Abstract:
Accountability and transparency are essential to the proper functioning of democracy in New Zealand. The Attorney-General is critical to constitutional arrangements by which he upholds both legal and political functions. This paper serves to describe, analyse and critique each of the Attorney-General’s specific roles and assess their relative frameworks for accountability using Bovens framework. As the Law Officer of government, named representative in Crown proceedings and the link between the Executive and the Judiciary, the Attorney-General permeates all three branches of government. Ultimately, this paper aims to expose the lack of forums available that can question the Attorney-General’s decisions and initiate consequences. It serves to diagnose, but not resolve, the accountability flaws. Some options for greater transparency and review are suggested, which derive from a comparative analysis with the United Kingdom. Finally, this paper looks at options outside formal accountability that assist with keeping the Attorney-General in check. Conventions, a sense of duty and the need for a lawyer to occupy the position contribute to the overall control of the role.
