Today, the NZ Herald reported:
This clearly compromises the Solicitor-General and raises questions about what exactly Key was thanking them for? It's obviously not because they were just doing their job... considering their role in the teapot tape scandal.
There is no doubt that the Solicitor-General's office was acting on behalf of John Key, who got special treatment by what is meant to be an independent entity.
Here is an interesting question time on the matter from 27 March 2012, just after the police announced they would not be charging Bradley Ambrose:
The Solicitor General should not be acting on behalf of John Key. It's a constitutional corruption that must not be allowed.
Ambrose may have named the Attorney General in the proceedings, but why exactly the Solicitor-General was performing the function of the Attorney General, if not to represent the Prime Minister is not resolved.
Finlayson's reason for the Solicitor-General representing is basically because John Key got into trouble in a private capacity and this would impinge on his ability to function as the PM... so the crown was obliged to step in.
The Attorney-General subsequently also ditched their demand for nearly $14,000 in court costs from the freelance photographer, showing that they had no case and were simply bullying Ambrose with legal process. If that's not corruption I don't know what is.
Prime Minister John Key personally phoned Solicitor General David Collins to pass on his gratitude for work on the so-called teapot tape case, two days before the election.
The Solicitor General's office is meant to be kept strictly independent from all political influence.
However, an email obtained under the Official Information Act showed Collins wrote to an unnamed counsel saying: "The PM phoned this morning and asked me to pass on to you his personal thanks for your work on Ambrose. He was very complimentary notwithstanding my attempts to say you were just doing your jobs! Well done. D "
The email is dated November 24 and referred to Bradley Ambrose, a freelance photographer who left an electronic device on a table, inadvertently recording a conversation between Key and Act Party leader John Banks.
This clearly compromises the Solicitor-General and raises questions about what exactly Key was thanking them for? It's obviously not because they were just doing their job... considering their role in the teapot tape scandal.
There is no doubt that the Solicitor-General's office was acting on behalf of John Key, who got special treatment by what is meant to be an independent entity.
Here is an interesting question time on the matter from 27 March 2012, just after the police announced they would not be charging Bradley Ambrose:
Denis O’Rourke: The question was: is the Prime Minister embarrassed that the findings of the police into the matter do not stack up against his bravado about a police investigation during the election campaign?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister): There is no ministerial responsibility in this matter.
Hon David Parker: Has he been advised that it is improper for him to say of Mr Ambrose, or of any other person accused of wrongdoing—to quote the Prime Minister—“At the end of the day, his actions have been deemed unlawful.”, when no finding of wrongdoing has been made and Mr Ambrose has no way of defending himself?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no ministerial responsibility in this matter.
Hon Trevor Mallard: If there is no ministerial responsibility for this question, who was the Solicitor-General acting for in the court?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no responsibility for these matters in this House.
Denis O’Rourke: Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. A point of order has been called.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to reflect on whether that answer answered the question as to whom the Solicitor-General was acting for—whether it was the leader of the National Party or the Prime Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: The member’s question was certainly a specific question. It simply asked whom the Solicitor-General was acting for. In terms of the actions of the leader of the National Party at the time of the election campaign, that is certainly not a responsibility of the Prime Minister. Subsequent events are perhaps less clear; I am not sure. But the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister did not really address that particular issue: whom the Solicitor-General was acting for. I invite the Hon Gerry Brownlee, if he can—
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I take you to the primary question, which was in the name of Mr O’Rourke: “Has he received any recent reports or briefings from the Police?”, to which the answer was “No.”, because that could be very general. Mr O’Rourke then took it specifically to the so-called teapot incident. That is not a matter for ministerial responsibility. Therefore, any other question that might flow out of an answer like that would seem to be irrelevant in the circumstances.
Hon Trevor Mallard: The fact that the Prime Minister said there was no ministerial responsibility for any of this matter, effectively, is the very point that can be asked about, him having made that point, and that was exactly what I was doing. The Solicitor-General does not go to court—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is getting into the substance of the issue now. It is a tricky situation the House finds itself in, because there is no doubt that the police investigation was not a responsibility of the Prime Minister. The issues surrounding that were the responsibility of the leader of the National Party, not the Prime Minister. We have had this debate in this House many times before, so that is quite clear. The difficulty I am in as Speaker is that I cannot second-guess Ministers when they say matters are not their responsibility. That is a difficulty the Speaker has. I can understand why the member is asking the question. The question was a very straightforward, clear question. There was no imputation or anything. It was a straightforward, clear question. But the Minister, replying on behalf of the Prime Minister, and saying there is no ministerial responsibility on behalf of the Prime Minister leaves the Speaker in a difficult position, because I am not in a position to really judge that. That is why I really have to accept the Minister’s view of that. And I really cannot, happily with advice, start disagreeing with Ministers over issues of responsibility; unless I have very, very good knowledge, I am getting into very dangerous territory, I think.
Denis O’Rourke: Does the Prime Minister still believe that the tape-recording was a “very serious matter” given the police decision not to lay charges?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no ministerial responsibility for this matter in this House.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it might help the House, for the sake of clarity. Although I am not prepared to answer on behalf of the Prime Minister questions that relate to this matter, because it was a role for him outside of his responsibilities as Prime Minister, it is worth noting that the leader of the National Party had his own legal representation in this matter, not the Attorney-General, as alleged by Mr O’Rourke.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is getting into—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, you put me in that position.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are starting to get beyond what points of order allow. I realise that this is a sensitive issue and it is on quite tricky ground. That is why I have been careful not to rule too quickly on matters. But if I remember correctly, the Hon Trevor Mallard asked about the Solicitor-General, not the Attorney-General. I accept, though, the point the Minister is making. I fully accept the fact that matters relating to the teapot tape are not matters that are the responsibility of the Prime Minister. That is very clear. The other matter I am less clear on, but I totally accept the Minister’s advice on that matter because I have got to be careful not to second-guess Ministers on such matters.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do want to disagree with you on the ruling that you have just made. Although the original incident was certainly as leader of the National Party, since that time—including as recently as yesterday—the Prime Minister has, while being part of a trip to Korea, commented and been quoted as Prime Minister on this incident.
Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point of order is absolutely correct, as I understand the situation, and the Prime Minister can be questioned on those matters.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This is no different from some of the hoops that a previous Prime Minister was put through on two occasions when Ministers outside of her immediate Cabinet were engaged in various issues that took them into a role as leader of their parties and she responded outside of this House as leader of the party, although at all times she was Prime Minister. That is how it works. There is nothing clever in what Mr Mallard—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was happy to listen to the honourable Minister until that point. He should not comment. The point the Hon Trevor Mallard was making was that he accepts that the actions of the Rt Hon John Key as leader of the National Party about the teapot tape and any referral to the police were not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. However, the Hon Trevor Mallard has made a point that the Prime Minister has released under the Prime Minister’s name comment on the matter in public by way of public statement. As to the Prime Minister’s comments in respect of those comments or statements, the Prime Minister can be questioned on those statements he has made, because he put those statements out under the name of the Prime Minister, and he can be questioned on those matters that he has commented on as Prime Minister, not as leader of the National Party. That is very clear.
Denis O’Rourke: Has the Prime Minister sought or received any information on how many elderly New Zealand First supporters died during the course of the police investigation?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is so far from the primary question as to be ruled out. Supplementary question, the Hon David Parker. [Interruption] Order! I want to hear the Hon David Parker’s question.
Hon David Parker: Does he believe that it was proper for him as Prime Minister yesterday to say in respect of Mr Ambrose: “At the end of the day, his actions have been deemed unlawful.”, when no such finding of wrongdoing has been made, and Mr Ambrose has no way of defending himself?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is an interesting suggestion. Perhaps I should say that I cannot answer that on behalf of the Prime Minister; I have not seen those statements.
Solicitor-General—Appearances in Court Relating to Prime Minister’s Interests During Election Campaigns
5. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Attorney-General: How often has the Solicitor-General appeared in Court representing the Crown in cases involving the interests of a Prime Minister during an election campaign?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : The Solicitor-General does not appear before courts on behalf of the private interests of Ministers. The Solicitor-General’s role involves appearing before the courts on behalf of the Crown. The Crown is constantly involved in litigation, regardless of whether there is an election on. The member may in fact be referring to a case called Ambrose v The Attorney-General, which was the subject of an earlier question. It may help if I say this: the Solicitor-General became involved in that case because the Attorney-General had been named as a defendant by Mr Ambrose. The Prime Minister was represented by his own legal counsel. The proceeding was an application under the Declaratory Judgments Act, and paragraph (2) of the statement of claim named the Attorney-General as defendant and what they call default contradictor. Section 9A of the Constitution Act says that the Solicitor-General can perform a function conferred on the Attorney-General. The Solicitor-General in the case submitted that although the Attorney-General is not the appropriate default contradictor in applications under the Declaratory Judgments Act, in the context of this particular application he was properly named, because the relief sought, if granted, would have impinged on the prosecutorial discretion and prerogative powers of the Crown. Those points were noted by Her Honour when she delivered judgment some days later.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A very long answer, but my question—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unnecessary under a point of order, and the member knows that. In fact, if the member is going to say that his question was not answered, as I understand what the Minister said he pointed out that the Solicitor-General does not appear in cases involving individual Ministers. If I understand what the Attorney-General said, the Solicitor-General appears on behalf of the Crown, and the Attorney-General went on to explain why the Solicitor-General became involved in this case—because of Ambrose, if I understand what the Minister said, naming the Attorney-General in the proceedings in some way. That was a very full answer to the member’s question. Clearly, the Solicitor-General does not appear on behalf of Ministers.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your first reprimand. It is clear from the question that I am aware that the Solicitor-General represents the Crown. My question asks: “How often has the Solicitor-General appeared in Court representing the Crown …”; that is in the question. Then it goes on to say: “in cases involving the interests of a Prime Minister during an election campaign?”, and that has not been answered.
Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the member is saying his question is simply asking how often the Solicitor-General has appeared in court representing the Crown, involving matters relating to an election campaign, I accept that maybe that point has not been answered clearly. If the Attorney-General wished to make any further comment on that, that would be helpful.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I referred to Ambrose v The Attorney-General, which was such a case.
Hon David Parker: What was the point of principle that was so important that it justified the use of the power of the State against the media during an election, including the execution of search warrants and the Solicitor-General appearing in a court case, and is now so unimportant that Mr Key is dropping his complaint?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The point of principle was elaborated by the Solicitor-General in his submission to the court. It was a multifaceted question. I choose to focus on what the Solicitor-General submitted, and that is that although the Attorney-General was not the appropriate default contradictor in general applications under the Declaratory Judgments Act, in the context of this application he was properly named because the relief sought, if granted, would have impinged on the prosecutorial discretion and prerogative powers of the Crown. That is the important point of principle.
Hon David Parker: Will the Solicitor-General intervene on behalf of any other New Zealander who considers their privacy breached, or is this special privilege reserved for National Party Prime Ministers campaigning in Epsom?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I will avoid the temptation to comment on the special privilege point. The Solicitor-General has intervened, and will continue to intervene, in matters that affect the public interest. It is not possible to outline all the circumstances in the future where those conditions may apply, but that is the sole criterion in determining when there is a Solicitor-General intervention.
Hon David Parker: What advice has he received from the Solicitor-General about lessons learnt from the public release of last night’s taped conversation between President Obama and President Medvedev, and what was it about John Key’s and John Bank’s conversation in Epsom that made it more sensitive than a conversation between the Presidents of the United States and Russia?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have no responsibility for answering questions on behalf of Mr Key as leader of the National Party, nor Mr Banks as the candidate for Epsom, nor Mr Obama, nor the President of Russia.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a statement made by Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess, in which he makes it clear that Mr Ambrose’s actions were unlawful.
Mr SPEAKER: Is this just a media statement?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is a media release by the police—clearly, not read by the Opposition.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is sufficient. No, we do not table media releases.
The Solicitor General should not be acting on behalf of John Key. It's a constitutional corruption that must not be allowed.
Ambrose may have named the Attorney General in the proceedings, but why exactly the Solicitor-General was performing the function of the Attorney General, if not to represent the Prime Minister is not resolved.
Finlayson's reason for the Solicitor-General representing is basically because John Key got into trouble in a private capacity and this would impinge on his ability to function as the PM... so the crown was obliged to step in.
The Attorney-General subsequently also ditched their demand for nearly $14,000 in court costs from the freelance photographer, showing that they had no case and were simply bullying Ambrose with legal process. If that's not corruption I don't know what is.
