Chris Finlayson announced:

Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Chris Finlayson today announced the establishment of a 76 hectare reserve for the people of Wellington and New Zealand on the iconic Miramar Peninsula.

The new reserve area, known as Watts Peninsula, is a prominent Wellington landmark at the northern tip of the Miramar Peninsula and a historically significant part of New Zealand. …

The land is currently owned by the Defence Force and is home to a number of historic military gun emplacements, pa sites and former ammunition magazines.

Work is under way to develop the land as a public reserve.

Reserve status will retain the land in public ownership and also ensure the area receives full heritage protection, Mr Finlayson said.

In addition it will enable the preservation of indigenous flora and fauna, such as native orchids, skinks and little blue penguins.

This is a great decision. I am probably one of the most frequent visitors to Watts Peninsula. Used to camp next to it, and have spent many a day exploring it.

The area has a lot of historic gun and battery emplacements. Most of them are in the open, but there are some hidden ones also. In the pine forest, there is one old battery which is very hard to locate. The entrance is a fairly narrow steep hole in a bank, but then it opens up to various rooms and tunnels down below. I’ve even slept overnight in it.

This area is above and near the Massey Memorial. It provides some of the best views of Wellington Harbour. I’m really pleased to see it made into a reserve. It is one of our better hidden secrets, and it will be cool if more people over time get to enjoy it.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Wellington

Bronwyn Torrie at the Dom Post reports:

A literary dame, an internationally published poet and a celebrated historian have been recognised for their impact on New Zealand’s literary landscape.

Dame Fiona Kidman, Peter Bland and James Belich received the Prime Minister’s Award for Literary Achievement at Premier House in Wellington last night. Each receives $60,000.

Established in 2003, the annual awards recognise writers who have made significant contributions to non-fiction, poetry and fiction.

I happened to be at the awards last night, and it was lovely to see the awards presented to some of our literary giants.

Two of the awards were presented by Arts Minister Chris Finlayson, and one by Opposition Arts Spokesperson Steve Chadwick. I thought it was a nice touch, to share the presenting duties.

The funniest moment of the night was when Finlayson was making his introductory remarks, and greeting the various MPs, Ambassadors and other VIPs there. He saw Justice Joseph Williams in the audience and quipped “Good to see Justice Williams here, I presume he is here as his recent judgements are a finalist for the literary fiction award“.

It’s a rare sight to see the Attorney-General dissing a High Court Judge. Lots of laughter, including I suspect from Justice Williams.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Justice Williams

Martin Kay at Stuff reports:

As far as numbers go, the hikoi that arrived at Parliament in the icy wind and rain to protest against the Marine and Coastal Area Bill was a faint shadow of the huge outpouring of emotion against the law it will replace.

In 2004, more than 20,000 people marched to oppose the Foreshore and Seabed Act amid angry scenes that culminated with activist Tame Iti spitting at the feet of deputy prime minister at the time Michael Cullen. By the time the crowd reached Parliament, the momentum had fuelled an unstoppable grassroots movement that gave birth to the Maori Party and, a year later, its dominance of four of the seven Maori seats.

Yesterday’s protest, by comparison, was a sedate affair, with a little over 300 people marching in silence before staging a mock tangi on Parliament’s lawn.

The hikoi was around 1.5% the size of the original hikoi.

But regardless of size, those marching have every right to protest that this law doesn’t give them what they want. They think Iwi and Hapu should have customary title to the entire foreshore and seabed, rather than only the areas where there has been exclusive and unbroken use since 1840.

Must have been nice for a hokoi to turn up to Parliament and not be called haters and wreckers and have the PM declare she’d rather meet with a sheep.

The worst “abuse” they got was Chris Finlayson who was asked what he got out fo the hikoi, and he answered “I got wet”

Tags: Chris Finlayson, seabed & foreshore

Gordon Campbell writes at Scoop on the Government’s response to the jailing of Iranian film-maker Jafar Panahi. He quotes the letter from Chris Finlayson which says:

We also raise the human rights situation in Iran in statements at the United Nations, including cosponsoring the UNGA 3rd Committee Resolution on Iran’s Human Rights. We will continue to express our concern at restrictions on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Iran, including the imprisonment of journalists, bloggers, and filmmakers such as Mr Panahi.

Now Gordon may be quite right to criticise the Government for relying on statements at the UN to improve human rights in Iran. But here’s what Gordon says in his critique of the Govt’s response:

Finlayson apparently believes Panahi’s case is not exceptional, nor his treatment particularly egregious. In fact, we appear to have an Arts Minister unable to tell the difference between an artist of Panahi’s stature, and journalists and bloggers.

Oh goodness – what an insight into the Wellington cultural mindset. Governments shouldn’t do anything beyond the normal statements at the UN to protest against jailing of journalists and bloggers, but when the detainee is an “artist of stature”, then they must move mountains.

Is this attitude linked to the leave Roman Polanski alone movement, because he is also an “artist”.

Personally as a blogger, I’m rather glad Chris doesn’t see bloggers and journalists as less deserving of freedom from detention, than artists of stature.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Gordon Campbell, Iran, Jafar Panahi

This is a useful feature. The Coastal Coalition has a Q+A  on the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, and Chris Finlayson has responded to it with answers of his own.

For those who want to learn more about the issue, worth a read.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Coastal Coalition, seabed & foreshore

Claire Trevett in the Herald reports:

When an invitation is issued to a remote place, it is polite to also provide directions – especially if the route involves the Highway to Hell.

A land protest group’s invitation to Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson to travel to Taipa to visit them came with a driver to ensure he did not get lost – the Maori Party’s Sat Nav, Hone Harawira.

However, Mr Finlayson’s counter-invite to those protesters to “go to hell” had Labour MP Shane Jones baffled.

Most people would agree with the Minister’s strong disapproval of an illegal occupation of private land.

Curious about this invitation, Mr Jones stood in Parliament yesterday to find out more. He put to Mr Finlayson that when he told the protesters to go to hell, “what directions did he have in mind and whom did he think they might meet there?”

The minister declined to provide the GPS co-ordinates or the current hosts.

However, he had some inkling of the likely future inhabitants, observing, “Well, Trevor Mallard isn’t dead yet.”

Heh.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Trevor Mallard

Trevor Mallard blogged:

There was some publicity recently about Jonathan Young’s carelessness in relation to his declaration of pecuniary interest.

This week it is all about the hapless Chris Finlayson who is already in serious trouble for the way he kept on changing his description of his relationship with a Supreme Court judge in whose favour he intervened.

Trevor calling Chris hapless is a bit like me calling Usain Bolt slow.

Now it has emerged that Finlayson helped set up a company in 2006, after he became an MP,  and became a director then and has failed to declare it on any return since that date.

Trevor goes on to declare that Chris must stand down as Attorney-General due to this issue.

I’m amazed after the incidents of 2008, any Labour MP who was an MP in 2008 ever has the decency to try and talk with credibility about the Register of Pecuniary Interests. Hypocrisy is not an adequate term to describe this. It is more akin to the CEO of BP going lectures on environmental protection and good public relations.

In case anyone has forgotten let me remind you that every single Labour MP voted that Winston did not breach the rules of the Register when he did not declare a $100,000 personal donation from Owen Glenn, and also tens of thousands of donations from the Velas.

Even worse, Glenn was seeking appointment as a Consul, and the Velas had racing interests which benefited greatly from funding for the industry (such as prizes) which Winston got Labour to agree to.

Now this was exactly what you have a Register for – the abuses uncovered by the Privileges Committee (with help from the SFO) were as severe a conflict as one can have. Undisclosed personal donations from people you were championing.

And what was Labour’s response to the compelling testimony and proof, that exposed Winston as a liar and have broken the rules? They voted against the recommendation of the Privileges Committee, and oh yeah banked $100,000 cheque from the Velas a few days before the 2008 election, when it would not have to be declared until afterwards.

So pardon me while I vomit up, as I see any Labour MP thinking they have any integrity on this issue. It was a low point for parliamentary integrity – and not a single Labour MP had the guts to vote with their conscience.

Anyway back to Trevor’s allegations, I quote from a statement put out to those inquiring:

Since 2006 I have been a  director and shareholder of Te Puhi Trust (2) Limited, with two other directors.

The incorporation is a corporate trustee for a family trust. The incorporation owns no assets – Te Puhi Trust (2) limited exists only to be a trustee for the family trust, Te Puhi Trust (2), whose beneficiaries are the family and charitable causes.

I have no pecuniary interest in any of these entities, as confirmed in a letter from the trust’s lawyer today. Accordingly, I did not declare the directorship of the corporate trustee for the family trust as a pecuniary interest on the Register of Pecuniary Interests. There is no precuniary interest.

I have sought advice this morning from the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests as to whether a directorship with no pecuniary interests should be declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests. I expect to have an answer tomorrow.

Now it is possible that the Registrar may say this should be disclosed, but if this is the case this is a technical breach which involves no possible actual gain by not having declared it. If Winston was a 95 on a 1- 100 seriousness scale, this is around a 2 or 3.

Trevor compares the issue to the problems David Parker had in 2006. Now I will agree that the A-G needs to be held to a higher standard of accountability than a normal MP. But the problem David Parker had is that his declaration that a company had resolved not to have an auditor was disputed by an aggrieved minority share holder who said this declaration was false as he had not agreed. It later transpired that the aggrieved share holder was no longer a share holder, but Parker actually thought he was a share holder when he signed forms saying share holders had unanimously agreed. But his case had an alleged victim claiming disadvantage.

Anyway let’s enjoy the hypocrisy of Labour claiming there is no need to disclose $100,000 donations towards your personal legal fees, but that you do need to disclose a non-pecuniary directorship.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, MPs Register of Pecuniary Interests, Trevor Mallard

A very interesting interview of Chris Finlayson on The Nation at the weekend.

DUNCAN Well what is actually wrong with Mr Harawira’s idea of effectively Maori title, inalienable, you can’t sell it, absolute public access to all New Zealanders, what is wrong with it, is it just that it’s not politically viable for you?

CHRIS Well I think we agree on a lot of things, we agree on inalienability, we agree on public access, what I’m simply saying is that public domain provides a useful starting point, if you were to say absolute Maori ownership, I think the question that would inevitably arise Duncan is, well which Maori, which iwi, which hapu, and I think there could be a lot of cross claims, so I think that the proposal that we’ve put forward is a more sensible way of dealing with it, but look I’m out listening to folk and I’ll see what they’ve got to say.

A nice rebuttal pointing out why the idea of outright Maori Title is a bad one. I also think it is bad because there it would also take us massively beyond what the Court of Appeal said.

DUNCAN I just want to drill down into the report which came out last week about customary title, clearly the government wants to award customary title, let the courts have a look at it at least. What is customary title?

CHRIS There is absolutely no law on customary title in New Zealand, it’s a very vague concept, so what we’re saying is it’s a constrained form of property right, it doesn’t inhibit public access, it’s unable to be sold, there could be a title issue but not under the Land Transfer Act which deals with land, and so we’re not talking about that type of title, but a title could be issued under this legislation, and there’ll be rights to develop and so on, so it’s if you like a constrained property right, which will be available to those who can establish that they’re entitled to it.

Again a nice way of describing customary title – a constrained property right.

DUNCAN So would it allow for instance an iwi with a customary title say in the Bay of Plenty to do a partnership deal with if you like the Chinese government who come forward with a 100 million dollars and say we want to build a number of resorts on your land, lease it to us over 100 years, would Maori with customary title and iwi be able to get away with that?

CHRIS Oh yes but they’d be subject to the Resource Management Act and subject to the other if you like general pieces of legislation, it’s not proposed that this would be a sort of a self governing entity once it was established, so any kind of development would be subject to the usual RMA principles.

This part has got a few people talking, but people should note a number of key things. The first is any development could not be done on beaches – only on the foreshore which is the area between high and low tide.

The second is that as there is no right to block access, building a resort would be very very difficult. And thirdly one would still have to pass the RMA hurdle which would be massive if it was proposed for an area of popular frequenting.

The key thing Chris made clear is that Iwi can use customary title for commercial purposes, subject to the RMA. And this is no surprise to those who have followed the issue, as it has always been about commercial development to some degree – back to the original court case.

CHRIS Well there are two classes of minerals I think we have to talk about, because pre 2004 petroleum had been nationalised, in fact was nationalised by the Labour government in 1937, silver and gold and uranium have always been nationalised minerals, so then there are the other minerals, you’re quite right that that is an issue that I imagine folk are going to want to raise with me, and I’m listening to what they say, and I’m also talking with Gerry Brownlee about that issue.

DUNCAN So are you effectively saying here this morning that you perhaps are willing to compromise around that minerals issue because it’s quite important to Maori, well certainly the Maori I’ve spoken to.

CHRIS Oh I think the socalled traditional reserved ones, Gerry’s already said are off the table, I’m prepared to hear what folk have to say in the course of my hui and public meetings, and then I’ll report back to the Cabinet.

DUNCAN So you’re not ruling out a possible compromise there are you, because right now as we look at your proposal it basically repeals and holds on to that, so you’re not ruling out a compromise with iwi after this series of hui?

CHRIS Oh I’m saying that I can rule out petroleum, uranium, silver and gold, I’m prepared to listen to other people on those other minerals.

Ruling things out in advance of consultation tends to be counter-productive. That does not mean the Government has agreed to them. Also worth noting that this is not about minerals in the entire seabed – only in areas where a claim to customary title is accepted.

What would be interesting is what minerals, outside the four excluded ones, are in the seabed?

Tags: Chris Finlayson, seabed & foreshore, The Nation

The 65 page full consultation document is here.

The key aspects are:

• repeal the Foreshore & Seabed Act 2004
• no one to “own” the foreshore and seabed, placing it in the public domain
• guaranteed public access to all, subject to certain limitations in discrete areas (such as health and safety restrictions around ports, or restrictions around urupa/burial grounds)
• recognition of customary rights
• protection of existing use rights to the end of their term
• restore the right to go to Court to establish customary title, based on common law principles
• customary title will not be able to be made into freehold title
• no change to current private ownership of any parts of the foreshore & seabed
• two tiers of rights can be sought – customary title and customary rights

I think this is a significant improvement over the current law. It passes the two critical tests of guaranteeing public access, and of restoring the right to go to court to pursue common law and other rights.

I also like the idea of the foreshore and seabed being in public domain, with no ownership at all. That means it can’t be sold without special legislation. It also means that the 30% in private ownership won’t increase.

I’m all for private ownership of most things – but not the foreshore.

A key issue unresolved is whether any claims should go to the High Court or Maori Land Court or both.

This issue is hugely complex and Chris Finlayson has done very well to get this proposal out there. Maoridom does not speak with a single voice, so doubtless there will be varying degrees of support for it, but I hope most will see it as an improvement over the status quo.

I also hope most non-Maori will agree that it is a bad precedent to have the Government remove the right of any group of New Zealanders to test their legal rights in courts, and that repeal of the FSA will be a good thing.

This is stage three of a four part consultation process.

The first stage was people submitting their views to the expert panel.

The second stage was people submitting their views on the recommendations of the panel.

This third stage allows people to submit their views on the proposals in the paper.

And after this consultation, a draft law will be drawn up, and the fourth stage will allow people to submit on the proposed law.

The process of genuine consultation can be almost as important as the substance of the issue. It was partly the then Government’s high handed nature with the FSA and EFA that galvanised opposition to them. The EFA was drawn up in secret and the FSA started life by having Clark and Wilson declare they would legislate no matter what.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, seabed & foreshore

The Herald’s Diary:

The New Zealand International Arts Festival rolls into its final week. Among the virtuoso performances has been one by Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Chris Finlayson, although we are not sure he was supposed to have been the one performing. However, his chairing of an Arts Talk session with esteemed Russian-born conductor Vladimir Ashkenazy had the tongues wagging. To say the minister was well-briefed was an understatement. He had prepared no less than 25 erudite and highly detailed questions to put to Ashkenazy.

Here’s one example. “Once former British Prime Minister Ted Heath, an accomplished conductor, was asked whether he preferred conducting orchestras or chairing cabinet meetings. He answered ‘the former’ because orchestras have a unity of purpose, the players work toward a common goal, the output is excellent and they accept the leadership of the conductor. You have never been stuck in a Cabinet meeting but, thinking of all the orchestras you have worked with, is what he said about working with an orchestra been your experience? Did you know Ted Heath? Is it true of Italian orchestras that they are impossible to conduct?” And that was just the first question.

I’m surprised Chris only had 25 questions!

Tags: Chris Finlayson

Chris Finalyson writes in the Herald:

An important election commitment made by the National Party in 2008 was to set a goal of concluding just and durable Treaty settlements by 2014.

The reasons were simple – by healing the grievances of the past, all New Zealanders could move forward.

It was not an option to forget the past and the legitimate claims of iwi, but nor did we want to be stuck there. Settlements ultimately benefit everyone.

Getting past grievance mode is a win-win.

It should be borne in mind when National became the Government in 2008, there were about 60 settlements outstanding. Fully 20 per cent of these are claims in the Auckland region.

Dr Cullen did a good job in making progress on settlements, but alas his Labour predecessors not so much.

Sometimes iwi ask for a say in how a natural resource can be looked after. Again, Ninety Mile Beach – Te Oneroa a Tohe – provides an example.

Not only is it of spiritual significance to Maori but it also was an ancient food-gathering area, for the famed toheroa and for mullet.

Those food stocks have deteriorated over the years and the iwi wants some say on how the beach can be restored. This seems reasonable given the historical connection they have with the beach and so the Government is prepared to involve those iwi in looking at ways in which environmental damage can be repaired for the good of all beach-goers.

Sounds reasonable.

These are exciting times. The opportunity exists for concluding just and durable settlements throughout the Auckland region, something that a few years ago would have been regarded as a pipe dream.

Iwi are keen to get on with the business, the Crown is keen, and everyone agrees that public access can never be compromised.

That is why this Government is moving with such determination to resolve historical Treaty issues. Settling historical Treaty claims by 2014 means just that – settlements have to take place.

Governments cannot just talk about settling – they actually have to do the deals. The Crown and Maori are determined to work together to undo the heavy burdens of the past and move on. It is a time for optimism and positive thinking.

The 2014 target is ambitious, maybe even aspirational. But it would be a massive achievement to have all major historic treaty claims achieve final settlement during this Government’s tenure.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Treaty Negotiations

The seminar on the Internet and the Courts has been really good so far. You can follow it on Twitter here. It is also being filmed and will be viewable on the Internet.

Chris Finlayson gave a very amusing and interesting opening address. Referred to how someone once threw a cat at a Judge and the Judge said if you do it again, it will be contempt. It is indexed in law journals as “cat throwing-contempt-one cat allowed-two cats is contempt”.

He also said how relieved he was to find the room full of relatively normal people (ie lawyers) rather than Farrar-like hobbits

Professor Tony Smith had what I considered a good suggestion that the Courts have a staffer who proactively looks for material before a trial starts that may be pose a risk to a fair trial, and asks voluntarily for temporary removal.

Solictor-General David Collins talked about how Internet issues take up a large amount of his time, and the inability of getting Yahoo to remove material. Is seeking an agreement between governments to seek to enforce each other’s court orders to ISPs. There are some risks with this approach, as if publishers are deemed to be subject to the laws of every country they have readers, the lowest common denominator can apply.

Steven Price said that compulsory filtering only happens in repressive countries like China and Australia. Heh. Said genie was out of the bottle but not sure if it is a problem. Thinks there should be less use of contempt.

Robert Lithgow QC said he was probably only person in room who has prosecuted for contempt, defended people for contempt, has been charged with contempt himself and in fact appears shortly in the Supreme Court for Vince Seimer over his contempt issues.

He agreed with Steven Price largely and said the law of contempt is fundamentally buggered and only getting at the nutters now. He also said that there is no constitutional significance to modern commercial media as we don’t need them now, as bloggers are the public! Said the press are watchdogs and mongrels. They bark indiscriminately and only interested in food and biting!

Radio NZ Political Editor (and Chair of EPMU Media Committee) Brent Edwards said Internet got around censorship in even most sinister regime, so will do so in countries like NZ.

Robert Lithgow suggested all court cases should have a static camera so people can view over Internet, and not rely on the media so much. I agree entirely.

Tags: Brent Edwards, Chris Finlayson, contempt of court, David Collins, Internet, name suppression, Robert Lithgow, Steven Price, Tony Smith

The Attorney-General has announced:

Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson said he had confirmed today that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has received a complaint relating to Justice  Wilson’s failure to recuse himself from a Court of Appeal case despite the nature and extent of his financial relationship with counsel in the case. …

“The matter is now with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner,” Mr Finlayson said. “The law requires that the Commissioner makes a preliminary examination, during which he may make any enquiries and look at any relevant court documents.”

“At the end of the preliminary examination, the Commissioner must either dismiss the complaint, or refer the complaint to the Chief Justice, or recommend that the Attorney-General appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel to inquire into any matter concerning the conduct of the Judge.”

This is no minor thing, as Justice Wilson sits on the Supreme Court.

The Press editorial also touches on him:

The Supreme Court’s decision last week to recall a decision it made earlier this year, and direct a new hearing of an important case because of concerns about the risk of the appearance of bias by one of its own judges, is unprecedented in New Zealand.

Which does show the system works.

It not only raises doubts about the judgment of the judge involved but it also re-ignites debate made at the time the Supreme Court was established about whether, with judges drawn entirely from New Zealand’s small legal talent pool, such problems are unavoidable. There is little question that, at the least, the episode is a serious embarrassment for the Supreme Court. …

At the time, the judge was a new appointee on the Court of Appeal. He was soon afterwards elevated to the Supreme Court, after an extremely short time on the Appeal Court and ahead of other more experienced and more intellectually distinguished Appeal Court judges. This lapse inevitably raises a question about whether he has sufficient sensitivity of judgment to entitle him to sit on the country’s highest court.

I will be interested to see the report of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Justice Wilson, Supreme Court, The Press

At Red Alert, there is a blog post saying:

Wilkinson wasn’t in the House today so Finlayson answered. I don’t know what the Chief Justice saw in him. He is [deleted after careful consideration - Clare]

Now when will Labour learn about Google and the Internet. I would have through the Mussolini debacle was lesson enough, but no. Here is what Google records Trevor as originally saying:

I don’t know what the Chief Justice saw in him. He is a nasty sarcastic man – so twisted that if he ate nails he would pass screws

What a wonderful reminder of the old Trevor, and the last Labour Government. Anyone recall “cancerous and corrosive”?

I mean this is what one of Labours most senior MPs think is appropriate to write on their parliamentary blog, about an opponent. The vitriol just drips.

Also featuring on the Labour blog, is this comment by a Jennifer:

By the way, I also was somewhat shocked to see the ‘mean and nasty’ side of Tinkerbell.

Now I of all people don’t believe a blog owner is responsible for comments made on their blog. But there is more to this, than meets the eye. You see Labour MPs – especially Trevor Mallard – yell out Tinkerbell at the Attorney-General constantly in the House. So Jennifer is just following the lead of her caucus.

Now I think everyone knows Chris is gay. He doesn’t make a big fuss about it, it is just the way things are. But Labour seem obsessed with the fact an openly gay politician is a front bench National Minister. The so called party of tolerance and equality call him Tinkerbell. Maybe Rainbow Labour would like to show some balls, and point out to their own Caucus why this is a bad and stupid thing to do.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Red Alert, Trevor Mallard

The Press reports:

The decision was surprising given that Attorney-General Chris Finlayson and Police Minister Judith Collins had signed a 2003 petition calling for a commission of inquiry, he said.

As did many professors of law.

Rich said the decision was “sadly predictable”.

“It’s interesting we’re spending millions on a Supreme Court building but still directing people to the Privy Council, which I doubt Peter Ellis will be able to access because of the expense,” she said.

Ouch.

“In the court of public opinion, Peter Ellis has already been pardoned.”

On most controversial cases, there are different views on guilt vs innocence. The Ellis case is remarkable in the huge number of people who view his convictions as unsafe. I don’t think I know anyone at all who thinks the convictions should stand.

The case was a fundamental demonstration of the justice system failing to correct itself, she said. “Every country has found a way to deal with those injustices.”

And this is where I think the Minister made the wrong decision.  Of course the officials were always going to have dozens of reasons to say don’t upset the status quo. But the reason we have a Minister in charge, not officials, is for the ability to look at the wider picture.

Brash said he was surprised at the decision because the request was presented with such strong arguments and the 2003 petition had been signed by major figures.

“The New Zealand justice system has let Peter Ellis down and it should have been New Zealand that sorted it out.”

Had he won the 2005 general election, a commission of inquiry would have been ordered, he said.

I really recommend people interested in this case read the Lynley Hood book. If you do you will, like Don Brash, be convinced that the current convictions are very unsafe.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Don Brash, Judith Collins, Katherine Rich, Peter Ellis, Simon Power

Friday’s Dom Post:

Once upon a time, the National Party caucus principally comprised farmers and lawyers. Few cockies remain in the Key-led Government’s serried ranks but legal eagles sit at the Cabinet table. Justice Minister Simon Power is one; so, too, is Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.

And neither, it seems, is afraid to challenge one-time colleagues.

Earlier this month, Mr Power published a discussion document that, in part, criticises counsel who earn some of their income from the legal aid budget. Some defence lawyers are unimpressed.

Last week, it was the attorney-general’s turn, although he seemed to be gunning for lawyers who undertake civil cases as well as those practising in the criminal courts. The tragedy for all lawyers, he told the Bar Association, was that “some of our number let us all down … they cannot even get the basics right. We have tolerated them for too long”.

He didn’t stop there: “If litigation, both civil and criminal, has reached a crisis … in this country, it is at least partly because some in our ranks are simply not up to the job. Either they shape up or ship out.”

It is commonplace for a National-led administration to lambast parts of the trade union movement, for example, but rarer for ministers of a blue hue to challenge the professions, particularly lawyers and doctors. But Mr Power and Mr Finlayson are at one on this.

I think it is called governing in the national interest.

The justice minister is on record as saying that one of his priorities is for the justice system to be refocused on the participants who don’t earn their living from it. That removes from centre stage, but puts into a more uncomfortable spotlight, lawyers of every stripe, including those who practise civil law.

Anyone involved in civil litigation knows about the time it takes and the prohibitive expense. It is why some cases find resolution via arbitration, and the number of civil actions is falling.

At a seminar for civil litigators early last year, former Bar Association president Jim Farmer, QC, said no-one could sensibly argue that the cost of civil litigation was reasonable, blaming complex and prescriptive court rules, grinding “discovery” practices, too much paperwork, judges failing to rein in litigators, and a shift to lawyers billing by the hour. Chapman Tripp’s Jack Hodder backed him up: “…the mainstream civil justice system is profoundly flawed and offers depressingly little value to any litigant …”

No wonder ministers are speaking frankly. They know that, when courts take aeons to hear a case, justice is more than delayed. It undermines public confidence in the justice system.

Hopefully there will be some results in due time, in terms of shorter delays etc.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Dom Post, Simon Power

The SST reports:

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has made a scathing attack on lawyers, saying he wants “incompetent” members of the profession to foot the bill for unjustified costs if they string out court cases.

Technically that is a scathing attack on incompetent lawyers, not all lawyers.

Finlayson, the country’s chief law officer and the government’s main legal adviser, said the community had tolerated for too long the gamesmanship of lawyers, to the detriment of clients, the courts and justice.

He is considering giving judges the power to impose financial penalties on bungling lawyers who waste time and create unwarranted court costs. Finlayson believes this was needed to compel lawyers to act in the interests of a “just, speedy and inexpensive” justice system.

Wow that will be as popular amongst some lawyers as pork at a Bar Mitzvah.

In a speech to the New Zealand Bar Association on September 12, Finlayson said most legal education courses in New Zealand were considered a joke and the time had come to lift standards. The audience of lawyers, at Wellington’s Holiday Inn, greeted with audible gasps his more frank comments.

Chris does not mince his words.

Finlayson said the courts were clogged because “the overall standard of the bar, and particularly the criminal bar, is not high enough in New Zealand”.

“Too many lawyers practising at the bar are incompetent, or worse, and there is no proper means of assessing their competence or requiring them to be properly educated.

“We’re breeding a class of barristers who don’t even know how to address the court, much less know how to cross-examine, write submissions and act in a professional manner.”

Finlayson said he wanted to change court rules to ensure lawyers did not use the “discovery” of documents and evidence to go on fishing expeditions and delay cases. He believes giving judges the power to order a lawyer to pay costs will ensure professional standards were upheld. He will consult the legal fraternity before taking a submission to cabinet, but he supports “some way where an associate judge or judge can impose a modest cost order on lawyers for wasting time and imposing unnecessary cost”.

Well I think the Judges will like it!

Finlayson said it was a tragedy some lawyers were letting down the entire profession. “Not only are they [lawyers] incapable of doing pro bono work, being law reformers and teachers, they can’t even get the basics right.

“We have tolerated them too long. Something needs to change. We cannot, as a profession, tolerate those who, whether wilfully or not, undermine the system and cannot co-operate in the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of proceedings. If litigation, both civil and criminal, has reached a crisis point in this country, it is at least partly because some in our ranks are simply not up to the job. Either they shape up or ship out.”

If Chris succeeds in implementing that in the legal profession, then I reckon we make him Minister of Education after that to do the same with the teaching profession!

High-profile criminal lawyer and QC Robert Lithgow said Finlayson was trying to boss lawyers around and that allowing judges to order lawyers to pay costs was itself a waste. “The parties and the lawyers will be arguing the fines and the `telling off’ when they should be focused on the real court case. You can’t impose penalties on someone without an appeal process.”

I suspect the extra time taken up by fines and appeals against fines, would be small compared to the reduction in delays due to this new incentive. It is all about having the right incentives in place.

John Marshall, QC, president of the New Zealand Law Society, representing 10,700 lawyers, said the society was developing a competency assurance programme, which was likely to include senior lawyers mentoring juniors.

As well as more training, from January 1, a barrister would need three years’ experience before practising under their own authority, or “sole”. A barrister now can practise sole immediately after graduating from law school.

Marshall said the issue of ordering lawyers to pay costs would be discussed when the law society next meets Finlayson in about 10 days, but it would affect only a small number of lawyers.

Interesting changes.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, NZ Law Society

The Australasian Study of Parliament Group had a seminar in the Beehive on Wednesday on the issue of Parliament and the Courts.

The first speaker was Professor Philip Joseph, who is widely considered the leading constitutional scholar in New Zealand.

Professor Joseph discussed the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and whether or not it exists or is absolute.  There were references to musings from Lord Cooke and Chief Justice Elias that such sovereignty is not absolute.

This does not mean that the judiciary is sovereign either. In fact the theme pushed was neither institution was sovereign, and there is mutual respect for the roles of each, with boundaries between them.

There was a suggestion you could call this co-sovereignty, looking at it being the Crown through her Parliament and the Crown through her Courts being co-sovereign, but sovereignty tends not to be shared (the Roman Republic did effectively share it through having two Consuls but that didn’t work too well eventually).

The example by CJ Elias was whether the judiciary would uphold a law that (for example) said all blue eyed babies must be killed.  Of course that would never be passed (and if it was, the Governor-General might not assent to it) so it is an academic argument.

Professor Joseph said that the rule of law does exist outside of legislation and that it pre-dates the concept of parliament sovereignty by many hundreds of years.

An example would be in countries that have had a coup. Often the judiciary will adopt or refer to the doctrine of necessity to maintain the rule of law – even without legislative backing.

The second speaker was Labour MP Charles Chauvel, in his role as Chairman of the Privileges Committee. He had some interesting historical facts such as how Magistrates were not seen as Independent Judges until just a few decades ago, and how the Minister of Justice used to actually be accountable in the House for their decisions.

His main theme was respecting the boundaries between Parliament and the Judiciary, and how the Privileges Committee decision to recommend limitations on an MPs ability to breach a court suppression order, helps respect those boundaries – especially as it was initiated by Parliament voluntarily.

He took a swipe at both Justice Minister Simon Power and his colleague Trevor Mallard for their recent comments, plus also at Attorney-General Chris Finlayson for not publicly defending the Judges concerned. Power criticised CJ Elias’ call for prisoners to be released early and Mallard criticised the lack of jail in the Moses exorcism manslaughter case, saying they would have got jail time if they were not Maori.

Chauvel said he thought both Power’s and Mallard’s comments pushed against the boundary of mutual respect, or comity.

In fact he revealed the Opposition was concerned enough about Mallard’s comments they their Justice Spokesperson wrote officially to the Chief Justice disassociating themselves from the comments, and saying he was speaking as a local MP only and not on behalf of Labour. The letter and response from the CJ was shown briefly on the screen.

The seminar was well attended and ably chaired by Colin James, with extra chairs having to be found for everyone. Definitely only a topic for constitutional geeks, but it is a fascinating area for New Zealand as one of the few countries with no written constitution.

Tags: ASPG, Charles Chauvel, Chris Finlayson, Colin James, Lord Cooke, Philip Joseph, Sian Elias, Simon Power, Trevor Mallard

Chris Finlayson has announced:

Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage Christopher Finlayson announced today the appointment of former Member of Parliament Nandor Tanczos and the reappointments of Pele Walker and Michael Prentice to the Creative New Zealand Arts Board.

I can’t believe how many Labour and Green people are being appointed to positions. I’m not complaining (except about Cullen’s one) but it is such a change.

If this keeps up, I expect a future Labour/Green Government to appoint me to the Board of the Reserve Bank!

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Government Appointments, Nandor Tanczos

If you have a spare quarter hour, you may find this public lecture by Chris Finlayson on Treaty Settlements interesting. The intro etc takes around three minutes, but then gets into the substance.

Hat Tip: Tumeke

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Treaty Negotiations

The HoS approves of Chris Finlayson’s appointment of Peter Jackson to review the Film Commission:

It’s impossible to imagine anyone better qualified to undertake a review of the New Zealand Film Commission than the country’s most prodigiously successful filmmaker, Peter Jackson. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson, announced this week that the maestro from Miramar will lead a ministerial review “to ensure it is best able to serve the needs of the local industry and community”.

In an ideal world, the commission would long ago have sought advice from one of the most successful filmmakers in history, especially since he is just round the corner. But that would have required some pride-swallowing – and a corporate decision to feed the hand that had bitten it.

Jackson, it will be remembered, has occasionally been a trenchant critic of the commission. He even publicly “disinvited” its then chief executive Ruth Harley and chairman Barrie Everard to the Wellington premiere of part two of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, calling them “self-serving bureaucrats”.

Jackson is not a diplomat.

The terms of reference are a mixture of bureaucratspeak (“facilitative role”; “cultural content objectives”) and noble-sounding phraseology, which are unlikely to bog down Jackson, who is a plain speaker and a man of action. The fact that he is charged with working out how “active industry professionals” can be more involved in setting the commission’s direction is heartening. And it is something he has plainly taken on board: pointedly, he has said he will consult local filmmakers, “so the review reflects the thoughts and opinions of the writers, producers and directors the commission was created to support”.

Bottom up consultation – always good.

Assuming that the review is sincerely motivated and that the Government is not looking for findings that will justify later funding cuts, Jackson’s presence is encouraging. The prolific moviemaker is not notably short of things to do, so he plainly thinks he has something to offer and will tackle the review with the passion and vision that are his trademarks.

The commission is now more than 30 years old: as John Barnett remarked this week, when it was established movies screened with intermissions and no one used the word “digital”. It is high time for a rethink – and there is no better man to be doing the rethinking.

The good thing about having Jackson do the review, is it will be almost impossible for the Government to ignore.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Film Commission, Peter Jackson

Chris Finlayson announced:

The government has responded to concerns from the legal profession and will restore the title of Queen’s Counsel to recognise outstanding members of the independent bar, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson announced today.

Can’t say I’m too bothered either way. When or if we become a republic, the name will have to change – but any change should be part of an informed public debate and decision.

When QEII dies, all the QCS will then become KCs – that will be a lot of reprinting!

The title of KC/QC started in 1603 with Sir Francis Bacon.

Tags: Chris Finlayson

A must read article by Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finalyson in the Herald:

Treaty settlements are not about one group of people being unequal under the law. This country has one law for all – the Treaty guaranteed that. The settlements process is about recognising those instances – regrettably common – where the Crown did not treat all the people of New Zealand equally – where people in New Zealand under the Crown’s protection were stripped of land they owned, or deprived of the right to be treated fairly, despite its undertaking to stop that from happening.

And an example:

Anyone who thinks the Treaty settlement process is about securing privileges for Maori need only familiarise themselves with the recent Waitangi Tribunal report on the history of the Urewera region. It does not make pleasant reading.

It presents the detailed history of the Urewera region for the first time. The tribunal describes the Crown’s confiscation of 24,280ha of Tuhoe land on its first real contact with that tribe.

It details the attacks on the tribe in the Bay of Plenty to apprehend Te Kooti – raids that started as justified military action, but led to the intentional slaughter of civilians and prisoners, and were described by one senior military officer at the time as “extermination”.

Tame Iti may be an attention seeking idiot, but Tuhoe do have some legitimate grievances.

Within days of signing the Treaty in 1840, the Crown bought 1214ha of downtown Auckland for 281.

Within six months it resold just 36ha of that for 24,500. It is pointless to feel guilt about this. For one thing, none of us alive today was responsible for what happened then. However, those who hold the levers of power in the Crown must take action to redress these wrongs, because it was the Crown that caused these grievances.

So purchase price was 23c (converting to dollars) a hectare and sale price six months later was $681 a hectare.

We cannot give back all that was taken, and to their credit no claimants have demanded that the Crown do so. The cost of settlements is around 5 per cent of the value of what iwi lost. According to some estimates, it is much less.

There is no way of knowing what the real figure is, and it does not matter. The Treaty settlement process is as much about recognition and healing as it is about recompense.

Sir Douglas Graham often made the same point.

It’s why other parts of settlements – like restoring traditional names, or co-management of culturally significant land with the Government – may not have any monetary value. They are important to iwi and the way they relate to the country.

Yep.

Treaty settlements are good for the whole country. There has been much talk of economic stimulus recently. Treaty settlements help unlock the economic development potential which exists in the regions and in the Maori community.

This is true, and Ngai Tahu are good examples of this. However it is worth remembering what Don Brash said – the gains for Maori from lifting educational and economic achievement are a magnitude higher than any gain from Treaty settlements. The settlements are at best a catalyst.

Settlements address our past and invest in a common future. The wrongs of history are real. Failure to address genuine grievance creates a new grievance.

But by providing an end point for the injustices and reaching durable and just settlements, we can move forward as a country – together.

I’m looking forward to most of the outstandinghistorical  claims being settled in the next six years.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Treaty Negotiations

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has announced the members of the panel to review the Foreshore & Seabed Act. They are:

• former High Court judge and Waitangi Tribunal chair Justice Edward Taihakurei Durie
• barrister Richard Boast, an Associate Professor at Victoria University specialising in property law and Maori legal issues
• Hana O’Regan, an educationalist specialising in Maori culture and identity

The panel’s job TOR is to determine:

a) What were the nature and extent of the mana whenua and public interests in the coastal marine area prior to Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643

b) What options were available to the government to respond to the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney-General v Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 643

c) Whether the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 effectively recognises and provides for customary or aboriginal title and public interests (including Maori, local government and business) in the coastal marine area and maintains and allows for the enhancement of mana whenua

d) If the Panel has reservations that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does not provide for the above, outline options on what could be the most workable and efficient methods by which both customary and public interests in the coastal marine area could be recognised and provided for; and in particular,
how processes of recognising and providing for such interests could be streamlined

Now without in any way suggesting the three panelists will pre-judge the issue, and not do a thorough job, I would be amazed if a panel including Judge Durie and Hana O’Regan came back at the end of the day and said “Yes we agree the best thing for the Government to have done was to legislate away the rights of Maori to test claims to title in court”.  That is highly unlikely.

The panel is to report by 30 June 2009, and the Government has said they will make decisions by the 31 December 2009.

I will not be surprised if we see a Foreshore & Seabed Repeal Act in 2010, and a very happy Maori Party.

Of course agreeing to repeal it is the easy part. What you replace it with, is considerably harder.

Tags: Chris Finlayson, Hana O'Regan, Justice Durie, Maori Party, Richard Boast, seabed & foreshore

An interesting interview with Chris Finlayson about his role as Attorney-General, with regards to the Bill of Rights Act:

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson says he is simply “doing his duty” by raising concerns about possible breaches of human rights by his own Government’s law and order regime.

Mr Finlayson has found that the plans to give police unfettered power to take DNA from those they arrest and the “three strike and you’re out” law both have apparent inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights.  …

But when performing the function of Attorney-General – sometimes called “the Government’s lawyer” – he said it was important he acted independently.

“The Attorney-General must not be swayed by party political considerations but must objectively come to certain conclusions.”

Absolutely. The AG is generally exempt for collective Cabinet responsibility when it comes to the performance of the legal side of his job.

He said this independence was missing during the “failure of the system” when the Electoral Finance Act was introduced by the previous Labour Government and the Attorney-General – Michael Cullen – did not report its apparent inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights section on freedom of expression.

Mr Finlayson believed this failure was “political”.

“I just thought the freedom of expression issues were so obvious that a first-year law student would be able to identify them. And history has proved that completely right.”

I of course agree, as did the NZ Law Society and the Human Rights Commission.

The Attorney-General bases his opinion on whether a proposed law would breach the Bill of Rights on advice from the Ministry of Justice or, when it it is justice-related legislation, the Crown Law Office.

In the case of the Electoral Finance Act, the Crown Law Office concluded that it was consistent with the Bill of Rights.

Mr Finlayson, a leading lawyer before becoming an MP, said he was prepared to dissent from the advice he received.

“I don’t take the view that I’m some kind of automaton and just sign off on what is given to me. I will examine the matter carefully.”

This is fascinating. A non lawyer as Attorney-General (such as Dr Cullen was) would feel compelled not to second guess the advice from officials. But Finlayson has clearly stated that if thinks the legal opinion is not up to scratch, he will substitute his own opinion.

This is, in my opinion, quite correct. The role is indeed not of an automaton. Of course one would expect the AG to reveal both his advice and the officials advice, if they differ.

Tags: Attorney-General, Bill of Rights Act, Chris Finlayson