Dr Finlay replies to super. comment

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34130, 17 April 1976, Page 14

Dr Finlay replies to super. comment

Comment by Sir John Marshall in “The Press” on April 9 on the suspension of the Superannuation Act is criticised by’ lhe former AttorneyGeneral, Dr A. M. Finlay, in a letter to the editor of “The Press.”

| “Sir John Marshall makes ithe point that the Governiment is open to criticism for suspending the New Zealand Superannuation Act ‘by newspaper pronouncement’ rather than revoking it byact of Parliament; and so is the Attorney-General (Mr Wilkinson) for staying prosecutions under the act, but only if each of these actions is taken in isolation,’’ said Dr Finlay. “That, surely, is the whole point of the argument. They should not, must not, and cannot be considered separately. Each is part of the whole pattern; without one the other would not have happened. No one has doubted the capacity of the Attorney-General to act as he did. I “The Summary- Proceedings Act explicitly authorises him to stay a prosecution. and while the power is more often exercised by

, the Solicitor-General than the Attorney-General, any such action is final and not appeal able.

“It is not true, as Sir John claimed that ‘the staying of a criminal prosecution pending the repeal of legislation can only be permanently effected if Parliament does in fact endorse and validate this action.’

“It may well be ‘common sense’ to do so in certain situations, but to do it for plainly political reasons is inexcusable. As the Attor-ney-General himself has admitted, it. is a dangerous precedent for the future.

“The Government has a mandate to repeal the Superannuation Act. Let there be no mistake about that. Let there be no mistake too, about this — it is not just a matter of tearing the relevant pages out c.' the Statlute Book, or putting a blue pencil through them. I “A number of con-' sequential matters call for Iconsideration, such as, fori example, what happens to I I the provision for employers' | contributions built into all | tenders accepted before De-1 icember last. Should the ten-; I derer be remunerated orj [compensated for payments i he will not now be making?

[ "Sir John writes ponderously about the 'important economic and administrative I initiatives which the new I Government has before it’ and how the calling of Parliament would interfere with this. Balderdash! I am surprised that one of his eminence should yield to such anti-democratic sentiments.

“More and more newspapers (a majority of the metropolitan dailies) have editorially criticised the actions of both the Government and the Attorney-Gen-eral.

“They must be seen and condemned together. for I what they are, a totally unjustified abuse of the democratic process serving no more than the convenience of a political party and the ambition of its leader to ■prove’ himself as a deci-sion-maker and a compulsive power-wielder. “Mr Wilkinson may have acted independently of his colleagues, but he did not need to be told or think hard to know what, would please his master. “If you read Sir John’s article carefully, you will see that he sustains every ■point made by the Opposikion.’’-