Stephen Franks is a nationally known lawyer, expert in company and securities law, and law reform.
After early general practice he spent two years in the Office of the Ombudsmen then joined Chapman Tripp in 1979, became a partner in 1981 and served as Chairman of the firm’s National Board. He had six years in Parliament, then four back as a consultant with Chapman Tripp before establishing in July 2009 a specialty law firm, Franks & Ogilvie (Commercial and Public Law Limited) to focus on the intersection of government and commerce.
Stephen ran a vigorous campaign for election in 2008 as the National Party candidate for Wellington Central but the seat was retained by Labour.
He’s been a member of the Securities Commission, the Council of the IOD, and the NZ Stock Exchange’s Market Surveillance Panel. In 2009/10 he served on the Minister of Energy’s expert advisory group on the electricity market structure.
He advised the New Zealand Dairy Board on the route to the creation of Fonterra, the Ministry of Commerce in drafting the Electricity Industry Reform Act, Telecom New Zealand during its privatisation and initial international public offering and the World Bank on legal aspects of corporatisation and privatisation.
Other current interests include a 2,000ha manuka and grazing block, mountain biking, and kayaking. Stephen is married to Catharine and they have four young adult children.
Director Stephen Franks writes on his blog about the unusual situation where some Councillors have tried to put forward voluntary reductions in their salary in response to Covid-19 but have been thwarted by Remuneration Authority. Stephen argues that actually there is a legislative ability for this to occur. To read more, visit Stephen's blog post here.
The first lockdown Order on 24 March, was sweeping and lawful. It restricted congregation in outdoor spaces and the operation of businesses. But in the immediate (conflicting) explanations “essentiality”started to dominate as the key test and purpose, instead of safety risk – the likelihood of assisting contagion. Leaders should get some slack –oversimplification is understandable in an emergency.
But they’ve had time to refine their rules. In the updated Order of 3 April, they doubled down on some restrictions of least benefit for cost. In consequence, in our firm’s legal opinion, important aspects of that 3 April Order are ultra vires – outside the authority of the statutes from which they claim authority.
Bluntly, that is because the continuing prohibitions are avoidably costly and more than is necessary to confine infection. Particularly as applied to activities that are outdoors, or solo, and can be conducted safely within distancing and contact disciplines.
We first formed that view when researching the lawfulness of some Police pronouncements for a client. We (and the client) were anxious to support the scheme. But also keen to get official attention on the collaborative ways that successful countries like South Korea and Taiwan and Singapore had been able to maintain substantial production through their crisis responses.
Over the weekend we wrote to the Prime Minister asking for explanation, and outlining our concerns.
Our purpose in writing is not to disrupt, or distract or to undermine necessary community solidarity. Instead we are concerned that unless the government makes it plain that it will quickly progress phased and selective modification of the regime for essential businesses, the current community consensus will unravel. We have seen promising signs with the relaxation for smaller food manufacturers. But now we need government to invite businesses to come up with their next phase plans. No government will have the capacity to micro-manage and initiate all the design and planning now overdue, and essential.
At present, from what we are hearing, too many businesses could be optimistic about a speedy return to normal. They are pinning their hopes on Alert 4 only lasting another fortnight. Current good trends in infection reports mean it could end on time.But even if it does, what follows will not be a return to how things were before.
Singapore’s move to lockdown this week is significant. They were an early success, and still are, considering that their position puts them into a different universe of risk, from New Zealand.
We are advising clients to take the initiative. The government may move back and forward between levels for a time (and in future pandemics). In the case of COVID -19 New Zealand may be left uniquely vulnerable, paradoxically because of our success.Other countries will have herd immunity, albeit at great cost. We may have little immunity.
Businesses should be able to go to a receptive government showing how they will manage infection risks after the first transition. And to demand release from inefficient and pointless restrictions as soon as they have that plan – not on an arbitrary date after incalculable greater losses of livelihoods.
Read our letter to the Prime Minister here
Contact Stephen or Brigitte if you would like further information including assistance in getting from anti-contagion plan to release to work.
Director Stephen Franks joined RNZ's The Panel discussing the latest on coronavirus including the government's business support package, whats happening in the supermarkets and what the economic outlook is. You can listen here
