The two main opposition parties are suggesting conflicts of interest may arise from the Labour Government's decision to give both the Justice and Police ministerial portfolios to the same person.
That person is Ginny Anderson, who was already Minister of Police and has now been given the role of Minister of Justice.
She inherited the Justice portfolio after the incumbent Kiri Allan was arrested following a car crash at the weekend.
Critics of the move suggest that the two roles, Justice and Police, have different focuses and combining them in one person will create internal conflicts.
In a statement, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins actually praised the idea, saying that aligning the Justice and Police portfolios would be important to help pass ram raid legislation and make sure young offenders face more accountability for their crimes.
But several questioners suggested that while both police and justice deal with similar issues, they are supposed to approach them from different perspectives, and combining them in one person could create a conflict of interest.
Asked about this, Hipkins said this had been done before, and he referred to Annette King holding both roles in Helen Clark's Government. But he concedes there is a question to be faced up to in giving the two portfolios to one person.
"There are a few areas of conflict, they are small ones, and they are handled by way of delegation.
"So for instance, an Associate Minister of Justice will pick up those areas where the portfolio potentially has a conflict with the police portfolio."
But Hipkins then went on to defend the principle of combining the two roles.
"There is a logic in bringing the portfolios together given the issue we are dealing with at present, when there is a clear interface between the work that Justice is doing in the policy space and the the work police are doing in the operational space."
But Hipkins' view cuts no ice with Act Party leader David Seymour.
"It is certainly true that there are conflicting accountabilities between Police and Justice," he says.
"The police are supposed to be restrained by the rule of law, the Minister of Police is supposed to represent the police and the Minister of Justice is supposed to represent the rule of law and the courts, so there is a tension there that is not being accounted for."
Seymour says he would never combine the two roles in one person. And he says the Prime Minister's pledge to separate out decision making when there is a conflict does not make sense because "there is almost always a conflict."
Meanwhile the leader of the National Party takes a similar view.
'There will be conflicts [of interest] in those two portfolios," Christopher Luxon says.
"I take the Prime Minister at his word that there will be delegated authorities for associate ministers to manage those tensions.
"But here we go, again, another Justice Minister after four different police ministers, at a time, when New Zealanders do not feel safe in their homes, the businesses and their communities.
"They do not feel safe and they are right to not feel safe."
Meanwhile Luxon says the whole drama is a distraction from the problems that face the public every day.
"The Government is focusing on itself and not on the New Zealand people who are doing it incredibly tough out there."
Luxon says he feels for Allan and hopes she gets the support she needs.
But the wider issue is a Government not facing up to the real problems facing New Zealanders.
"They are facing recession, rising levels of crime and a healthcare and education system that are falling apart.
"Here we are, yet again, another week, discussing drama and personnel issues within the Labour Government, which is not focusing on the New Zealand people.
"The people deserve better than this,"
Luxon says he travels New Zealand regularly and people understand that New Zealand is going in the wrong direction and that this Government is broken.
And he faults the culture and leadership of the Government for all this trouble.
"As a former executive and CEO, you want to make sure that your leadership team is functioning, and that they are all contributing and delivering...and where they are not delivering you make changes."
27 Comments
There absolutely is a conflict of interest between the two portfolios - and there should be an arms length arrangement. It can easily be argued it breaches the separation of duties between the Executive and Judiciary - as per the link below, an underpinning requirement of Democratic Political systems. Israel is currently tearing itself apart over this exact issue as the executive tries to undermine the Judiciary system.
https://www.districtcourts.govt.nz/about-the-courts/the-judicial-branch…
but Hipkins doesn't care - this is actually just about raising the profile of a candidate that won her 2020 Lower Hutt seat by just 2000 votes. A seat that once upon a time was a safe Labour seat - but demographic changes has made it highly contestable.
The Police enforce the law and they also prosecute the law, in court. In effect this amalgamation of the Police and Justice portfolios creates the prosecutor and judge n the one identity. Helen Clark should have known better full stop. The appointment of Annette King as such was just as much a mistake as this appointment now. Hells bells what sort of Cabinet is PM Hipkins going to offer up to the electorate in October if the existing talent in caucus is so thin and overloaded. It looks like a beaten, burnt out footy team, late in the second half, with nothing on the bench.
I'd call a political system failing to put even a law abiding citizen as a minister an utter failure.
The election system has not been functioning for about 20 years and it will put more and more incompetent parties and persons in charge of running this country. And you are living in the consequence now!
'As the days grew shorter and the nights cooler, the atmosphere in the theater was buzzing with anticipation. The current troupe of clowns, known for their slapstick humor and colorful antics, was nearing the end of their run. Whispers and murmurs filled the backstage corridors as the word spread that soon, a fresh ensemble of clowns would take the stage.' - ChatGPT
True no minister of either portfolio ought to “rule” on any court decision. But that is after the event isn’t it. The potential of conflict arises before the event. To put it simplistically the police should have no ability, before trial, to influence the decision making of any judge any more than a judge the operation or direction of the police prosecution. Having both arms under the control of ,and answering to, the same identity creates very obvious potential conflict. Without wishing to invoke Godwin, if you study the prowess of Herman Goering in the Reichstag in the 1930s you will see, at an extreme admittedly, how the functions of police and judiciary can be dangerously intertwined and resultantly compromised.
like owning 7 rental properties then bringing back interest deductabilty and brightline test.
give me a break all politicians see conflicts of interest when it is not them involved
ACT candidate and outgoing Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard says he didn’t disclose his party membership while negotiating with the Government,
all sides have conflicts all over the place NZ is a small country , at the moment red team are in so all the focus is on them but when blue team get in the focus will shift and they are just as bad, if you have a long memory you will remember a lot of things going back a long way for all sides.
if it was not funny you would remember the perk buster getting busted for rorting perks , or how about the minister going to prison for getting work permits for people to work on his properties
do not get me started on some of the people lined up by NZ first to come in if he makes it back some of them have some really strange theorys and beliefs
The Minister that was sent to jail for getting work permits for his personal workers (if that was exactly the situation) was a Labour Government Minister. So, my recollection over some time is that the "red team" seem to have far more instances of being 'caught out' that do the other side of politics. Perhaps Labour people are just far more incompetent, rather than simply devious, than the rest. Judging by the current crop we have in Cabinet and their performance over recent years then that may well be the explanation.
Is this going to be competent newly appointed revenue minister?
from newshub article today
"Parker believed his successor, former tax lawyer Barbara Edmonds, would do a good job."
"She told Newshub she had no personal view on a wealth or capital gains tax and the "Prime Minister has ruled it out"."
Simple solution to that problem. You put all the gang members in one prison, and all the non-gang members in another prison. That way the gangs cannot use prison to recruit. Anyone caught doing so, gets moved to the gang prison. Plus do what other countries have done, increased prison time for gang affiliated crimes, to keep them out of the community for longer, they cannot recruit and are discouraged from joining in the first place.
Sweden has finally seen the light after a surge in gang related crime from their previous "go soft on criminals" policies.
"planned measures such as mandatory detention in more cases, stricter punishments for gang-related crime, and double punishment for gang criminals"
https://www.thelocal.se/20230418/sweden-could-need-up-to-16-new-prisons…
Or would you rather they are just allowed to run around shooting people?
Evidence for your $200k ? 2022 published number was $151k.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/exclusive-expensive-failure-new-zealands-….
Corrections is largely a fixed cost so cost per prisoner has increased in line with Labours proactively reducing the prison population. Put them all back in prison where they belong and the cost pp will reduce.
Yes.
The government (and I don't just mean this one, although it does seem particularly bad) pisses money away on all sorts of pet projects. I mean how many crims could we lock up for the cost of a rapidly-expiring overstock of RAT tests, for example?
Keeping the public safe is a core government function, perhaps the most important one of all. If it costs $200k PA to lock up a violent crim, so be it. I'd rather my taxes go to that than paying for some of the crap we've forked out for recently.
We absolutely need to try and reform offenders while we can. I do not want to see NZ become the United States, you shouldn't be whacked with a criminal record for drug possession, or minor crime (in the first instance) and I think that we should throw everything and the kitchen sink at trying to stop offenders early in their 'careers' through education, social programs etc as they will always be less expensive. If that means I have to pay tax for social programs that I don't directly benefit from, or which my kids don't get because they aren't growing up in relative deprivation, that's no problem.
That being said, an offender's right to have a second chance shouldn't override the public's right to safety. If you are a violent offender, and particularly if you are gang affiliated because that involves being willingly involved in an inherently criminal, anti-social enterprise, you should be prevented from being in a position where you might cause harm to the general public until such time as you can prove you aren't going to go out and commit violent crime again - if that means we spend $1 million on your incarceration over five years, so be it. If you can't be reformed, then enjoy the porridge I guess.
Take the Auckland shooter. I believe the government (or at least Waka Kotahi) places the value of a life at around $5 million NZD. He killed two people - that's $10 million in costs, if you can reduce a person's life to a $ value like that. Locking him up for five years after he strangled his partner - which is generally accepted as being one of the most sinister forms of violence - would have been good value by comparison.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.