Abstract:
Democratically elected representatives are notoriously renowned for their transgressions at both central and local government levels. Members of Parliament frequently dream up provocative names for their opposing members. Members of local authorities are no better; they call each other names, publicly degrade other elected members, and worse, staff members of local authorities. The extent to which behavioural mechanisms should be in place to control this behaviour is very much open for debate ... this paper seeks to explore the law regarding conduct of locally elected members. The paper will begin with discussion regarding the similarities and differences between Parliament’s use of behavioural control mechanisms for Members of Parliament and codes of conduct as a behavioural control mechanism for members of local authorities. It seeks to determine whether a code of conduct is an appropriate mechanism for addressing misconduct of elected members of local authorities in light of the approach of the Parliament of New Zealand in controlling members’ behaviour. It will conclude that unlike comparable overseas jurisdictions and New Zealand’s local authorities, New Zealand’s Parliament has not adopted a code of conduct for all of its Members, and is opposed to doing so. This paper will posit that while Parliament could reap the many benefits of a code of conduct, the drive to implement one is low. In light of this seemingly confusing opposition to a code of conduct from Parliament, the paper will continue to establish that there are differences in political accountability between Members of Parliament and locally elected members, mitigating remaining concerns regarding codes of conduct. It will further conclude that there are numerous benefits of self-regulation, and also that codes of conduct are capable of resolving the concerning interplay between employment law requirements on local authorities and the democratic election process. On that basis, the paper will conclude that codes of conducts can bring several benefits for local authorities, making the requirement to adopt one an advantageous inclusion in the Local Government Act 2000.
