6. Attorney-General—New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Vetting of Electoral (Integrity) Amendment BillHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Attorney-GeneralAttorney-General—New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Vetting of Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill6. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding New Zealand Bill of Rights vetting?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Yes in the context in which they were given.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Does he accept that his responsibility as Attorney-General in vetting the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was as senior law officer of the Crown not a Minister; and if so how can he possibly have concluded that political proportionality is more important than freedom of speech and association protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes and in the same way in which the Solicitors-General in 1999 and 2005 under the then process reached the same conclusion.Hon Christopher Finlayson: When vetting the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill did he obtain advice from the Attorneys-General of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Rwanda and Zimbabwe on any Bill of Rights - consistent interpretations they may have adopted regarding their own laws which allow a party leader to dismiss an MP?SPEAKER: No before the member answers I'm just going to consider whether—I just want to check that there are Attorneys-General in those countries in a similar form. I'm sure that the member will be able to assure me.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Yeah well so far as I am aware the answer is yes.Hon DAVID PARKER: No I did not but I am aware that Japan and Portugal have similar laws and I do remain of the view that as important as freedom of expression and association are preserving the balance of representation in accordance with the wishes of the electorate is sufficiently strong democratic purpose to justify the limitations.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen the Human Rights Review Tribunal decision of 26 March the last and the scathing comments they had to do with the former Attorney-General and the way he behaved? It's all here.SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a step away from New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vettings on the part of this Attorney-General. I'm ruling the question out.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Why doesn't he simply follow the example of his immediate predecessor who always stood up to his ministerial colleagues and issued section 7 reports where necessary rather than allowing political considerations and the needs of Mr Peters to trump the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?Hon DAVID PARKER: There are two points I'd make in response to that. The first is that on occasions where determinations such as this are finely balanced as to whether a section 7 report should be provided I'm advised by officials that it's the judgment of the Attorney-General that is required which the prior Attorney-General exercised when dealing with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Secondly I would also note that when his Government abolished Environment Canterbury in 2010—now close to a decade—it was that member's independent judgment that that was proportionate.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: A supplementary question—the Rt Hon Winston Peters—a point—sorry.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Very serious issue of misrepresentation—I had no role in vetting the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member I think is experienced enough to know that if he disagrees with an answer disagreeing by way of point of order is not appropriate. The member may if he wishes at the end of the question seek the leave of the House for a personal explanation to set the record straight and if the member really wants to I suggest that he take that approach.Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point of order if I can assist I didn't mean to—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It wasn't a point of order obviously.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well no I'm happy to—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to sort out his position I think he has to seek the leave to correct his answer.Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to make it clear that the Attorney-General delegated it to someone else. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the Attorney-General making such a statement? Right well—have we finished?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well I just make that point: the Attorney-General delegated—SPEAKER: No no no. The member did not get leave to do it.Hon DAVID PARKER: I thought I'd been granted leave. Sorry sir.SPEAKER: No. Well I will take the member's word but I am saying that he is an experienced enough member to know that he needs to be called for something like that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen the legal cases surrounding the 26 March hearing which described the former Attorney-General's behaviour with respect to rationale and reasoning for the decision as being non-existent?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You've already ruled that question out of order so why was it allowed to be asked at such length?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order—and I say to the right honourable gentleman that I much prefer him doing it this way than from his seat.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What—the objections you mean?SPEAKER: For you speaking to the point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The difference between the first question and the second question related not to the tribunal but to the surrounding court cases which would make the Attorney-General relevant in that situation.SPEAKER: And unless I'm convinced that there's a matter of vetting involved then I'm not going to allow the question. Are there any further supplementaries?