10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Is he satisfied that the Hon Christopher Finlayson has shown sufficient attention to detail to retain his confidence as Attorney-General; if so, why?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; because he is proving himself to be an outstanding Attorney-General.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Has Mr Finlayson informed him or his office of any matter, other than that relating to Te Puhi Trustee (2) Ltd, that should have been declared by way of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament by Mr Finlayson and has not been?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Has Mr Finlayson told him that he has made false declarations other than the matters that came to light last week?
The member is making an assumption. If we examine the member’s track record, we see that he is normally wrong.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very carefully worded question, and it—[ Interruption] Well—
Mr SPEAKERHon Trevor Mallard Link to this
There is no debate. It has been brought to your attention, Mr Speaker, that Mr Finlayson has made false declarations, and he has accepted that. I think that a question asking whether another has been brought to the Prime Minister’s attention deserves a proper answer.
The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. However, if a member has told the Prime Minister that a Minister may have made an error in that register, I guess the Prime Minister has a responsibility for his Ministers. If the Prime Minister has been asked by the member whether there are any other errors, then I guess the Prime Minister should answer the question. It was pretty specific as to whether the Attorney-General has told the Prime Minister of any other errors.
No, the Attorney-General has not. I am aware that there was an error on behalf of Mr Finlayson’s lawyer at one stage, in relation to an address with the Companies Office, but Mr Finlayson and I have not discussed that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Would Mr Finlayson continue to enjoy his confidence as Attorney-General if a further false declaration came to light?
I think that is an unreasonably speculative question. I do not think it is reasonable to imply when asking a question that a member may behave improperly. I do not think that is reasonable. I will give the member a chance to reword the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
If a member in this House tabled a document that showed that Mr Finlayson made a further false declaration, would he continue to have confidence in him? I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
I am not sure what the point of order is. The member has just asked a question and he is now raising a point of order. I will hear him briefly, but I want to know very quickly what the point of order is.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I seek leave to table a Companies Office record that shows that Mr Finlayson made another false declaration.
A member must not make allegations of improper behaviour when seeking leave to table a document. The member must describe the document, and no more. I will give the member a further chance to simply tell the House what the document is.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is a Companies Office record for Diana Bremner Trust Nominees Ltd.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member actually interrupted himself. There is a personality problem—
It may have escaped Ministers’ attention, but when I am on my feet silence means silence. The member was doing perfectly well until that point. The Hon Rodney Hide knows that that is no way to conduct a point of order. The first point he made was not unreasonable, though. The Hon Trevor Mallard did interrupt himself. He had asked a question, but the problem with the question he asked was that it still implied that a Minister may have done something improper, and members know that it is outside the Standing Orders to make that implication in a question. I gave the member an opportunity to reword the question, and I must now move on.
David GarrettWhat confidence does he have in the Attorney-General’s attention to detail, given that he told Parliament on 16 June: “I believe … that we are not talking about very much, at all.”, but then said in a television interview 4 days later: “In the round I think, based on the sort of information I have, based on my talking around the place, I’d say about 10%,” of the foreshore and seabed? Does the Prime Minister agree that 2,000 kilometres of coastline is “not … very much, at all.”?
Yes, I have enormous confidence in the Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He is proving that he can resolve issues that the previous Labour Government completely failed to. What level of the coastline goes into the foreshore and seabed customary title is purely speculative, and the truth is that none of us know.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is he relaxed about having as Attorney-General—a role that requires precise legal declarations—someone who has already admitted making four false declarations?
I am very confident in the Attorney-General. If one looks at the situation where the proposed, or the alleged, false declarations were made, one sees that at the point at which the error was raised Mr Finlayson immediately took the matter up with the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. Subsequently he has been advised to change his listing. I might add, though, that it is not uncommon. Members from all parties do that from time to time, including Maryan Street.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect that matters relating to this question could return to the floor of the House on a regular basis in the weeks ahead. On behalf of members, I would like you, please, to look at Standing Orders 159, 160, 161, and 162. I do not want you to comment on those today but I would like you to consider how Standing Orders 160 through to 162 and their various parts relate to Part 1 of Appendix B of the requirements under Standing Order 159. I am simply saying that it appears that we are straying into territory that wants to make a distinction between a pecuniary interest in a financial sense, which is the requirement strictly of the Standing Orders, or an interest declaration of a non-pecuniary nature. I think that this distinction is causing some difficulty for some members. It certainly will cause a lot of difficulty for all members in the future if, in fact, the difference between an interest in a broad sense and a financial interest whereby there is pecuniary advantage to a member is not clearly sorted out. It would seem that the registrar has failed members in this regard, because there is no ruling. It would seem further from the strength of the Standing Orders that in the end it is the Speaker who rules on these matters. I ask you to give it some consideration and perhaps come back to the House to define the difference between an interest and a pecuniary interest.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think it would be valuable if you did that, but as you do it, it would be good for you to look at the ruling that Dame Margaret Bazley has made in the case of Mr Finlayson. She made it clear that the words “declare all directorships” mean that one must declare all directorships.
I hear the honourable members, and I appreciate the issue raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I think there are grounds for uncertainty here because the Standing Order relates to declaring pecuniary interests. That is the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee made. The problem is not one of the registrar; it is the way in which Appendix B is constructed. It is a matter that we may well need to look at again. I am not sure the Speaker should rule on the matter alone. I think the matter may need to be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee at some stage.
In the meantime, members need to, in so far as is possible, comply with the recommendation made by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. But we need for the future to make sure the Standing Orders are clearer on what is required. I think there are reasonable grounds for uncertainty where we have a register of pecuniary interests, and it seems that members are also required to register matters that are not pecuniary interests. That would be my way of handling it rather than trying to sort it out on my own. I think it is a matter that needs reference back to the Standing Orders Committee. I thank honourable members.