Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15683] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I wish to address some comments made by Ron Mark and others. I want to address my comments to others in the House especially to members of New Zealand First and particularly the conspiracy theorists like Mr Mark and Mr Peters who have made continual calls for the Minister of Police to firstly intervene in high-profile criminal cases and secondly pull and review police files. I raise the issue because such irresponsible and politically motivated calls go to the heart of New Zealand’s constitutional conventions in respect of the separation of powers as between politicians and the police or specifically the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police. 
I say to the House that it would be a very sad and dangerous day indeed if those constitutional conventions were broken as some members opposite would like to see. For the edification of certain members over there I remind the House that the Minister of Police is specifically prevented from interfering in police and operational law enforcement matters. In fact I quote from the then Solicitor-General J J McGrath who in 1993 spelt out the constitutional relationship between the Commissioner of Police and the Minister. For the edification of that amateur law lecturer Mr Mapp—I would have hated to be in his law class; he should shut his mouth and listen to this—I point out that the then Solicitor-General observed the following: “For many years it has been accepted that operational decisions made by the Commissioner are for that person and no other.” In his view the Commissioner of Police is an “independent statutory officer with his or her own authority in respect of law enforcement decisions in a particular case. It is not authority that is delegated by a Minister. The Commissioner of Police cannot lawfully be made subject to ministerial directions in such matters.” Mr McGrath goes on: “The Commissioner thus may not be subject to binding policy directions in respect of the enforcement of the criminal law in any particular area or type of offending.” 
I invite members opposite to clam up for a minute and consider—and I know we have some former police Ministers in Parliament—what would happen if those constitutional conventions were broken. In summary a Minister of Police is prevented absolutely from pulling case files whether they be individual or collective even if they are high-profile cases and even if the bleatings are loud from members of the Opposition. 
Let us look at another famous case. I refer specifically to Mr Mark’s case when one Major General Dodson inappropriately and wrongly pulled the personal file of that member of Parliament. Major General Dodson was not a Minister. He was in a senior executive role. I say that was wrong and I note what Mr Peters said of it at the time. He called it an “intrusion” in the  
Dominion 
 of 26 November 2001. He wanted Major General Dodson suspended and a High Court judge to be appointed to head an inquiry. I think Mr Peters was right then. The problem I have is that Mr Peters and Mr Mark now continually call for a breach in the constitutional separation of powers and those conventions and want the Minister of Police to wrongly and unlawfully intervene and review case files of individuals. I say that the day we get to that position when politicians can intervene in the lawful process of our police is a dark and dangerous day for Parliament and for this democracy. 
I say to Mr Mark Mr Peters and others including the bush lawyer over there Wayne Mapp that they should consider this. Politically motivated attacks that attempt to undermine those constitutional conventions—being the separation of powers between the Minister and the commissioner—should be seen for what they are. They should be seen as irresponsible and motivated simply by cynical political motives. I see we have in the Chamber another member who knows of those conventions and who once I believe was a Minister of Justice or had his fingerprints over partial law enforcement in this country—one Tony Ryall. I say to members opposite that in George Hawkins they have one of the best most ethical and professional police Ministers—one who does not breach conventions one who does not intervene in operational matters and one who has put more police on the streets of this country than any other in our history. I invite members to reflect on those constitutional issues.