Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1286] 
5. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: How often has the Solicitor-General appeared in Court representing the Crown in cases involving the interests of a Prime Minister during an election campaign? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The Solicitor-General does not appear before courts on behalf of the private interests of Ministers. The Solicitor-General’s role involves appearing before the courts on behalf of the Crown. The Crown is constantly involved in litigation regardless of whether there is an election on. The member may in fact be referring to a case called  
Ambrose v The Attorney-General 
 which was the subject of an earlier question. It may help if I say this: the Solicitor-General became involved in that case because the Attorney-General had been named as a defendant by Mr Ambrose. The Prime Minister was represented by his own legal counsel. The proceeding was an application under the Declaratory Judgments Act and paragraph (2) of the statement of claim named the Attorney-General as defendant and what they call default contradictor. Section 9A of the Constitution Act says that the Solicitor-General can perform a function conferred on the Attorney-General. The Solicitor-General in the case submitted that although the Attorney-General is not the appropriate default contradictor in applications under the Declaratory Judgments Act in the context of this particular application he was properly named because the relief sought if granted would have impinged on the prosecutorial discretion and prerogative powers of the Crown. Those points were noted by Her Honour when she delivered judgment some days later. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A very long answer but my question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is unnecessary under a point of order and the member knows that. In fact if the member is going to say that his question was not answered as I understand what the Minister said he pointed out that the Solicitor-General does not appear in cases involving individual Ministers. If I understand what the Attorney-General said the Solicitor-General appears on behalf of the Crown and the Attorney-General went on to explain why the Solicitor-General became involved in this case—because of Ambrose if I understand what the Minister said naming the Attorney-General in the proceedings in some way. That was a very full answer to the member’s question. Clearly the Solicitor-General does not appear on behalf of Ministers. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept your first reprimand. It is clear from the question that I am aware that the Solicitor-General represents the Crown. My question asks: “How often has the Solicitor-General appeared in Court representing the Crown …”; that is in the question. Then it goes on to say: “in cases involving the interests of a Prime Minister during an election campaign?” and that has not been answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the member is saying his question is simply asking how often the Solicitor-General has appeared in court representing the Crown involving matters relating to an election campaign I accept that maybe that point has not been answered clearly. If the Attorney-General wished to make any further comment on that that would be helpful. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I referred to  
Ambrose v The Attorney-General 
 which was such a case. 
Hon David Parker 
: What was the point of principle that was so important that it justified the use of the power of the State against the media during an election including the execution of search warrants and the Solicitor-General appearing in a court case and is now so unimportant that Mr Key is dropping his complaint? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The point of principle was elaborated by the Solicitor-General in his submission to the court. It was a multifaceted question. I choose to focus on what the Solicitor-General submitted and that is that although the Attorney-General was not the appropriate default contradictor in general applications under the Declaratory Judgments Act in the context of this application he was properly named because the relief sought if granted would have impinged on the prosecutorial discretion and prerogative powers of the Crown. That is the important point of principle. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Solicitor-General intervene on behalf of any other New Zealander who considers their privacy breached or is this special privilege reserved for National Party Prime Ministers campaigning in Epsom? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I will avoid the temptation to comment on the special privilege point. The Solicitor-General has intervened and will continue to intervene in matters that affect the public interest. It is not possible to outline all the circumstances in the future where those conditions may apply but that is the sole criterion in determining when there is a Solicitor-General intervention. 
Hon David Parker 
: What advice has he received from the Solicitor-General about lessons learnt from the public release of last night’s taped conversation between President Obama and President Medvedev and what was it about John Key’s and John Bank’s conversation in Epsom that made it more sensitive than a conversation between the Presidents of the United States and Russia? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have no responsibility for answering questions on behalf of Mr Key as leader of the National Party nor Mr Banks as the candidate for Epsom nor Mr Obama nor the President of Russia. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a statement made by Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess in which he makes it clear that Mr Ambrose’s actions were unlawful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this just a media statement? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: This is a media release by the police—clearly not read by the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is sufficient. No we do not table media releases.