Chris Finlayson was caught by Ted Thomas misleading the Supreme Court in the Wilson case and then allowing an outright lie to be perpetuated when he refused to correct his error.
So we shouldn’t be surprised that he advocated lying to the electorate about his proposal to change our anti nuke laws in 2005.
Chris Finlayson has now made five corrections to his declarations to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests. After he was caught making five false declarations. He has decided to share corrections other members have made. But he fails to point out that in each case these were careless omissions not deliberate decisions to mislead the Registrar and the public.
The NBR reports thus:-
After making a second amendment to his own pecuniary interest declarations, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s office has drawn media attention to the slips of others over the last five years.
All up, a total 14 MPs can be named and shamed – with some omissions more exotic than others.
In the year ended January 31, 2010, Speaker Lockwood Smith was honoured with a kilt from a visiting Scottish parliamentarian and a crystal vase from Japan, both of which he failed to declare.
Trade Minister Tim Groser failed to declare his directorship of the trade promotion group Indian Overseas Group in 2008, and Environment Minister Nick Smith omitted to mention legal fee contributions.
In the same year, National whip Chris Tremain omitted interests in investment companies Sunset Investment Partnership and the Provincial Club, while Labour MP Damien O’Connor left out two community health trusts seeking government funding.
Labour’s Chris Carter was stung again for overseas travel costs, as were Maori Party MPs Te Ururoa Flavell, Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira, including an appearance on a Malaysian current affairs show.
Failure to declare KiwiSaver superannuation interests hit MPs from across the political spectrum.
Even Prime Minister John Key is not exempt. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Mr Key failed to declare interests in gold mining company Jackson Minerals, as brought to light on the Q+A TV programme in February.
Alll this stuff about Chris Finlayson not declaring his company directorship is interesting and puzzling.
Before being elected to parliament, I was the sole Director of Inzight Communications (my little company based in Dunedin) and I resigned as Director on the morning of 9 November 2008 ( day after election).
But when I filled out the pecuniary interest declaration in January 2009 I sought advice (from the Registrar’s office) and was told I needed to declare my directorship because I was still a Director on 8 November 2008, the day of the election. Which I duly did.
I have stuff-all assets (house, section and a bit of super) but I’ve sought advice from the office of the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests several times. Because I want to get it right. So why does Chris Finlayson allegedly seek advice from his lawyer and not from the Registrar’s Office?
I’m a first term MP. How long has he been in parliament?
It wasn’t the Watergate burglary that resulted in Nixon’s resignation – it was being caught in a cover-up.
Finlayson, in a grudging way appears to have accepted that that is true. He appears to be preparing to resign, but not as Attorney General for repeatedly misleading Parliament in his declarations, but as a company director.
But in the same article :-
“He has been a director and shareholder of Te Puhi Trust since 2006 but he said yesterday that the incorporation owned no assets”.
But on the face of the publicly available documentation that is not true. I’m not suggesting that Finlayson has a beneficial interest given his explanation yesterday. But it is very important that he is precise and he has been playing fast and loose with the rules to date.
Terralink makes it clear that Te Puhi Trutee (2) Ltd is the legal owner of two properties in Underhill Road Tauherenikau. Can’t do link for copyright reasons but not hard to find for a small fee.
And a reminder of what the then Leader of the Opposition said about the role of and standards against which an Attorney General should be measured.
Lawyers are the professionals we depend on in our society to ensure the accuracy of the documents that they sign. They should not sign documents knowing them to be false under any circumstances. For the most senior law official in the land, the Attorney-General, to have done so not once but on several occasions, is a serious matter. Mr Parker was right to tender his resignation. I commend him for that.
If Finlayson repeatedly made false declarations as a lawyer then the Law Society would deal with him. Is there a lower standard for the Attorney General? That is a matter for Key to decide.
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. And especially because he did not inform either the Prime Minister or Cabinet either before he intervened or when he ran into problems.
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.
Standing Orders page 128 are very clear.
4 Contents of return relating to member’s position as at effective date of return
(1) Every return of pecuniary interests must contain the following information as at the effective date of the return:
(a) the name of each company of which the member is a director ………..
An Office of the Clerk of the House spokeswoman said the rules were clear. “Members are required to declare the name of each company of which the MP is a director or controls more than 5 per cent of the voting rights. At the very worst, it could be contempt of the house if an MP has knowingly provided false information to the House.”
For most members people don’t get too upset if a genuine error is made once. But the Attorney-General is special. There is a clear precedent. Dr Don Brash (Leader of the Opposition), 21 March 2006 :
Lawyers are the professionals we depend on in our society to ensure the accuracy of the documents that they sign. They should not sign documents knowing them to be false under any circumstances. For the most senior law official in the land, the Attorney-General, to have done so not once but on several occasions, is a serious matter. Mr Parker was right to tender his resignation. I commend him for that.
Rodney Hide (Leader—ACT), 21 March 2006 :
I say to Helen Clark that her Government now lacks integrity and honesty. I think that filing a false statement, a statutory document, when one is the Attorney-General and a Minister of the Crown is unacceptable. I think this issue does need a full investigation. I say to the House that it is an important job to hold Ministers to account. That is what Parliament does—that is our Westminster parliamentary democracy.
David Parker stood down because there was doubt as to whether he signed a false statement. As it turned out he hadn’t and was reinstated.
Finlayson appears to have signed a false statement every year since March 2006.
He needs to go to the sin bin and not be allowed out until he can prove that each of his declarations have been factual. Given the other problems he has it might be an easy way out for Key.
Company Number 1779853
Company TE PUHI TRUSTEE (2) LIMITED
Good that there is progress on the Bill Wilson case. When you sit on the Supreme Court there must be no questions of integrity.
But who is investigating the Attorney General who failed to declare his relationship with Wilson. This is from an old Herald story.
Attorney-General Chris Finlayson also counts Wilson as a friend.
Finlayson and Wilson were partners at the same time in law firm Bell Gully until the judge left in 1996 to become a Queen’s Counsel.
In a statement provided to the Herald in December, the Attorney-General said his relationship with the judge was professional.
He has since added that he considers Wilson a friend although he has not been a guest at the judge’s home in the past five years.
Finlayson acted as the public intervener early in court hearings about whether the relationship between the judge and Galbraith could amount to the reasonable perception of possible bias.
As public intervener, a submission is filed, in the public interest.
It is made in the name of the Attorney-General but written by Crown Law and signed by the Solicitor-General, David Collins, QC.
At that early stage Collins wrote that Wilson’s version of disputed facts should be accepted.
He also said that on the facts then available there was no reason why the judge should have withdrawn from the case.
However, the submission was not updated to reflect relevant information Collins and Finlayson were sent in late July or early August – four months before the Supreme Court’s final ruling which determined that there was a reasonable perception of possible bias.
That information, which included that the judge was substantially in debt to the lawyer who had been pressing him for payment, came from respected retired appellate judge Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas who copied to Collins and Finlayson a letter and notes he sent to the Chief Justice.
Ouch. Former National candidate and law lecturer David Round launched a blistering attack on the Government’s foreshore and seabed proposals in the Weekend Press
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/3614257/Time-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand
“A betrayal of all non-Maori New Zealanders” from an insincere Attorney-General who “wants to sell us down the river”
“On the beaches we should draw a line in the sand,” says Round. Now where have we heard that before and from whom…
A couple of weeks ago, Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage, Christopher Finlayson, announced the first findings of his review into the Historic Places Act (HPA). Since his announcement there has been some angst amongst the heritage community over concerns that members and local communities will be excluded from being involved in the protection their community’s heritage.
The two proposals that Minister Finlayson has announced so far are:
Well it turns out Chris Finlayson was singing an entirely different tune when he was the opposition spokesperson for Arts, Culture and Heritage. Back in 2006 he attacked Labour over the Historic Places Amendment Bill including opposition to increasing the number of appointed board members:
“National says that is thoroughly undesirable. Six members should not be appointed by the Minister, with three elected by members of the trust. If anything, it should be the other way round.”
He went on to say:
“That is one of the primary reasons why National is totally opposed to this part of the bill. It undermines the principle of volunteerism. It more or less discards the huge contribution of volunteers to the preservation of our historic sites and historic buildings over the last 50 years… That is totally unsatisfactory.”
So, on the one hand he pays lip service to members of the HPT but now as Minister he’s undermining their ability to use their knowledge and experience in protecting heritage by cutting them off from funding.
On National Radio he basically said local communities were on their own:
Presenter: “They would also be freed, I presume, from funding from head office”
Finlayson: “Yeah, well, I am not a professional fundraiser, but I can think of a number of sources where funding will be available to enable them to do their job.”
If Finlayson knows of these sources, then I’m sure we’d all like to hear it.
Local communities have an important role in the protection of their community’s heritage. Undermining and cutting out local branches of the HPT ignores their ability to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand.
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]
He totally misrepresented the current legislation. Failed to mention that the air traffic excuse for this shocking bill was solved using the amendments passed under Labour last year.
Here is what he said, and what it means I think is that it is the intention of the government to force the bill through before Christmas with no Select Committee:
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour-Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: What has happened since compulsory rest and meal breaks for employees came into effect this year, which has led to her proposing changes to that legislation?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Labour): From complaints received by the Minister it has become clear, if it was not already, that not everyone has a cup of tea at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. and stops for lunch precisely at 1 p.m., except possibly Parliament when it is in urgency and, on most occasions, the courts. The changes are aimed at ensuring flexibility in the workplace by allowing employers and employees to time their breaks in a way that does not disrupt their work. The Government does not believe it should restrict the rights of employees to ask their employer if they can skip afternoon tea and go home a little earlier than usual in order to pick up their children from sports practice.
I opened my Sunday paper yesterday morning to read that NZ’s Attorney-General had jettisoned all the responsibility that comes with that position and adopted an entirely populist position on the criminal bar.
The only positive thing I can say about his speech is that at least he had the guts to deliver it to the NZ Bar Association, but his remarks were clearly intended for another audience. The kinds of barristers he was referring to would hardly turn up to a Bar Association meeting.
I think it is irresponsible to attack the minority when the majority, who undertake an unpopular but vital role in our criminal justice system, cannot defend themselves. This is just another example of the bullying approach various Ministers have adopted.
I believe that it is nothing more than a calculated attempt to ease the way to a radical reduction in eligibility for legal aid. I mean who cares about lawyers anyway? It’s a red herring though, because legal aid isn’t about lawyers; it’s about access to justice.
Until you have sat in an electorate office and heard a parent pour out their heart to you about a son or daughter who has gone off the rails, or who has suffered from a head injury that has changed their personality leading to offending, or who has turned to alcohol or gambling or both in response to a marriage breakdown and loss of contact with the kids and offended - the variety of circumstances that do not excuse offending behaviour, but which go some way to explaining it – you may not truly understand why legal aid is a vital component of our criminal justice system.
I am appalled at the A-G’s intemperate rant and can only imagine at why in his arrogance he appears to be so bitter.
