Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17923] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I apologise if my speech is interrupted with coughing. I am meant to be at home. I did not want to bring all these germs and lurgies into the Chamber. But when one sits at home listening to the radio and hears the amount of garbage coming out of the mouths of two people who hold themselves up as lawyers of credibility it is totally beyond one to not come into the Chamber and say something. 
I will give Kate Wilkinson whom I have enormous respect for—she being a lady from the Waimakariri and someone I know through her having rendered me her professional services over time—that I noted a number of little coughs and “ahems” in her speech which indicated to me that she did not believe what she was saying about clause 97 at all. 
Mr Borrows has decided to play a political game of footsie and he thinks it serves him well. But I have a message for Mr Borrows. We are hearing from out of the mouths of some of his MPs around the traps that National will govern alone. In particular an MP up in Whangarei is telling everybody that National intends to and will govern alone. If that might come to pass I would like to hear Mr Borrows say right now in this Chamber on the record that he intends to amend this legislation when he is in Government. Mr Borrows knows that what he is saying is constitutional claptrap. It is rubbish. It does not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny from any lawyer of any substance. As a member of the Law and Order Committee he read the advice from the Legislation Advisory Committee he heard the advice from esteemed professors of law from Auckland and Canterbury universities and he heard the advice from the professor from Waimakariri Wally Clark—another man who is well noted for his views on constitutional matters of law. Clause 97 now represents exactly what the Police Act of 1958 always intended. Section 31 of the Act always intended that police officers not be permitted to stand for council in the same way that army officers cannot and in the same way that judges cannot. 
There are very very clear reasons why that convention has always been adhered to. It revolves round the simple fact that in a democracy—not a Zimbabwe—in a free country where democracy is treasured and defended to the utmost even to the extent of people laying down their lives for it the one thing that fundamentally underpins democracy and gives it credence and credibility is a separation of powers between the lawmakers the law enforcers and those who adjudicate on the law. It is as simple as that. 
This situation arises only because some person in a certain police area decided to take a differing view and to allow a number of officers to stand for council and be elected. That created an employment-related issue which the Police Association decided to fight. It is interesting to note and to put on the record right here and now that in 2003 when New Zealand First raised this anomaly and asked questions about it the then Commissioner of Police Robbie Robinson made very clear what the police view was and it was that what had happened was an anomaly it was wrong and any review of the law needed to deal with it. That was his view and interestingly—Mr Borrows knows this also—it is also the view of the current Commissioner of Police Howard Broad. In fact what did Howard Broad say in the select committee? He said: “If you’re asking me if I’m comfortable with the notion of one of my area commanders facing up to a constable who is a councillor on council the answer is I’m not.” Those were his words. He has not been out there hammering the issue because as we know employment-related issues have resulted from it. We can just see the line-up of Employment Court cases that would have been taken by the Police Association if the Commissioner of Police had decided to exercise some authority and make it clear to officers that they could not stand for council. So we are making very clear and very precise in the Act what is appropriate and what is not. 
Let us also deal with this little nonsense. This change does not mean that a police officer cannot stand for council—not at all. It simply means that he or she has to take leave and if that officer is elected he or she makes a choice as to which career to pursue. One of the other things that is forgotten here amongst this debate is the reality of the situation. I tell members to quietly ask any officers who work in a police station where a cop councillor works whether they like it. You see Greg O’Connor and the Police Association have been very vitriolic in their personal attacks on me and I understand there was quite a strident discussion with the Minister of Police that I would say bordered on—something. Intimidation springs to mind; bullying springs to mind. That is how I interpreted their approach to me. They ignore the fact that we are talking about only five officers out of 11500. I tell members to go and ask the 11500 what they think. They will say that they are sick and tired of it. Firstly they will say: “Do you notice it is community constables? Do you notice it is youth aid officers? It is not CIB officers—they’re too busy. It is not beat staff—they’re flat out.” They will say that. Then members will hear stories about an officer in a two-person station having to cover all the councillor’s hours. Then they will hear stories from other officers who have had to adjust their shifts because someone wants to pop off to a council meeting. 
I ask the National Party members to answer this question: when the National Party is governing alone next year—which its members are telling everyone it will—will it be happy to have police officers be mayor? That is what Chester Borrows is saying. He is saying that a police officer should be able not only to stand for council but to be the Mayor of Wellington City and to be a director of a local authority trading entity; that he or she can be a director of two local authority trading entities and be the mayor and be a constable. Yeah right! I ask Mr Borrows to tell me now what that person’s real job is. 
It is interesting to hear from Richard Worth how stretched the police are how busy they are and that they are deployed all over the world. We get complaints from Judith Collins and— 
Dail Jones 
: Simon Power. 
RON MARK 
: —and Simon Power and Mr Hayes. They come to Parliament to petition for more police in their area. Yeah? Well maybe the first thing we ought to do is make sure police officers are policing. And who has been the big critic of that? Mr Borrows who has been telling everybody: “Oh they’re not assigned to the front line. They’re not on the beat doing the job. But I don’t mind their being employed as a director of a local authority trading enterprise or being a deputy mayor of a district council and spending 45 hours a week as a councillor.” I say to Mr Borrows that he should get his story clean and straight. He should tell members what he stands for because none of that makes sense and judging by the grin on the member’s face I see that he knows it. He actually knows it and the cameras will record that and that says it all. The member is playing political footsie. The message for the Police Association and the very few police officers whom Mr Borrows is championing is not to hold their breath if they expect Mr Borrows or Kate Wilkinson to change this legislation back when the National Party is governing alone because it ain’t going to happen. 
I note with interest that neither Mr Finlayson a lawyer of— 
Dail Jones 
: A barrister. 
RON MARK 
: —a barrister of standing nor Mr Worth another lawyer of standing has argued against clause 97. They might come down later on and add a little bit in support of their colleagues now that I have said that but at this point in time neither wants to tarnish his legal career his legal standing by arguing against this clause because each knows the nonsense of doing that. So the next time we hear National Party members bleating on that officers are not assigned to the front line that there are not enough officers out on the beat that officers are not doing this and not doing that there will be only one question that we have to ask them: how many officers would be out there if all of them were councillors on district councils? How much work would be done if all of them were like one officer I know who is spending 42 hours a week as a councillor? Everyone wants to talk about one officer. Look we have three cases on our desk: Blenheim Coromandel and Waimakariri. 
If there is one thing that we in New Zealand First have consistently argued for it is preserving the reputation of the police. We were very angry about the quota ticketing system because we believed that it undermined the public’s confidence in the police. Well right now we have police officers involved in politics and that undermines the public’s confidence in police. Let me also say that while I was coming in in the car I heard on the radio that officers know to excuse themselves when a conflict of interest arises. Well I say to Mr Borrows that I am sorry but we have cases in writing from constituents who have made complaints that suggest that some officers would not understand a conflict of interest if it leapt up and bit them on the backside.