the legislation endeavours to do is restore two things that were taken away by the previous Labour Government: access to justice and respect for property rights. It took one very brave person Mrs Tariana Turia to stand up to Helen Clark and the aim is to put it right. 
Hon David Parker 
: When the Attorney-General said last week that the select committee chair was efficient in bringing the bill back to the House 2 weeks early which decision does he consider most efficient: the decision to prevent members of the committee from seeking legal advice relating to the effect of the bill the decision to prevent members from making amendments to the bill or the decision to prevent members from being able to properly consider officials advice or the over 4500 submissions received? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: When the member turned up which I understand was in occasional circumstances the chair conducted himself with propriety. He was a tough and demanding chair. One needed someone like that to get through the huge number of submissions and to get the bill back to the House by 25 February. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you advise me. I thought it was a longstanding tradition that members could not refer to the absence of members either from this Chamber or from a select committee which is a part of this process. If I am correct I invite you to explain to the House why you did not pull the Minister up. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: If that was of concern to you Mr Speaker—and I am sure that if it had been inappropriate it would have been—you would have pulled up Labour members previously for mentioning the absence of a Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that we can get too pedantic about these matters. The reference was very much in passing. One has to accept that the nature of this question is highly political. The question is not particularly seeking a lot of information; it is making political points. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to make political points in response and there is no way I am going to stop him from doing that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling. Is it therefore the case that the Minister can in making political points allege a member’s absence when that is absolutely not true? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In answering a highly political statement like that the Minister can be political. I am not going to get too pedantic by preventing that. If members do not want Ministers to give political answers to questions I note that there are some questions on today’s order paper that are good examples of questions where I have stopped Ministers from getting political. But if questions are asked that are highly political then answers can be expected to be political. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why has he refused to comment explain or identify the size of the political slush fund to fund takutai moana litigation as announced by Dr Pita Sharples? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Because there is no political slush fund. Under the 2004 Act as Mr Jones should know there was a fund set up to deal with certain types of application to the High Court. That fund after 6 years has about $215000 left. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Fudging fudging dodging hiding concealing. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: We are not concealing anything I say to Mr Jones; we are trying to deal with the issue of what to do with that fund under the new legislation. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Political hush money for the Maori Party. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is certainly not political hush money for the Maori Party. I wish the member would get himself under control.