Finlayson Christopher: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: General Debate[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): There has been much criticism of the Minister of Justice Mark Burton in recent weeks and all of it is deserved. He is simply not up to the job. His performance in question time when trying to answer Bill English’s incisive questions has been nothing short of incompetent.Hon Trevor Mallard: You can tell which side this one’s on!CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: But for the benefit of Mr Mallard I say that I am in a charitable mood this afternoon. To borrow the words of Denis Healey—who was a real Labour person as opposed to Mr Mallard—I want to concentrate on the realMephistopheles behind this shabby and discredited Faust. I want to talk about the Attorney-General.There is one matter in the debate on the Electoral Finance Bill that has to be addressed and that is the failure of the Attorney-General to provide this House with a report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Jill Pettis: That’s in touch with the people!CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The former member for Whanganui is hiding behind two boxes. I wonder whether it is in order for her to do that and to yell and to scream like a fishwife. She should come out from behind those boxes if she wants to interject properly.The Crown Law Office provided a legal opinion to assist the Attorney-General to determine whether a report should be made to Parliament. The Crown Law Office concluded by a fine margin that the bill is a justifiable limitation on the right of freedom of expression. This was a very poor opinion; it failed to address fundamental issues about this legislation—that it impairs the ability of private citizens to criticise public institutions and political candidates and that it stops private citizens from debating matters of public interest during an election year.Those are the sorts of restrictions that are worthy of Boy Assad of Syria; they are Draconian and they are totally unacceptable. The Attorney-General should have provided a report under section 7. In fact I agree with former Labour MP Richard Northey who said in this House in August 1990 that the Attorney-General has an individual independent responsibility to act in a judicial way and to report on matters even when there may be political pressures not to notice them.Any Attorney-General conscious of his or her responsibilities would have provided a section 7 report in this case notwithstanding the Crown Law Office opinion. I agree with one of the Attorney-General’s predecessors the Hon Margaret Wilson when shesaid that as Attorney-General she considered she should err on the side of caution in advising the House of any possible inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is for that reason that she provided a section 7 report on the Electoral (Public Opinion Polls) Amendment Bill 2000 and the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001. In both those cases she concluded that the bills were inconsistent with section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and did not appear to be justified under section 5. In both those cases the House was dealing with members’ bills but that is beside the point. She was conscious of her responsibilities and took the time and trouble to write such a report.When the New Zealand Bill of Rights legislation was being debated in 1990 some National MPs criticised the reporting duty of the Attorney-General and said it was ridiculous to expect the Attorney-General who is bound by the principle of collective responsibility to write a report contrary to Government policy. Labour MPs however emphasised the independence of the Attorney-General and said that he or she could.This Attorney-General is a disgrace. He has put party before Parliament and the Labour Party’s interests before the public interest. The Attorney-General is the person who should show his strength by critically analysing this rotten legislation in New Zealand Bill of Rights Act terms but he has instead decided to remain silent. Being the Attorney-General is about more than appointing the occasional judge and overseeing the work of the Crown Law Office. The Attorney-General must be an independent officer placing the interests of the law and the fundamental rights of New Zealanders above party. This Attorney-General has failed to do so and stands condemned for his failure.It is very interesting that the Labour Party benches have fallen silent on this issue because it is a major constitutional issue. I would be very interested to hear from the one lawyer in the Labour Party caucus for whom I have respect namely Mr Fairbrother. What does Mr Fairbrother say about this issue? Why did the Attorney-General not provide a report at the time of introduction of this legislation? This was as the Crown Law Office said even putting it most generously a finely balanced matter. It deserved a report. The Attorney-General failed in his responsibilities in failing to provide one. This Attorney-General is a Labour Party hack and as I said he stands condemned because he has put his loyalty to the Labour Party to the tribe above his public responsibilities.