The balancing act when public servants want to become politicians
Wednesday, 17 June 2026
Susan Hornsby-Geluk is managing partner at employment law firm Dundas Street and a regular opinion contributor.
OPINION: The public sector functions effectively on a simple but powerful concept, that it serves the government of the day, regardless of who holds office.
This idea of political neutrality is the guiding principle that ensures ministers can have confidence in their officials to give them free, frank and unbiased advice.
But neutrality has never meant total silence. Nor has it required public servants to relinquish their rights as citizens.
Public servants, like all New Zealanders, are entitled to freedom of political expression and participation. That includes the right to stand for parliament. The absence of such a right would be constitutionally troubling.
However, this right is not unfettered.
Read more:
The Public Service Act recognises that neutrality requires officials to act in a way that maintains the trust and confidence of both current and future governments.
That obligation extends beyond actual bias or conflicts of interest and includes maintaining the appearance of impartiality.
Neutrality is therefore as much about perception as it is about reality. It is what others can reasonably infer, not just what the individual intends. The more senior the employee, the greater these obligations are because senior officials have closer engagement with ministers, greater access to sensitive information, and more influence over institutional decision making.
The recent events involving Police Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo bring these expectations and the need to balance them into sharp relief.
Naidoo was recently confirmed as a list-only candidate for Labour, and his ranking of 13 means he is almost guaranteed a seat in parliament.
This apparently came as a surprise to Police Commissioner Richard Chambers, who has said Naidoo’s role is now untenable, and he should have told him earlier of his political intentions.
Chambers has since confirmed a review will be undertaken over the period Naidoo was engaging with the Labour Party, prior to him advising police of his candidacy intentions. While the review has been positioned by police as necessary to ensure public confidence, the insinuation is that Naidoo may have misused information that he has been privy to in his employment, to the advantage of the Labour party.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins has dismissed these claims, saying that he is confident that Naidoo conducted himself respectfully while remaining mindful of the political neutrality of the New Zealand Police.
In contrast, National’s Police Minister Mark Mitchell has said he is disappointed in Naidoo and concerned about the information he may have had access to during this period.
The apparent overreaction by police raises questions about what information they may be so concerned about Naidoo disclosing. Given that police are supposed to be politically neutral themselves, it is difficult to imagine what great state secrets there may be.
That this rhetoric smacks of political jockeying is unfortunate given the potential reputational damage for the well-respected Naidoo. There has also arguably been a breach of privacy given the open and very public discussion about Naidoo’s employment situation by police. So much for the standard “we don’t comment on individual employment issues” response.
Some of the statements made by Chambers and the minister are also potentially pre-determinative of any fair and reasonable employment process that may follow.
But, leaving aside claims of possible misuse of information or position, there is a legitimate question as to when Naidoo’s candidacy should have been disclosed.
There is no rigid rule, but the principles are clear.
Public servants may stand for office, but doing so requires a clear separation from the role. That is why candidates are typically expected to resign from their employment, or at least stand down during the campaign.
Disclosure is required where political activity creates a real or perceived conflict and the more senior the role, the earlier the obligation arises. Additionally, the more direct the political connection, the more decisive and unequivocal the disclosure must be.
In Naidoo’s case, the difficulty appears to be not that he had political interests, but that those interests progressed to a point where neutrality concerns were already acute before decisive steps were taken. Naidoo may say that the Labour party list was not confirmed until last week, but he must have put himself forward as a potential candidate well before then.
This then leads to the question, if he had disclosed his potential candidacy to police, what could they have done about it? Dismissal would not be justifiable as employees are perfectly entitled to run for office. But, police may have been justified in taking steps to move Naidoo away from having direct engagement with ministers and access to sensitive information.
Police were denied the opportunity to consider these actions by Naidoo’s seemingly late disclosure. So, while it may appear that police have publicly over reacted, they may have a point.
There are undoubtedly learnings for both Naidoo and police in this, namely that early identification of and disclosure of a potential conflict of interest avoids backlash for both employee and employer, and provides for management of risks and perception.
It would be fair to say that neither party has come out of this situation looking good, and what could have been framed as a positive success story has become a regrettable distraction.