Finlayson Christopher: Address in Reply 
Finlayson Christopher: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:194] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I congratulate you on your election as Speaker and wish you all the best for the term of this Parliament. Our paths have crossed before on the Rules Committee of the High Court and on the Council of Legal Education. I enjoyed working with you on those committees and I look forward to working with you in Parliament. I note that some commentators have been speculating that you could be appointed to the Supreme Court. I hope however that you remain on this side of Molesworth Street. 
I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply. I think they spoke very well although I disagree with most of what they said. I look forward to debating Treaty issues with Mr Jones in the course of this Parliament. One issue I think Parliament will need to revisit very soon is Maori fisheries. The Maori Fisheries Act is destroying the fruits of the settlement won for Maori in 1992 by that great New Zealander Sir Tipene O’Regan. It is not Treaty settlement legislation but welfarism and bureaucracy and it needs substantial amendment. 
I acknowledge the Hon Winnie Laban my Labour opponent in Mana. I congratulate her on her good win in Mana and her appointment as a Minister. The member for Mana was a worthy opponent. Unlike many politicians she debates the issues but does not get personal. I commend her example to the House and particularly to the Deputy Prime Minister. Out of familial loyalty I also congratulate the member for Rongotai on her new responsibilities. If one has to have relatives on the other side then I am lucky to have the member for Rongotai. 
I also take this opportunity to express my thanks to Joel George and Parliamentary Service staff for all the help they have provided to new MPs in the last few weeks. Becoming an MP is a daunting experience but my transition to parliamentary life has been greatly assisted by the work done by Mr George and his team. 
I am proud to be a member of the National Party which I joined in 1974. I joined the party because I particularly liked and admired my local MP Sir John Marshall. I spent my early years in the party working for Hugh Templeton the former MP for Ohariu. Hugh was a fine MP and Minister whose contribution to this country has never been properly recognised. I have held most administrative offices in the party except president—a position currently held by a fine New Zealander Judy Kirk. I acknowledge today her huge contribution to the National Party and thank her for all she has done. 
Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the formation of the National Party which was formed from the remnants of the old Reform Party and United Party. It is the true heir to the liberal and conservative traditions of New Zealand politics. On 8 July 1947 Sir John Marshall gave his maiden speech as MP for Mount Victoria. In that speech he outlined his adherence to the principles of liberalism and the liberal tradition. Almost 60 years later that speech reads very well and the principles that Sir John outlined are still relevant to the National Party today. I have the right to live my own life in my own way provided only that this does not interfere with the rights of others. I should be free to do so as I wish subject only to the rule of law. The classic conservative has a deep suspicion of the power of the State prefers liberty to equality is patriotic believes in established institutions and hierarchies and is sceptical about the idea of progress. The National Party takes the best of liberalism and conservatism. So for example a classical conservative Government would not have pursued the Treaty settlement policy advanced by the Bolger administration in the 1990s. That great work was liberal conservatism in action. As Benjamin Disraeli once said his ideal Government would be made up of Tory politicians and Whig policies. 
Some contend that conservatism and liberalism are unhappy partners and that today the Labour Party is really the natural home of the liberal. I disagree. The Labour Party’s philosophy is in fact opposed to liberalism. The left may have admitted that the right won the great economic debate of the 20th century and that socialism in its various forms has failed but the left still wants to regulate and control. Only they know best. There is a huge difference between being a liberal and being a socialist or social democrat. 
What I want to do now is consider a practical application of liberal conservative principles to what I think are some of the issues facing New Zealand in the early years of the 21st century. In the time available it is impossible to deal with all issues so I intend to focus on constitutional and legal issues. 
First the rule of law. The liberal conservative believes that the rule of law is fundamental to our society and is to be nurtured and safeguarded. Important ingredients of the rule of law include respect for the judiciary careful lawmaking by Parliament and where necessary sensible law reform. I do not think politicians today show enough respect for the judiciary. All too often politicians promote badly drafted legislation which is either too prescriptive at one extreme or too vague at the other then expect judges to interpret those laws to their satisfaction. But when the judge gives a judgment that may not please the politician the politician starts complaining about activist judges encouraged by lawyers who are the only ones to make any money out of the process—I cannot see what the complaint is there! 
Lawyers would make less money and judges’ lives would be easier if the work product of Parliament improved. Vague formulaic references to Treaty principles for example constitute poor lawmaking. On numerous occasions in my career I have made submissions to judges trying to interpret references to Treaty principles in a particular context. This is because politicians did not give proper consideration to the implications of the language they used in legislation. More care needs to be taken to ensure that legislation is carefully drafted and that it reflects the intention of Parliament. 
Another important aspect of the rule of law is meaningful and timely law reform. Some years ago former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer was asked to evaluate the Law Commission. His report was released in April 2000 and I refer to the following extract: “A fundamental change of attitude to law reform is required. Law reform has been neglected in recent years. New Zealand will suffer if proper repairs and renovations to its statute laws are not performed. The law needs to be kept up to date to reflect developments in new technology and business practices. New Zealand is probably falling behind its trading partners in this respect.” 
Five years have passed and nothing has happened. Sir Geoffrey’s recommendations have been ignored and in particular his recommendation that the Attorney-General should be explicitly tasked with overall responsibility for the legal system and its operations and that the Law Commission should be transferred to the Attorney-General away from the Ministry of Justice. The Attorney-General would then be the Minister for Law Reform. Lack of law reform is a very serious issue that must be addressed by the new Attorney-General. Given that he is a lawyer and not a former history teacher I hope he will see the need to provide leadership on this issue. 
The liberal conservative respects the institutions of the State. An important constitutional issue we may have to deal with in the next 20 years is whether New Zealand remains a monarchy. Whatever the future outcome of that all-important constitutional debate we must continue to respect the Crown. That does not mean however that the role of the Crown and its representative the Governor-General cannot be debated. I was in Canberra last Friday which was the 30th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s sacking by Sir John Kerr. The role of the Governor-General in that momentous event is still being vigorously debated particularly by the Australian Labor Party. 
However I take exception to increasing prime ministerial domination of the functions of the Governor-General—in particular the tendency for a Prime Minister to undertake certain ceremonial functions of State that previously had been discharged by the Governor-General. These ceremonial hijacks are wrong. As one Australian commentator has said politicians who attempt to capture some ceremonial moment of national importance are also attempting to attach to themselves some element of public legitimacy and to strengthen the degree of identification between themselves and the State. By so doing they seek to enhance their personal and political prestige. 
The liberal conservative is positive about New Zealand’s ability to settle Treaty issues finally expeditiously and justly. For many years I was involved in Treaty litigation. In particular I acted for NgaiTahu in its claim against the Crown. The proudest moment of my professional career was being at Kaikoura on 21 November 1997 when former Prime Minister Jim Bolger and Sir Tipene O’Regan for NgaiTahu signed the deed of settlement. Since then NgaiTahu has gone from strength to strength and is now a major economic and social force in the South Island. The National Party can be very proud of its work with Maori over the years. The legacy of National Ministers like Ralph Hanan and Sir Douglas Graham is an outstanding one. 
If however New Zealand is to complete the Treaty settlement phase of its history within a reasonable time much more needs to be done. In particular the Waitangi Tribunal needs to be properly resourced both financially and in human terms so that it can complete its very important task. I also think the Crown needs to show more energy in negotiating settlements with iwi. The Crown’s lethargic and bureaucratic approach to settlement negotiations needs to change. It seems clear that Parliament will be revisiting the Foreshore and Seabed Act—another masterpiece of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think we do need to review this legislation. My personal view is that if one respects the rule of law due process and property rights that legislation is unfair and discriminatory. It should not be beyond the wit of politicians of goodwill to work together to devise a more acceptable model. New Zealanders should not be divided on this issue. 
The liberal conservative is a realist motivated in the end by what is in New Zealand’s national interest. He or she is not imprisoned by ideas or prejudices formed in one’s adolescence that stay throughout adulthood. An example of this affliction is the way many people in this country dislike the United States. This dislike was formed during the Viet Nam War when they were anti-war activists and when as Ronald Reagan said of some protesters at Berkeley: “They acted like Tarzan looked like Jane and smelt like Cheetah.” That dislike affects some politicians today preventing them from acting in New Zealand’s interests. They have grown older but they have not grown up. It is time there was a complete reappraisal of New Zealand’s relationship with the United States based solely on what is in New Zealand’s interests. 
Finally the liberal conservative is an optimist who does not view the governance of New Zealand as a grim and humourless task to be undertaken without any generosity of spirit who does not feel the need to have informants strategically placed in the bureaucracy and Government-appointed boards to ensure that everyone obeys and who does not think she has a monopoly on high-mindedness. The liberal conservative is concerned with governing in the public good and the national interest confident in the knowledge that this is a great country full of talented and decent people and that the enterprise is worthwhile. As someone said to me in the course of the campaign other countries have problems; New Zealand has a project—an exciting sometimes difficult but none the less achievable project. 
After spending years sitting on the sidelines watching others have their go I now enter the arena willing and able to work for New Zealand. Winston Churchill once observed that he preferred the past to the present and the present to the future. I could not disagree more. I look forward to the future and to its challenges.