3. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Police
Did the Police seek and receive a legal opinion or advice from the Crown Law Office in relation to the investigation into an alleged breach of the campaign spending cap in section 214B of the Electoral Act 1993 by the New Zealand Labour Party; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this
I am advised by the police today that in the course of their investigations the police requested Crown Law advice on all allegations in regard to section 214B of the Electoral Act 1993.
Why, when the Crown Law Office advice to both the Chief Electoral Officer and the Auditor-General made it clear that the pledge card was an election expense, did the police seem to reach the opposite conclusion of that, despite receiving legal advice from the same authority?
I draw the member’s attention to the advice given by the Solicitor-General on 8 March 1993 that the commissioner cannot be subject to binding policy directions in respect of the enforcement of criminal law in any particular area or type of offending. The legal opinion also states: “It is entirely a matter for the Commissioner to direct a law enforcement strategy in respect of types or places of crime”. In other words, I have no responsibility for the decisions that the police make in terms of whom they will or will not prosecute.
When acting deputy commissioner Roger Carson announced that the police had decided not to prosecute Labour, saying: “Crown Law’s involvement in this case has been and continues to be to provide legal advice to assist with the various investigations but decision-making is and has been entirely a matter for Police,”, did he mean that the police had received Crown Law advice and decided to ignore it; if not, what did he mean?
I cannot answer for acting deputy commissioner Roger Carson. I have no knowledge of why the police made the decisions in the way they did. As I pointed out, that is entirely their decision to make, not one that is made by the Minister of Police in any way, shape, or form.
Is the Minister concerned that the police’s grasp of electoral law was so poor that the Chief Electoral Officer met with the police after they had announced their findings in the investigation into Labour, to make it clear to them that he thought they had got it wrong; if not, why is she not concerned about that?
No, I am not concerned about the judgment of the police, at all. I suppose if I wanted to—but I have not—I could have questioned why the police did not charge the National Party for not paying its GST, because they also made it clear, in Roger Carson’s comments, that the inclusion of GST was stipulated to all political parties and that that was made clear before the election. The reason the police were not in the position to charge the National Party was that National claimed there was no written agreement with its advertising company, and therefore the police did not know whom to charge.
Does she agree with the statement contained in the police area report on the investigation: “Essentially, the Labour Party says the Electoral Act did not apply, so there is no wilful contravention.”; can she explain when the Labour Party became the arbiter on when laws apply and when they do not?
At the end of the day, those who decide whether the law applies will be those in the proper position to do so. However, I note that the police said: “This issue that has involved all political parties could be resolved by a simple rule that prohibits the use of Parliamentary Service funds for advertising during the 3-month period preceding a general election.” The police went on to say that the Auditor-General, in his review of June 2005, said that following the 2005 election, comprehensive guidelines should be written to provide direction on expenditure under parliamentary rules for political advertising. That is what the police said.
I seek leave to table the Parliamentary Service rules that make it abundantly clear that Parliamentary Service funding should not be used for election purposes, and to table with that document the minutes of meetings from 2003 right through to the end of 2004, in which all political parties agreed they would stick to those very clear rules for the 2005 election.
Does the Minister of Police agree with the statements also contained in the police area report that “A brochure expounding the virtues of supporting a particular political party is permitted to be published and distributed at Government expense.”; if so, how does she reconcile that with the findings of the Auditor-General and the Crown Law advice—completely the opposite of the police—which was given on at least two occasions?
I seek leave to table the area report that makes it very clear the police decided not to prosecute on the basis of comments made to them by the Labour Party.
I seek leave to table a document that shows the police believed that the Parliamentary Service rules, which were abundantly clear to almost all other parties, did not exist.