Stephen Franks, Act party, Wellington Central

Stephen Franks

Stephen Franks, Act list MP and one of Parliament's vigilant legal eagles, talks with Herald political editor Audrey Young.

You are standing in Wellington Central against Labour's Marian Hobbs and National's Mark Blumsky. Do you think your chances will be improved after his late-night encounters in a stairwell?

Undoubtedly. Before his escapade I sent a flyer to all households saying "Vote Blumsky with your electorate vote and give Act your party vote," but I also said that was unless for any reason National's campaign in Wellington Central collapses. It was just the lawyer in me that said, "He looks as if he should get it now but if he stumbles we'd be after that seat like a robber's dog."

So has he stumbled and will you be after it like a robber's dog?

I don't think so. I don't think it has changed the basic logic of most people, that they know him as popular ex-mayor.

What's with National and Act? Could National help you to survive if it wanted?

Yes, in the same way that Labour is assisting the Greens and with exactly the same logic.

You sat on the constitution select committee that issued its report this week. What do think about it?

The committee rightly decided if you don't know where you are going and you don't know if you will get there, don't start. It's like jumping across a creek. Don't start the jump unless you know you can get right across.

But we recommended a parliamentary committee that should say when legislation has constitutional significance. Quite a lot of the changes that have been made in treaty [law] were made without people noticing what was going on. Sticking partnership obligations into the charters of every school set people on to a course away from democracy and one-person, one-vote towards a negotiated power sharing. I hope this committee will have its antennae up for that kind of change.

What's you ideal constitutional arrangement?

It would be a written constitutional with entrenched basic rights but it's a pipe dream for us at the moment. You get those sorts of things in the exhaustion after a civil war or a big external threat and people focus on the things that unite them - their core values.

What is the single most important thing you would want to do as an individual if you are back?

I would like to be the Minister of Justice and restore 1960s or better crime figures. I think it is easily achievable but it requires a revolution in thinking.

What is the most important accomplishment in your six years in Opposition?

I have repeatedly stood up and said the Emperor has no clothes on legislation great and small.

Do you have any regrets?

Yes. I wish I had learned earlier that the detail becomes irrelevant; that the political process and our media are interested in essence. It has taken me a very long while to learn that skating is the way you do it. I came from years of having to be complete and accurate and it took me a long while to accept that completeness and accuracy were far less important than immediacy and brevity.

Did Act lose its way and become diverted into issues like law and order and the treaty from its raison d'etre, low tax?

I don't think so. I simply think people weren't interest in low tax, and in a democracy you have to think about the things that are worrying people. I certainly don't think we've lost our way. I think we have exercised great leadership in the criminal justice areas.

We are going to end up with the worst of all possible worlds: huge prison population, long sentences, and high crime rates because the anointed who have been running the system are apologetic about punishment and see criminals as victims. It's a 30-year experiment that has failed.

What will you miss most about Parliament if you are not returned?

Involvement on those sorts of issues. There is lots of money to be made exploiting the stupidities of the law. It has been great to be here trying to eliminate some of them.