Finlayson Christopher: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9252. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I was most interested in that florid contribution by Moana Mackey before the dinner break in this debate on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I have been very interested also in comments about the Minister of Energy and Resources’ Supplementary Order Paper 205 that have been advanced by some of our most distinguished and leading citizens who say that the proposed amendments breach international law and attack our democratic freedoms. When I heard that I thought well we had better have a good look at that because they are very serious allegations.I then found out who were the authors of the statement. They were Dame Anne Salmond who wrote a most interesting book on Captain Cook which clearly qualified her to speak about the high seas and former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer who could only be described as a sort of apotheosis of constitutional virtue whose voice was particularly quiet when the foreshore and seabed legislation was being debated in this House mainly—I think probably—because he was acting for the marine farming institution and it was very quiet when the dreadful Stalinist electoral finance legislation was going through the House. But it is great to hear that he has found his constitutional voice again and has been opining at great length in between talking to Sir Bruce Ferguson presumably about Government Communications Security Bureau matters on Lambton Quay this afternoon.I took a good look at the legislation and was immediately drawn back to Sir Geoffrey’s lectures in 1975 when he taught me Legal System because Sir Geoffrey the great teacher that he was said how important it was to focus on the wording of the legislation. I can recall a lawyer appearing in the Court of Appeal many years ago telling the Court of Appeal that there were 12 possible interpretations of a section of an Act. After about 2½ hours of driving Their Honours nuts the President of the Court of Appeal then Sir Robin Cooke said: “Well there’s the 13th.” The fellow said: “Well what is that Sir?”. He said: “The plain meaning.” I really think that this is a situation where if one gets away from the hyperbole if one gets away from the purple prose and the waffle and the politically inspired criticism of the Supplementary Order Paper and focuses rather on the wording of the legislation one sees that the answer is tolerably clear.I come to new section 101B in new clause 46A and note that it has nothing whatsoever to do with protest. People are fully entitled to exercise their democratic right to protest. What that clause which my friend the Minister of Energy and Resources is seeking to introduce here deals with is the commission of an offence if damage is caused under subclause (a) “damage to or interference with any equipment ...” under subclause (b) or “interference with any operations or activities ...” under subclause (c).So the proposed amendments which have excited the great and the good of the area inside the beltway—as I say these apotheoses of constitutional virtue Sir Geoffrey and Dame Anne and other members of the great and good—relate to damage or interference not protest. There is no reason at all why people cannot exercise their democratic right to protest but it has to be protest that does not result in damage to or interference with—for example under subclause (a)—the structure or the ship. So it is quite a straightforward matter—Moana Mackey: How embarrassing—this is the Attorney-General.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and I hear the creatures on the other side yelling out: “How embarrassing!” but I think that Sir Geoffrey always said when he was teaching me law to “Focus on the words—focus on the plain meaning.” He did not say it like that. He was acting like some ranting Jehovah wandering over desks as he used to do because it was more important to create an impression rather than teach at times. But focus on the words—focus on the words—is the suggestion that I make tomembers on the other side of the Chamber. Get away from the purple prose; get away from the hyperbole. This afternoon we have experienced some tragically hyperbolic speeches on the Government Communications Security Bureau. It is all so very simple. Focus on the plain meaning focus on the words and the answer will become tolerably clear.That is why I believe that Sir Geoffrey and Dame Anne great people though they are have got it wrong and their statements about the amendments breaching international law although which particular principle of international law is not immediately clear to me or “attacking our democratic freedoms”—you can just imagine Sir Geoffrey declaiming on that theme—I am sorry it is just plain wrong. If Sir Geoffrey followed the advice that he gave to me in 1975 when he suggested that we focus on the words of the statute the words of the bill then I think we can get to a very happy place very quickly indeed.