Chris Finlayson bows out – but first he shares his thoughts on good governance

Chris  Finlayson  always  stood  out  as  an exceptional  talent in  the  Key-English  Cabinets  and    his   work in  progressing  treaty settlements  is one of the great legacies  from  that  period of  National  government.

So, at a  time  when New  Zealanders’  faith  in  the role of the  State has been severely shaken by government agencies “spying” on citizens, Finlayson applied his formidable intellect in his last speech in  Parliament to point  the  way   ahead.

He told  a  crowded  House  in  his  valedictory he had  great respect for the  institution, but there will be much to do in the years to come, including reviewing the role of the State. 

We  need to continue to update  our  constitution…. We need to review the Treaty of Waitangi Act. There have been some complaints recently that insufficient attention is paid to the tribunal’s recommendations; it would help if they were more practical. The “shares plus” decision, for example, was described as incoherent and ignoring basic principles of company law”.

Turning  to the  relationship  between Parliament and the courts, Finlayson  said:

One of the things that amazes me in this place is that there really is a lack of practical understanding of the separation of powers.  For example, the Ministry of Justice constantly fails to recognise the judiciary as a separate branch of Government, and sometimes the courts overstep the mark with Parliament when they go too far with Parliamentary privilege.

“We passed the Parliamentary Privilege Act. Now, Parliament must deal with the consequences of the prisoner voting case. Parliament could nullify the decision, as we did in 2014, or recognise the court’s jurisdiction, provided Parliament makes it clear that there is no jurisdiction to strike down legislation. This will be an intensely important issue for Parliament in 2019. I shall be watching it with great interest from the sidelines”.

On  Parliamentary  terms, Finlayson  believes  they should run for  four years:  three years is too short.

A longer term will make for an effective Parliament. The proposal to lengthen the term failed in a referendum many years ago. It’s time to revisit the issue.

“How long should MPs be permitted to serve? Imposition of term limits is a non-starter, but I think there should be a compulsory sabbatical after five three-year terms or four four-year terms — don’t look at me like that. A break would allow MPs to re-enter the real world and, if they are odd enough to want to come back, well, they can do so”.

Finlayson  sees  party funding,  which has  been in the limelight  recently,  as another  key issue  due for  reform. He has become concerned about funding of political parties by non-nationals.

That’s why I think both major parties need to work together to review the rules relating to funding. I have a personal view that it should be illegal for non-nationals to donate to our political parties. Our political system belongs to New Zealanders, and I don’t like the idea of foreigners funding it. Similar concerns are now starting to be raised in other jurisdictions, and we need to work together, without recrimination, to ensure that our democracy remains our democracy”.

On  how should MPs be paid,  he believes the key principle is that those in public life should have no say in what they are paid – their pay should be determined by an independent body. This principle has been undermined in recent times, and so all MPs are going to need to work together over the next year to establish the principles for remuneration once and for all, and then leave the issue to the remuneration authority. There will always be criticism of MP’s pay.

Finlayson  noted that when he delivered his maiden speech in November 2005, he said the liberal conservative was concerned to govern for the public good and the national interest, confident in the knowledge that this is a great country full of talented and decent people.

“Other countries have problems; New Zealand has a project—an exciting, sometimes difficult, but nevertheless achievable project. As I give my last speech in the House today in the same place where I started, I stand by those words. I’m very pleased to be going, but grateful I’ve had the opportunity to serve.

“There will be much to do in the years to come, but can I ask my colleagues if they would mind attending to the following for me: reviewing the role of the State. I think the SOE model is past its use-by date; in particular, Landcorp needs to go and its farms need to be sold to iwi. In my nine years as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations, I regret to say,I always found Landcorp difficult and uncooperative”.

Finlayson’s last message  was  to the  voters: “NZ  needs a liberal conservative Government in 2020. Some say we have no friends; I think friendship’s overrated — just a joke. But I actually think we’re turning back into a two-party State”.

 

 

2 thoughts on “Chris Finlayson bows out – but first he shares his thoughts on good governance

  1. Couldn’t disagree more! This man who was never elected and indeed proved quite incapable of ever getting elected, didn’t settle anything and simply provided more and more money and power for the tribal elite to continue their struggle for more and more power and money. He seems absolutely incapable in the way that Geoffrey Palmer also shared, in seeing that the policies that he promoted could and would create not just an increasingly unequal and racially based society but one that will have problems even worse than those he occasionally claimed to be ‘solving’.
    He even says correctly that Landcorp need to go but then says that it should be owned by iwi-no doubt avoiding paying any tax either.
    How can someone in his position have been so incredibly unable to see the principles that he was violating is really beyond me.
    I sincerely hope that his legacy will be seen in the toxic terms it deserves.
    His only ‘talent’ was on the darkside.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A sharp intellect but flawed. The massive claims for the coastline and seabed under National’s Marine and Coastal Areas Act, where Maori claimants are funded by the State but non-Maori challengers have to pay their own costs, will be his most toxic legacy. And why should Landcorp farms be sold only to iwi? I was shocked when he accused Prof Anne Marie-Brady, hopefully soon to be New Zealander of the Year, of racism for documenting Chinese Communist Party penetration of our political establishment. Good riddance.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.