Convicted criminals entitled to stand for office
Publicity about candidates with criminal convictions standing for the Palmerston North, Tararua and Ka¯ piti councils has raised concerns about whether a criminal record should disqualify candidacy.
A Stuff article pointed out that ‘‘a murky past won’t stop you from running for council, and you don’t need to tell voters about it either’’. According to Minister for Local Government Nanaia Mahuta, a sitting councillor would lose their job if convicted of a crime
punishable by two years’ jail, but there is nothing in law to prevent them or anyone else with a criminal conviction from being a candidate for council.
Is it acceptable to have potential mayors and councillors with criminal histories? A case in point is Maruna Engu, who is standing for the Palmerston North mayoralty. Campaigning as ‘‘Donut Man’’, Engu was outed as having served 31⁄2 years’ jail for indecently assaulting a 5-year-old girl in 1993, over an eight-month period.
Stuff revealed he also has convictions from 2013 for committing indecent acts in the Esplanade, and Featherston and Cook streets. Rather than keeping a low profile, Engu believes God called him to stand for election and that his guiding principles are from the New Testament of the Bible.
Another Palmerston North mayoralty candidate, Ross Barber, has been convicted multiple times for assaulting children. Campaigning under the ‘‘Team God, Theosophical Society’’ banner, he is a regular candidate in Manawatu¯ politics. Last year, he unsuccessfully stood in the Horizons Regional Council byelection. It was later reported he should not have been running in the first place as he had been found unfit to control his own assets. The report noted that elected officials who are subject to property managers are required to vacate their positions.
Tararua mayoralty candidate Mitch ‘‘Mad Dog’’ Mchardy believes his recent conviction for disorderly behaviour will not affect his campaign. Mchardy, representing ‘‘Aotearoa Independent’’, was convicted earlier this month after an incident at the Palmerston North police station. According to media reports, he disputed the police version of events. When Stuff spoke to him, he said: ‘‘I haven’t done anything wrong.’’ He was, however, convicted and fined.
Then there is former Ka¯ piti Coast councillor David Scott, who is standing to win his seat back after his removal from the council because of his conviction for indecent assault.
He denied rubbing his genitals against a female council staff member’s backside at a morning tea break during a council meeting. He claimed he could not have committed the indecent assault because he was protective of his penis at the time – which, he stated, had dissolvable stitches from surgery. Earlier this year he lost an appeal to overturn his conviction.
The aforementioned candidates were under no legal obligation to disclose their convictions and we have only been made aware of their histories because of the media.
In these cases, the media have played their part as the ‘‘fourth estate’’, or the watchdog role of the press. But there are probably candidates with criminal records that we will never know about unless they tell us, or if their crimes were reported by media since circa 2000 and are online.
The media do not have the resources to cover everything. In the 2018 calendar year there were 208,356 charges in district and high courts prosecuted against adults.
Although the exact number of New Zealanders with a criminal conviction is unknown, when the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act came into force in 2004, the Government estimated that it would affect 500,000 New Zealanders with convictions.
It is possible that your colleagues, friends or family members may have had criminal convictions. You may have one yourself. For the record, pun intended, I do not.
If we accept that a significant portion of the adult population has, or has had, ‘‘clean slate’’ criminal convictions and that politics, including local body, should be ‘‘representative’’, then perhaps we should continue as is – let all and sundry stand for office regardless of criminal histories.
After all, their fates will be determined at the ballot box.
Perhaps the real issue to be debated should be the disclosure of candidates’ convictions and how this is communicated to voters.
Steve Elers is a senior professor at Massey University, who writes a weekly column for Stuff on social and cultural issues.