An abuse of urgency
June 25th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarParliament this week passed the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill into law.
The bill amended the Policing Act to allow police officers to stand for local councils under the same rules as other state servants.
I supported the law change, and it was in fact in National’s 2008 election policy, so there is a mandate for the change. I believe Labour voted for the bill also.
So why am I unhappy? I am unhappy because the Government passed it through all three readings under urgency, without referring it to a select committee.
There are effectively two sorts of urgency. The most common use of urgency is merely to extend the sitting hours of the House from 6.5 hours a day to 12.5 hours a day. I have few problems with that, so long as the Government keeps question time going.
But urgency sometimes is used to avoid a bill going to a select committee, and to pass it into law within a day or two. This is a necessary power for bills that are genuinely urgent. Common use is excise tax changes and sometimes in the early days of a new Government it is justified so some policies can be implemented immediately.
I do not believe there was a good justification for the bill to bypass the select committee stage. It doesn’t matter that it was inevitable it would be passed anyway as both National and Labour supported it. We, the public, were robbed of the chance to submit on it. The select committees are our voice.
Without an upper or second house, they are even more important. Bypassing them should happen as rarely as possible.
Some may argue it had to be passed in time for the local body elections. I agree, but it could have been introduced to Parliament earlier, or the Select Committee could have been given a shorter than normal (six months normally) period to report back.
Now this is a very simple bill for which there was an election mandate. But using urgency to bypass select committee sets a bad precedent, when it is, in fact, not urgent.
Labour used urgency to do some outrageous things – the worse being a retrospective amendment to the Electoral Act to save Harry Duynhoven after he invalidated his seat. This is a long way removed from that, but it remains a bad thing to do. The select committee process should not be seen as an optional extra.
Tags: Parliament, urgency
June 25th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Thank you.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Disagree David.
It’s late June now and the elections are in October; if police officers are to have sufficent time to decide whether to stand for council, they need ample time to make a decision. As it is this leaves them little time to do so, but a select committee process for what was inevitable would be terribly unfair.
Yes it should/could have gone through earlier; but considering the law change is restoring a basic democratic right available to every other law-abiding citizen, why go through a select committee hearing where we would get either:
Vote:a. a lot of people rightly agreeing,
b. a minority arguing to deny another group a core human right.
June 25th, 2010 at 11:39 am
This law change has some history. Greg o’Connor maintains the initial restriction was promoted by NZ First (Ron Mark?) as a vindictive response to some local issue. If this is the case a return to the status quo by way of urgency seems reasonable.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 11:41 am
A core human right?
Hardly, maybe a democratic right.
The issue is not if Police are humans too, but if there could be any inherent conflict of interest, abuse of power or being put in a situation allowing blackmail, bribery or corruption.
I think David’s right in principle, but your point speaks to a reasonable level of pragmatism on this matter. Trouble is what some people think maybe acceptable pragmatism others may not, so we follow laws and conventions. After so many years of “human rights abuse” what difference does one more election make? Or would having a short period to register a submission indicate if there were genuine public issues being raised which would confirm whether to continue in urgency or slow down and listen to the arguments.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Mr Elbow,
This post from Dean Knight at VUW Law School might help show why there are concerns about allowing Police to also serve on local authorities.
http://www.laws179.co.nz/2010/06/constables-local-councils-and.html
Even if you think it is OK for them to do so as a substantive issue, the importance of the issue and the existence of disagreement over it means that rushing the change through without public debate is dodgy in terms of process. And if the Government can’t arrange its legislative timetable to allow for such debate … well, that’s a fuck up for which it deserves criticism.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 11:57 am
@trout: “If this is the case a return to the status quo by way of urgency seems reasonable.”
Bit more complex than this. Parliament actually provided a power to ban the police serving on local authorities back in the 1970s … however, the regulations necessary to implement that ban were never made, so it police technically remained able to stand and be elected. The Policing Act 2008 formalised the ban in primary legislation – i.e. the House decided they couldn’t serve, rather than leaving it up to the Minister to decide whether or not this should be allowed.
This Bill removes ANY power to stop police standing/serving (provided the police service itself agrees that the officer can do so as “secondary employment”).
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I’m with Farrar: urgency was a bad idea, but what a wonderful law! Who better to enforce the law than the people who drafted it? Separation of powers is totally overrated. We should welcome this greater merger of the police with the state. Surely there’s some clever term combining the two words to describe the potential new and wonderful state of affairs.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Abuse of urgency??? No Government could get its business done unless it passes an extended sitting hours motion from time to time. The select committee process scrutinises legislation to exhaustion. Legislation these days is far too complex to have a house of 120 mps poke and paw at it. The term”urgency” should be dropped, it conjures up far too much emotion even in you.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
With a name like Mr Elbow presumably you are a Policeman.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10654231
I think the Police should get there own ethical affairs in order by implementing the Bazely reforms before they worry about meddling in Local Government. The Police should be treated differently because they are an objectively different group. This is called the rule of law.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
tvb
You might actually want to read DPF’s post. Because, with all due respect, your comment makes NO sense whatsoever.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Hear hear, Mr Crampton! One worries what abuse of powers this Government will think of next!
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Thats hardly a first AG.
Unless aliens are about to invade there’s seldom justification for short cutting the democratic process.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Crampton, Combine this with other additional powers and discretions the police have recently been handed and that “clever term” edges a little closer to reality.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Crampton
Yes, it’s called the Labour-led govt and it’s not in the public interest to recognise the separation of powers as a fundermental principle of democracy. Kill the court cases you don’t like, tell the public that parliament wrote the laws so they know what they were intended to say and when members of parliament broke them or not. ( oh and don’t forget to denigrate senior officials who make bad calls about the law).
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
burt,
You might wish to read this discussion of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3712160/Shunning-of-due-process-repugnant-says-law-academic
Just sayin’ that when it comes to screwing round with rule of law/constitutional values, there’s lots of mud for all the little piggies to play in.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
AG
I agree with you (and that article) that the dealings in eCan are repugnant. However from a constructional perspective parliament repealed one law and enacted another which is entirely their right under the conventions that define our democracy. IE: There was no issues with how they did what they did, just what they did.
In the Darnton Vs Clark case and the associated retrospective validations covering 14 years, parliament decided that they had not broken the law as alleged by the Auditor General.
Westminster conventions state that Parliament write the laws, the Police enforce the laws and the Courts adjudicate when breaches appear to have occurred. This is the separation of powers that is critical to draw a distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
AG
To put it another way, Parliament deciding when members of Parliament have broken the law is directly comparable to Police acting in the capacity of the Courts deciding that their charges should instantly progress to convictions to save Court time…..
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I’m in agreeemnt with AG, Dean Knight et al re separation of powers. This is bad law. While teachers get to have a single representative on school trustee boards, that’s the limit… otherwise we culd conceivably have schools managed from the staffroom.
When I considered a career in politics I knew it ruled me out of a career as a police officer (now that would have been an interesting trajectory
) and would severely hamper my ability to become a public servant.
Every choice has its consequences and one of the consequences of opting for a career in the police is that you can’t (till now) be a councillor. You’re also not allowed (by internal rules) to moonlight as a bouncer, or presumably as a male stripper – both options which are open to ordinary citizens. Are these restrictions to be relaxed as well?
Incidentally, has someone quantified just what council bylaws the police are involved in enforcing?
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
burt,
I’m not going to bat for what Labour did in any way shape or form … but in terms of there being “no issue” with the ECan legislation, you might want to consider its effect on Fish & Game’s case in the environment court: http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/up-the-hurunui-without-a-paddle-foreshore-and-seabed-act-reprise
Why is that not as bad as what happened in the Darnton v Clark case?
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Totally right! Why, the best thing to do with complex legislation is to jam it through parliament before anyone’s had a chance to read it properly, or think about the implications!
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
AG
I’m not defending the ECan legislation in any way shape or form. I’m just pointing out that it is an example of one branch of the executive using it’s own powers according to it’s legitimate role within a democracy. (writing and passing any law they see fit) .
Sure I think it’s crap legislation but the legislature did not trample on any conventions of democracy in the process of enacting this piece of crap. IE: The did a crap job rather than they decided they had the power to do another branch of the executives job.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
@burt: I’m not saying Labour was any better; I AM disappointed that National ISN’T better.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
They put the police bill trough without going to a select committee, so what. I was making a general comment on people moaning about urgency. The police bill had to be passed to make it in time for local authority elections.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
An interesting suggestion I heard the other day was for a dual chamber so that legislation can be debated properly without being restricted (to the same extent) by time.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
The police are becoming more and more powerful in New Zealand. I don’t want to see any more of them in Parliament or on our local councils.
National is becoming the Cop Party, and it disturbs me.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
@ burt: “Sure I think it’s crap legislation but the legislature did not trample on any conventions of democracy in the process of enacting this piece of crap. IE: The did a crap job rather than they decided they had the power to do another branch of the executives job.”
Ummm … but if the ECan legislation was enacted under urgency, without select committee consideration, and puts an end to a court case in which the parties already have asked for a judicial declaration of legal rights and obligations, then isn’t that “trampling on the conventions of democracy” and “deciding they had the power to do” the courts job?
But enough … it’s not a question of who is worse – just that it would be nice if they could all be just a bit better.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
“The police bill had to be passed to make it in time for local authority elections.”
What is the cost of not properly considering such legislation? What is the benefit of not properly considering such legislation? Why is it urgent that they be able to stand at these elections?
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
AG
Agree really. The removal of an anomaly or the brute force without consultation releasing of a sensible constraint. Ummm.
Am I comfortable with Rex Widerstrom in politics – Don’t always agree with him but hell yes. As a Police officer… He would have fried Winston’s ass so HELL YES.; ergo – what conflict! Now lets discuss Clint Rickard.
I’m appalled but not outraged because no standing members directly benefited from using the emergency process escape hatch. So to a simpleton like me; either it was done to swiftly fix a wrong or there is more to this than we currently know. Most importantly at this time, my ‘self serving misuse of parliament’ indicator is not even flickering yet but I’ve got my eye on it….
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
JiveKitty
Why is it urgent that they be able to stand at these elections?
Indeed.
Vote:June 25th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
“Why is it urgent that they be able to stand at these elections?”
Maybe it’s a cunning ploy to get rid of the useless Broad by convincing him to stand as Lord Mayor of Jafaland?
Nah I guess not.
They should have TXT Auntie at the UN, she knows how to shaft top cops properly.
Vote:June 26th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Incidentally, has someone quantified just what council bylaws the police are involved in enforcing?
They are often involved in noise control callouts and can be involved in animal control on occasions.
Vote:June 26th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Thanks Thrash. That was about all I could think of too, but I wondered if there wasn’t something I’d overlooked…
Vote:June 27th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
@Rex: Think about things like gang patches in Wanganui.
Vote: