Finlayson Christopher: General Debate 
Finlayson Christopher: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4796] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 We say that the rule of law is fundamental to the operation of our society. Just a few days ago I heard Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court talk about the rule of law. He said that one of the key aspects of the rule of law is that “The Law is superior to and thus binds the government and all its officials.” Yet in New Zealand at this time we are seeing that this Government is proposing retrospective legislation to validate misuse of funds—one law for the Government and another law for the general public. 
The non-lawyer Dr Cullen tries to distinguish between retrospective and validating legislation. But that kind of Jesuitical distinction fools no one. Last year the Auditor-General warned political parties to be careful with their spending on the campaign. Labour ignored his warning misused public funds and now retrospectively seeks to validate its unethical behaviour. What has Labour’s response been to the Auditor-General’s review? This afternoon it has been threefold. 
The first response was to try to say that if there had been a problem with unlawful expenditure last year it might have existed for as long as 15 years. However Mr Brady’s comments about his warnings explode that feeble defence. He warned MPs to watch their election spending and Labour MPs ignored his warning. 
The second approach and it was exemplified this afternoon is for Labour to step up its persecution of a religious minority. A few days ago at Te Papa the Prime Minister and Mr Maharey gave nauseating Uriah Heep speeches about religious inclusiveness. But religious inclusiveness and tolerance are always on Labour’s terms. The Prime Minister wants tolerance for Muslims but that does not extend to Christianity for which she has apparent contempt. The Labour mantra about the Exclusive Brethren is a pathetic diversion. The only weird cult around here is the Labour Party caucus. 
The third defence exemplified by that mediocre speech from Moana Mackey is what is called the “tu quoque” defence—“you too”. Labour was wrong as usual on these two points. Moana Mackey talked about the quality and accuracy of the National return. But the Labour return did not refer to the donations of its trade union friends. She also tried to make something of the GST issue affecting the National Party. Yet even if the GST is added in National was still within its limits. 
When it suits Labour it is the very model of constitutional propriety. So for example the member for Auckland Central Judith Tizard said in her second reading speech on the Patents Amendment Bill on 25 June 1992 that she had a horror of retrospective legislation. On 6 December Ms Pettis said in relation to another Act that retrospective legislation was unfair. Perhaps best of all came from Mr Peters whom I certainly hope has recovered from the infection caused by his self-inflicted love bites. On 15 December 1994 he said that retrospective legislation was repugnant and should be so in any Parliament. They were complaining about retrospective legislation to make minor amendments to tidy up errors—nothing like what is being contemplated today. 
In Government Labour is quite different. Only a few years ago the MP for New Plymouth Harry Duynhoven needed fast-track retrospective legislation to let him keep his seat. Labour said this was a trifling matter but no one can say that the pledge card expenditure is trifling. It was misappropriation of public funds in contravention of very clear rules about how those funds should be spent. Labour’s intention to introduce retrospective legislation in these circumstances is morally and legally wrong and an affront to the rule of law. I come back to what Justice Anthony Kennedy said and that is that “The Law is superior to and thus binds the government and all its officials.” The third-rate apparatchiks on the other side of the House obviously disagree. Their actions undermine the rule of law in this country. If I may I will borrow Ernest Bevin’s famous quote about his opponents: they really are lower than vermin. 
Finally let me say something about that paragon of virtue Mr Dunne. His superior manner and pretentious contributions bring to mind the phrase: “There but for the grace of God goes God.” In fact there is no truth in the rumour that Mr Dunne wants to be pope because being God’s vicar on earth would not be good enough for him.