Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 Nearly 2 years ago when the Policing Act 2008 was passed there were some provisions within that legislation that set some police staff apart from their fellow State servants. Under section 99 of the Policing Act all constables authorised officers and supervisors without any constabulary powers must be placed on leave if they want to stand as a candidate in a local authority election and if they are elected they must resign from the police. 
Under section 115 of the Act there is an exception for police who were sitting members of local authorities at the time the Policing Act came into force on 1 October 2008 but only for as long as they are re-elected. For other State servants however there is no law that stops them from standing or serving on a local authority. They are simply required to remain politically neutral in what they do and follow any departmental rules that are in place. Any conflicts of interest must be declared but it is up to the individual and the department to manage them. This Government sees no reason why police should be treated any differently and that is what this bill aims to achieve. 
If this bill is passed then police will have in place rules and policies along the lines of those of other Government departments which have to manage any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise. Many members of the police already have strong relationships with their communities. It is common to have area commanders community constables and other police working together with local councils to make their local community safer. Making it easier for police staff to serve on local councils will help strengthen that relationship. This Government is keen to ensure that when it comes to standing for public office all police employees enjoy the same democratic rights as any other State servant. On that basis I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Let me say from the outset that the Labour Opposition will support this bill. As the explanatory note of the bill states in the original policing Act the Police Act 1958 there was a framework for prohibiting police from standing in local authority elections but as the bill states the additional step required—naming the relevant local authorities in regulations—was never taken. It is a fact that in 2008 the Labour coalition Government at the time with New Zealand First passed the Policing Act of 2008 which as the Minister said put the prohibitions in place. Let me say that one of the primary reasons for that at that time was a political reality—which I am sure all members of the House are aware of—in the form of coalition partners. One has coalition partners and one has demands from coalition partners as this Government has had from its coalition partners. A demand was made by New Zealand First and I think Ron Mark led the charge at the time or was particularly passionate about it for a variety of reasons and it was agreed to. I join with the Minister—I know this is a rare occasion—in expressing— 
Grant Robertson 
: It is noted. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleagues have noted it—another black mark against my name! I join with the Minister in expressing the view that the previous legislation affected about five serving police staff. One of them actually resides in my electorate and is very good—and my view is that all the councillors are very good in the Waimakariri district. He is Constable Robbie Brine. There is the need to manage conflicts of interest around issues of say implementing by-laws that the constable may be voting on as a councillor in a council capacity with the epaulettes off and then having to implement those by-laws as a policeman with the epaulettes and the hat on. I know that Councillor Brine and the other police officers who serve as elected officials manage those conflicts of interest pretty admirably. I am sure though that there will be those in the community who will have a view to the contrary but when I speak for my patch I can say that the police constable who is a councillor manages those roles professionally and does an admirable job as all my councillors do. 
I would say in passing that it is a pity that this bill could not go before a select committee although I acknowledge that local body elections are relatively close. But our side of the House would still argue that there was time and I know we would have cooperated on this issue in respect of if you like a turbo-boosted select committee process to at least examine the issues and perhaps give organisations like the Police Association and others a chance to express a view on this. 
I want to again join with the Minister and say that our police who act as leaders on local authorities within our communities do a pretty superb job. In fact one could argue that the nature of police work means one would bring about a safer community. Certainly if I use the Waimakariri District Council case I can say we have a safer community council as many other districts and cities do. I think it adds to the expertise of a local authority to have a law enforcement officer not only as part of the discussion but as an elected official who can bring his or her—in this case his—expertise to the table especially in smaller towns like in this case Rangiora or Kaiapoi or Oxford in my area where police are community leaders. Whether or not they are elected officials they are treated like elected officials especially in towns like Oxford and they are probably treated with a heck of a lot more respect. But they are on call 24 hours a day and whether they are in the blue uniform or in plain clothes as a councillor people know them because they have a high profile as police officers. As I said they are on call as elected officials are when they wear the blue uniform 24/7 and when they do not. 
I think this bill is a good bill. As I said I would have preferred it to be referred to a select committee for an expedited examination through the select committee process of the issues pertaining to it. I say that for two reasons: firstly it is always appropriate to health-check legislation and make sure we have it right; and secondly it might have demystified some of the criticism from some in the community in cases where police have that dual role. I think it would have given a chance for if not the policemen who are councillors themselves then certainly the Police Association and others to highlight the appropriateness with which those five serving staff act as elected officials and perhaps also highlight some of the advantages in the additional skills that law enforcement officers can bring around the council community board or local authority table. Certainly I do not think it is a disadvantage to have a constabulary staff member on a local authority. I think that it can only add value because local authorities today delve deeper and deeper into social issues especially when it comes to community safety. I have talked about safer community councils. 
When it comes to combating youth crime many of our councils—and again I go back to my own council the Waimakariri District Council—are taking greater and greater responsibility for looking after their own patch assisting the police in law enforcement and engaging in programmes especially around youth crime. They want to take greater responsibility for those issues. To have a police officer who not only assists with advice in that capacity but is also an elected official I think provides some additional mana and a higher level of expertise as one who can stand around the council table and although being careful not to speak as a sworn police officer can speak bluntly as a person who has experience. Treading that fine line can only enhance debate skills and knowledge in local authorities. 
I know there are some who as I said at the start say: “Hey isn’t there a difficulty constitutionally?”. For instance if we take the boy-racer issue councils are implementing by-laws. It may be the case that a police officer is called to vote and speak on a by-law about boy-racing in restricted areas and then to put on the blue uniform on Friday night and go and implement those by-laws. There are those who may say: “Hey isn’t there a conflict of interest in respect of that?”. To my knowledge I do not think there has been a time when those potential conflicts of interest have not been able to be managed either by the local authority itself or the constable who is the elected person. 
I think that common sense prevails. Like any issue where there is a conflict of interest there is the ability to declare it and to walk away from the table to walk out of the room and say: “Hey it is too close to my professional occupation as a police officer.” or any other profession or occupation such as a lawyer a doctor or whatever. Those people can say: “I will walk out of the room and leave those issues in abeyance for the council to decide.” I certainly have not seen examples—although maybe others have—where those issues have not been appropriately managed. Of course if they are not appropriately managed the officers are responsible to their hierarchy. We have had issues of conflict of interest in regional councils—even in my own patch—where the Auditor-General has come in and made judgments about that. I think there are basic and common-sense mechanisms in place whereby if people are concerned about a conflict of interest they can be managed by the common sense of the officer/councillor by the powers under the local government legislation and through the Auditor-General and equally through the authorities disciplinary processes and common sense of the police hierarchy—superintendents district commanders and the like. 
In essence Labour supports this legislation. We believe that it is appropriate. I suppose we would have liked to see it go through the quality-control process of a select committee but we support the legislation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. The objective of this bill is to remove the restrictions in the Policing Act to enable all police employees to stand for local council elections without being placed on leave. If elected they would not need to vacate their position as a police employee. This bill will ensure that police employees are not treated any differently from other State servants who are not prevented by legislation from standing for election and serving on local authorities. 
In response to some of the comments that have been made regardless of whether someone is a police officer a shopkeeper or a Government employee in another capacity if that person is not doing a good job as an elected representative of his or her community then the community will not elect that person next time. That is the discipline for anybody standing for council and it is no less so for someone who is employed as a police officer who stands for council. If the community feels that that person is just not working then that person will not be re-elected to the council but will be left in the police employee position. That is the way of elections for local authorities. It is that simple and I do not think it needs expedited examination as the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove suggested. I think the legislation is too simple to waste the time of the House on when it can go through the House simply and easily. The bill just corrects one of those anomalies that we often come across in the course of looking at legislation. 
I am delighted to commend this bill to the House and to watch it proceed through its stages. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports this bill and I thank the Minister of Police for bringing it to the House. I will wait for just a second as I thought a bolt of lightning would hit me for saying that but nevertheless it has not. I think this legislation is very important because it will clear up many uncertainties. With the Auckland legislation having gone through the House people who are police officers have been wondering whether they can stand for election and whether the grandfathering rights they had will still prevail. I have talked to people in the House about this and I must say that I am pleased that this has happened. 
We have people in Manukau who serve the council who also serve the community as police officers. Councillor Alf Filipaina is a councillor for Manukau in the Mangere ward and he does great work with young people especially. Being a police officer does not restrict him in his council work. Very sensibly he has the ability to not involve himself in voting on certain by-laws and things like that but also he is a person who does very important crime prevention work. The Counties-Manukau Police District is not the easiest area to police. It needs people who know their community and I think that Alf Filipaina does. It may sound a wee bit like a party political speech to sing his praises but he is a person whom I think the whole of Mangere is proud of. I imagine that when the super-council is selected he will be one of its members and I think that is very important. 
Alf Filipaina gets out in his community but sometimes he goes across the border. He may go away from the Mangere ward and out to Manurewa Papatoetoe Otara or Pakuranga and he joins in things with a spirit that I think should be duplicated by many others. He is the sort of person we call a “decent bloke” and I think it is very important that we allow people like that to be elected. 
The chairman of the Manurewa Community Board is a guy called Mike Bailey who works for the police. He is a police officer. Not only is he the chair of the community board but also he marries people and he dispatches people. He is another person who is totally involved in his community. We have people like Angela Cunningham-Marino on the community board who is also a police officer. She works to help people in the community in many ways. It is these community-spirited people who are working to help people who are suffering from heart disease and helping people who need guidance and strength. Having police officers like that on community boards and on councils is very important. 
Labour as I said will support this bill. I would have liked it to go to a select committee. I know that time is short but I thought a 1-day hearing would not be bad. We could have had the Police Association along and the Police Officers Guild if we had had this bill before a select committee for a day. But that is not to be. I am sure—in fact I am positive—that it will not stop the Police Association from having its say one way or the other. It will do it very publicly. Greg O’Connor is not slow in saying what he thinks on issues that affect his officers. 
It is interesting to have a look at the people who want to serve their community in a way that encourages the community rather than discouraging people. In the Counties-Manukau area we have many many young people who have lost their way. It is the police that we look to to help those people. Yes we know that Child Youth and Family Services do a good job in many cases and we know that there are other agencies but to have people who work for the New Zealand Police and who in their own time get out and support those young people is truly important. They are the heroes of the local community. Whenever I see Alf I see that there is a guy with a big smiley face and a warm handshake. He always greets everyone in the same way. 
Simon Bridges 
: Sounds like me. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No he does not sound like the member for Tauranga who used to try to get people put in jail all the time—in the end I think that people got off because of his skills. When we have people like Alf doing the sort of work he does it is good. We should not be putting obstacles in the way of these people wanting to stand for council. If we put obstacles in their way then of course we lose a lot of talent and a lot of ability. 
When a similar bill that led to this one came before the House it was because Ron Mark the New Zealand First Party member—members will probably remember Winston Peters and one or two others. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: No. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Oh no some people cannot remember Winston Peters. Well I think he is busy working away. For ages and ages Ron Mark wanted no police to be on council. Even when I was Minister of Police he was trying to make sure that police officers could not work as councillors in their community. When one has— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What was he? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There is the member from the North Shore or somewhere—Cam Calder I think it is. He has woken up. I see the ornament of the National Government is smiling in the back row as well. However in the end we should have people who can be a bit bigger-minded than Ron Mark was. I think Ron Mark took a very narrow view. 
One of the problems when we have coalitions is that sometimes deals are done. It looked as though a deal was done with the Tuhoe people but then all of a sudden it was pulled away. That is the nature of coalition Governments. Coalition Governments make deals and they break deals. People are promised that there will not be any increase in GST and then there is. I am not blaming just the Maori Party or ACT for that; they are all guilty the whole lot. I think that Ron Mark went too far. He went to the stage where he personally disliked a police officer and then came up with the legislation that put on restrictions. 
I am pleased that the Minister has this bill in the House today. The Labour Party will support it. I hope that many people vote for Alf and his team when they stand at the council elections this year. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is not supporting the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. We supported the Policing Bill of 2008 which had this change—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Police can cackle all she likes over there but it is important to have a chance to explain why we have decided that we will not be supporting this bill. 
At the time that the original legislation went through in 2008 we agreed unusually with New Zealand First that this issue was about the separation of powers between those who make the law and those who enforce the law and that there was a compelling case to say that those who are responsible for enforcing the law should not be part of the process of making it. There are serious conflict of interest issues. There are issues for constituents who may well need to have a person like a councillor representing them on a matter that deals with a law that that councillor may or may not have made but who is responsible for enforcing. 
There are many areas of our law where we are clear on the separation of powers between those who make the law and those who enforce the law. This seems like an appropriate time to make that similar distinction. Since the time we supported the provision the last time it was put forward by the Labour-New Zealand First Government we have had no evidence or compelling case made to us as to why we should change our position. 
Of course the difficulty is that because this Government is so obsessed with the excessive use of urgency once again the community will not have an opportunity to explore this issue in full. This is the very important issue of the separation of powers. We would have been very prepared to consider the evidence that would have come to a select committee in order to see what the circumstances were and to hear arguments as to whether we should continue to support this legislation. We have maintained an open mind on that basis. But because there will be no select committee process because this Government is pushing through this legislation for no good reason then neither we nor the rest of the community will be able to explore those issues in full. Because we supported the provision constraining police from acting as councillors or local body authorities we can have no other position than to continue to support that. 
Again it is very difficult when legislators such as ourselves and the community are unable to explore important constitutional issues such as the separation of powers and the question of whether those who enforce the law should also be responsible for making it because of this Government’s misuse of urgency and its failure to uphold the democratic right of our community to have a say. We will not be supporting this bill. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 At first glance this bill the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill seemed to be one that all things being equal should have been quite straightforward. The bill amends the Policing Act 2008 the purpose being to remove the current restriction in the 2008 Act that does not allow police employees to stand in local body elections. If successful the bill will enable all police employees to stand in local body elections without being placed on leave and if they are elected they will not have to resign from their jobs as police employees. 
When the Maori Party initially read this bill we thought that it was fair enough that the police should be treated like any other employees and should qualify for the opportunity to stand in local body elections. But then two central concepts came into view: the current context and public perception. Today is hardly the best day to be considering the issue of public confidence in the New Zealand Police. Let me count the ways. 
The first count is DNA samples. Firstly in the heat of the debate generated by my colleague Hone Harawira’s claims about the undue pressure brought to bear upon Maori youths to submit DNA samples to the police criminal lawyer Graeme Newell also spoke up about these concerns which he shares. Mr Harawira has supported a number of youths and their families to take the appropriate action by referring their complaints to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The basis of the complaints is that those rangatahi who are under the age of 17 have been persuaded by the police to submit DNA samples on the pretence that it might help to identify their relatives or would be stored on the off chance that they would be killed and would need to be identified. Mr Newell then came forward saying that he knew of a case where a police officer had offered a boy a cigarette in return for a DNA sample. 
The second count is police pursuits. The second issue to take the headlines in the last 24 hours was a meeting that the Minister of Police Judith Collins had with the Commissioner of Police Howard Broad to discuss police recommendations for vehicle pursuits after two separate reviews. The urgency of investigating the proper procedures around police pursuits came tragically into view through the death of Troy MacKay a Christchurch man who died on Sunday when his car hit a tree after he was pursued by the police. New Zealand now has the unfortunate record of having lost seven lives—people whose lives have gone through the course of their being pursued by the police. 
Of course one can never ignore the need for the police to intervene when it is evident that offending is taking place whether that be on the road or in leaving a criminal scene. But when we are talking about a Government agency we must be painstakingly clear that the protocols and policies that form the operational procedures are adhered to rule by rule. 
We understand that two separate reviews have been undertaken into the situation. One is being undertaken by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the other is an independent review conducted by the New Zealand Police. The reports have invited further questions about whether it is appropriate for the police to initiate high-speed chases for minor offences such as speeding and property theft or for the suspicion of criminal activity. We need to have that debate as we consider the right balance between the preservation of justice and the preservation of life. The nation has lost seven young men in as many months of whom the youngest was 22 and the eldest was 38. Let not their lives be in vain. 
The third count is sexual misconduct. The final piece of evidence stacking the odds was yesterday’s release by the Controller and Auditor-General of its second monitoring report on the recommendations made by the 2007 Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. The letter from Phillippa Smith the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General spelt out clearly why the police force must work hard to implement the cultural changes it suggests are critical after an inquiry was held into allegations of sexual misconduct by the police. The inquiry we recall was established after several allegations of sexual misconduct against police officers were made. The Auditor-General’s report recommended that there be an extensive cultural change in the force. Ms Smith stated: “The benefits of change include the public having confidence in the integrity and conduct of the Police. Public confidence is essential for effective policing.” But another worrying line in the release from the Auditor-General’s office was the revelation that progress would stall unless a more concerted effort was put into making the recommendations work. 
One of the key recommendations from the report is that the police must as an organisation value and use external views on police culture and behaviour. This could be done for example by obtaining more feedback on police officers’ behaviour and service delivery through community engagement and by learning more from complaints information. 
I believe that all those three areas of current controversy—DNA samples police pursuits and sexual misconduct—cannot be ignored when we come to this bill. But there is the broader context too of the longstanding history of police responsiveness to Maori. I acknowledge the absolute commitment that I know the police are making to improve their performance in this regard. We recognise the valuable role that almost 50 iwi Pacific and ethnic liaison officers in the police force play in helping to create purposeful relationship-building with iwi and Maori social service providers. We also acknowledge the quality of the police projects involving partnership with iwi and community agencies that are intended to specifically address Maori offending and victimisation. 
Although the gap between the perception and the reality has been reduced we cannot forget that trust and confidence in the police is lower among Maori than it is among the general population. Countless reports have demonstrated that Maori feel alienated from the police and from criminal justice agencies. The research frequently concludes that a key reason for this lack of responsiveness is that often there is a perception that individuals within the police force lack knowledge of and sensitivity to Maori values culture history and beliefs. I stress that we often talk about perception but as all politicians know only too well perception is everything. When we come to this policing bill we must be mindful of the impact of perception. 
The Maori Party has thought long and hard about this issue and we have greatly appreciated the way in which the Minister of Police has responded to all of our queries about the effect of this bill. We fully understand that any police employees who decide to stand for local authority elections and those who are subsequently elected will still need to abide by any internal policies that the police may have in place. We also accept that such employees must abide by the code of conduct which sets out that where employees participate in political matters in a personal capacity they must not bring themselves into conflict with their primary role as police employees. That is all well and good on paper but when it comes down to the wire we return to the impact of the current context and of public perception. Quite frankly when we talk to our constituency no matter how wonderful the local community cop may be the perception of the police in general is adversely affected by longstanding views about the reputation of the police. Those views are not helped in any way by the events that I mentioned earlier on. 
Finally we were prepared as a party to support this bill’s referral to a select committee but because of the decision to take this bill through urgency we will have to oppose the bill at every reading. We remain convinced that the issues of perception inherent in this bill must be put to the test of public opinion through the select committee process. Thank you. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. I will begin by declaring a certain fact: I like the police. I tremendously respect our men and women in blue for three reasons. Firstly I was involved with the Asian advisory to the Auckland police. Secondly I was a victim of a crime and the police came to the aid of me and my family. Thirdly I love the Minister of Police and she does a tremendous job. 
But aside from those reasons one needs certain standards to be a police officer —there are standards. One needs to be a good citizen over 18 years of age upon graduation from the police college community-minded fit healthy and bright enough to pass a range of assessments. I suppose police officers also need to be patient because they are involved in highly charged emotionally charged situations when they are arresting people. They must have excellent communication skills and they have to be loyal committed and have high levels of integrity. In their role they influence the lives of many people. So being able to make tough judgment calls as well as establishing strong personal relationships with the community networks that they have and confidence in the wider community is integral to the job they do. As well as responding to crime police officers have to look at the bigger picture. Solving crime is about not just answering the question as to who did it but also why. This requires an ability to understand the community that they serve and more important the ability to identify and examine the problem that leads to crime. 
Surely the skills that police officers possess are excellent skills for someone standing for a local authority. It seems ridiculous to me that at the moment police officers are unable to stand. Removing these restrictions can lead only to a better partnership between the police and local authorities. Furthermore a more ridiculous thing is that some police officers are able to do it yet some are not depending on when they became local authority members. I support this bill and I commend it to the House. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a moment to acknowledge our police force and the wonderful work that it does. Often it is a thankless job and the manner in which policemen and policewomen undertake their work is admirable. Members on this side and I think across the House would say that we all have respect for the police force. I will not go as far as the previous speaker Melissa Lee did in acknowledging the Minister of Police; I will leave it there. 
Currently under the Policing Act 2008 if one is employed by the Police as a constable authorised officer or supervisor one must take leave of absence if one intends to stand for election to a local authority or council. If successful that person has to resign from the Police. The provisions of the 2008 Act clarify provisions in the previous Police Act that also prevented police officers from standing in local body elections but that were never fully enacted. The reasoning behind the provisions was that it was perceived to be wrong to have the same people making and enforcing regional by-laws. The Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill which we are currently debating will remove that restriction. Policewomen and policemen will be able to stand for election to local authorities without taking a leave of absence and if successful they will not have to resign from their police duties. That will put the police in the same position as other public servants. 
I think we need a little bit of background to the legislation that Labour put in place in 2008. Labour passed the Policing Act in 2008 and the restriction on police officers standing as councillors was subject to a lot of debate at that time. We believed then and we still believe now in having a full and transparent democratic process so it is a little concerning that we are ramming this bill through the House under urgency with no select committee consideration. None the less we will be supporting this bill. When we put through the 2008 legislation we ensured that all the provisions would stop conflicts of interest from occurring. Police officers were not discriminated against; they could still be involved in local body politics but at the time that meant standing for election only to a community board because a police officer did not have the same perceived risk of a conflict of interest by sitting on a community board as by being a councillor. It was a difficult decision to make at the time and there was a lot of discussion and debate. In the end Labour decided to enact what the Police Act 1958 had originally intended. 
This Government must ensure that the perception of conflict of interest is safeguarded against. A councillor helping to pass a by-law and then enforcing that by-law in his or her role as a police officer will raise conflict of interest issues. However that can be avoided relatively easily by having the councillor in question declaring his or her conflict of interest when the by-law is being debated in council. We have seen that occur with the five police officers who were councillors at the time that the 2008 legislation was passed. They were allowed to continue in that role and from what we have heard there have been no complaints with regard to those five particular councillors. 
This issue does not affect many people. At the time that the Policing Act 2008 came into force as I said only five police officers were serving as councillors across the whole country. Labour was careful to ensure that those five councillors were able to continue fulfilling both roles for as long as they were elected representatives. I acknowledge the work of those five councillors. Again I say that at no point have there been questions of undisclosed conflicts of interest with regard to those councillors. They have carried out their duties as both police officers and councillors are expected to do and they have done so admirably. My colleague George Hawkins was talking earlier about the example of one of those five councillors Alf Filipaina a Manukau City councillor. Clayton Cosgrove had another example from his area. I have to agree with both of those members and especially with George Hawkins with regard to Alf Filipaina. He has always conducted himself with integrity. Without being politically biased I say that he has fantastic politics and he is a respected member of the community not only as a police officer but also as a councillor. I think that we need those types of people in both those roles so we would not want to take that opportunity away from them. In so many ways they are good examples of why we should support this legislation and of why we are supporting it. 
I spoke to Alf Filipaina about this particular bill and discussed with him whether he has ever been accused of not declaring a conflict of interest and he said: “Not at all. That has never arisen.” Although he was the chair of the transport committee and issues could have arisen there he was very careful to ensure that whenever there was anything to do with by-laws and enforcement he declared that conflict of interest and stepped back. There was transparency and no one could question his integrity with regard to any involvement that he might have as the chair of the transport committee for the Manukau City Council. That seems to be the case across the board for the five councillors who are currently police officers as well as serving as councillors in their areas. 
Labour would have liked to see this bill go to a select committee because we would have liked to hear the opinions of the public and of police officers. I know that this is a big concern for the Green Party which is part of the reason why those members will not be supporting this legislation. It is also our concern that we will not get that opportunity because this bill is being passed under urgency. That is disappointing but we recognise that the New Zealand Police Association and the New Zealand Police Managers Guild have been consulted in the development of this bill. As police officers seem to be largely in favour of removing the restrictions on becoming councillors Labour will be supporting this bill based on that support. 
As I said before police officers regularly demonstrate their commitment to local communities. It is only fair that they get the opportunity as all other public servants do to further demonstrate that commitment by standing for election and by serving on local authorities. Most people who are in the position of being a councillor or a local body representative have other jobs so many of them have declared interests as well. Given that that is the case and that a strong case has been put forward by the police with regard to why they should be allowed to do that we think it is important to support the bill. There is no argument against this Government bill from this side of the House for once which is a very rare thing. We support this bill. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see that the Labour Party has been a little circumspect on the decision that it made some time ago and is now listening to Councillor Filipaina and the submissions that he has made. It is a shame that despite his politics in the past those members were not listening quite as well as they could have been and they did not take the opportunity to vote for a sterling amendment—that being the submitted Supplementary Order Paper 213 which would have allowed police officers to continue in that role at the time. However it is great that those members have now come to that position. 
It is interesting to note around the House the number of members who just from my knowledge have connections with the police. Of course we have the Minister of Police here who is the wife of a former policeman. We have the daughter of a policeman sitting over there—Jacinda Ardern—and a former Minister of Police the Hon George Hawkins also sitting there. We have the sister of two policemen sitting over here—Rahui Katene from the Maori Party. 
I think it is great to be able to acknowledge that people within the police bring a lot to the table just as each of us individually as members of Parliament brings something of our experience to the table in this House which contributes to a discussion and brings a different take on life. This is also the case in respect of the council table. The policemen who serve on local authorities around the country are up and about at 2 o’clock in the morning and they see the responsibilities of local people and the issues that they have to discuss around that council table. They have a different view from other people who quite rightly bring other experience to that table. 
I am pleased to see that we pretty much have across-the-board support for the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. I have never ever in my short time in Parliament seen the Greens support one pro-police bit of legislation in this House and I am sure as hell not surprised that they are not supporting this bill. But I am pleased that the rest of us are. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to take a call on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. Obviously I was not a member of this House at the time that the Policing Act was passed but I do remember the work that went into that piece of legislation because for a time I worked in the United Kingdom on a review of the way the police worked over there. There was a lot of interest in the collaborative and comprehensive way in which the Policing Act 2008 was drawn up. So I congratulate those who worked on that original legislation on the work that went into it. It was noticed internationally. 
I think it might be useful to provide a little more context on the original decision not to allow police officers to stand as councillors and on the position that the Labour Party took at that time. I think that looking at some of the statements that were made at that time demonstrates that the decision was very difficult to make and that there were very strong arguments on both sides of the case. I think one of my colleagues has already mentioned that the New Zealand First MP Ron Mark took a very strong view on this issue and was quite a vocal campaigner for restrictions being put in place. Initially Labour disagreed with the position that he in particular had made but later in the piece in the Committee stage we made the change via Supplementary Order Paper. 
I want to reflect on the statement that was made by Annette King at the time in August 2008. She said: “When I introduced a policing bill in my name I raised this as an issue that was worthy of debate. The bill as introduced retained the status quo but I did set out that it was an issue on which we would like to have some debate and some comment in terms of submissions. My understanding is that the Law and Order Committee heard a number of submissions—in fact there was quite a large number of submissions—on this part. In terms of where we should sit in relation to this matter it was the Labour caucus view that the status quo would remain. However on looking further at the issue and on taking consideration of the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee which was asked by the invitation of the select committee to present to the select committee on this issue the caucus was considerably swayed by its view that we ought not to muddy the waters of political neutrality in our police service.” She went on to say that it had been a hard issue for the caucus to decide on and she knew that other parties in this Chamber looked long and hard at it. I think her comments demonstrate that the decision was very difficult to make. They demonstrate the fact that it was midway through that process that Labour made this amendment originally and that it was made on the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee—a committee of the House. I think it is fair to say that it was a line call. 
After not only the benefit of hindsight but also taking a further look at the fact that there are already police officers who serve as counsellors we had evidence to suggest that currently it has not proved to be a problem and that perhaps we should reverse the decision that was made in 2008. But I do think that we should always be mindful of the original reasons that it was first put in place. 
I know one of the most important principles of policing and community policing in particular—which is something I am very interested in—is not only the principle of constabulary independence but also that the police really earn their right to police from their communities and with the trust and confidence of their communities. It is up to us in central government to ensure that we create the foundations and the framework for that to happen. At the second tier it is up to the police to make sure that on the front line that trust and confidence is earned and maintained. So I do think central government has a key role to play in that regard. I think that probably the best interest of the police was top in Labour’s mind when it made this decision but on balance we are comfortable with the notion of moving back to the status quo. That is why we are supporting this bill. 
It is always pleasing from time to time to have the opportunity to support a bill that is put up by the Government and to demonstrate that there is support. We get criticism that sometimes we do not agree with the Government. I always point out that it is because the Government gives us so little opportunity to agree. For an example of that I need only look back to the last bill that came through on law and order the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation which was one of the most awful pieces of legislation I have had the unfortunate chance to observe in this House. That was the last piece of legislation put forward by the Law and Order Committee but of course we were not going to agree on it. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear considerable disappointment from the Government benches that I have swayed away from my conciliatory statements. 
I will dwell a little further on the fact that I think it was Clayton Cosgrove who pointed out the interesting history behind that legislation— 
David Garrett 
: It paid for that suit he’s wearing. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Clayton Cosgrove pointed out—I think there was a comment made on his suit—the fact that the Police Act of 1958 originally mooted this change and that it was not fully enacted. So in actually enacting it Labour in 2008 put in place something that was considered 50 years prior which I think is an interesting point. Also when this restriction was put in place Labour put in an exemption providing that the police could still sit on community boards. I think that is quite an interesting point because it demonstrates the perception that community boards have a different standing than a local council and that important difference is based on the fact that community boards do not have powers to make by-laws. 
When I read that it triggered my thoughts back to the local boards that the Government has put in place through the super-city legislation. Local boards have no powers to make by-laws either even though they will probably be the most important element of the super-city legislation because that is where local people will have their say. So technically we would not have to make this change for Auckland. Police would be able to stand under this legislation and the exemption for a local board under the super-city legislation because the local boards have no powers to make by-laws. I thought it was an interesting point that was worth raising. Perhaps as a side point it demonstrates again how toothless those local boards are. But by the by I will not dwell on that. 
One of the other issues that has been raised— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Go on don’t disappoint us. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: If Sandra Goudie would like me to expand on the point further I am most happy to. I am very disappointed that as chair of the Law and Order Committee she will not have the opportunity to look deeper into this legislation. I know she would have provided considerable insight into what we are discussing here. 
One further and final issue I raise which I think is a valid point is that it is important to make sure that police officers who are councillors are protected from conflicts of interest. For instance there may be issues where they have powers to make by-laws that they may have some future enforcement over. That is a point to carefully consider. We have made it work today and I believe we can make it work in the future. But one area that may lend itself to further thought is the proposals that have been put up by Lianne Dalziel on the Sale of Liquor Act which includes the ability for local boards to make by-laws to restrict alcohol sale. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. Prior to the last election National promised to remove restrictions on police officers standing as candidates in local authority elections and serving as members. We have a proud record of keeping our promises and this is yet another promise kept. The New Zealand Police Association and the New Zealand Police Managers Guild support the removal of restrictions as does Local Government New Zealand. 
We have heard Opposition members talk at some length about how sad they were that this bill did not go through the select committee process. I understand that in 2008 when the Policing Bill was considered there were only two submissions against this course of action. Police are respected members of our communities. They are doing a sterling job throughout all New Zealand particularly in Manurewa where I am privileged to be based. This Government has backed the police with a quiver of new tools to help them in keeping our communities secure and has added to their numbers. We promised 300 more police in Counties-Manukau by the end of this year and already 240 more uniformed officers have been deployed in that area. 
As respected members of our communities it is only fair and right that police officers be allowed to serve in local government should they so wish. I am thinking now of police sergeant Mike Bailey whom I met in the watchtower in Counties-Manukau at about 3 o’clock in the morning when I went out with an incident car overnight in that area. It became clear to me shortly afterwards that he was not only a hard-working police sergeant but also the chairman of the Manurewa Community Board. It is totally appropriate that men and women of such skill application and passion be able to contribute further to the safety and well-being of our communities by building on the existing strong relationships between the police their organisation and many community groups. 
It is pleasing to note that this bill is now enjoying wide support across the House. It is reasonable at this stage to ask how useful the previous legislation was. Well thinking of the Football World Cup in South Africa it was as useful as a vuvuzela to a Trappist monk or as useful as a dead monkey to an organ-grinder. This legislation was of no use and it is wonderful to see that across the House this has been realised by all parties. With the singular exception of the Greens—who I understand have yet to support any motion concerned with law and order—we have unanimous support for this bill in the House. This bill removes an injustice to serving police officers and allows our communities to benefit from their passion and expertise—the passion and expertise of a highly trained group of men and women. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I take this opportunity to thank the parties who have agreed to support this bill. Their support will ensure that the bill is passed in time for this year’s local government elections. In the short term the bill will give certainty to those police staff who intend to stand for the elections later this year and it will give them time to plan for their campaign. Longer term it will give assurance to all police staff that there are no legal restrictions to their right to stand for local councils in any future elections. 
I think I can safely say that we as a society have high expectations of the way our police conduct themselves not only in the line of duty—that is performed in public view—but also to an extent in their personal lives. But this does not mean that we should take private or democratic rights away from those who choose to take the constable’s oath or make a career serving the police. The police have had various staff serve on local councils for decades without issue. The potential for conflicts of interest whether actual or perceived can be managed so that they do not arise. At the end of the day if a local community is not happy with the way their councillor has performed they will simply not elect them again. The bill will ensure that when it comes to standing for local councils nothing in legislation prevents police staff enjoying the same rights as other State servants. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I know that you have been in the gym so the delay in calling me may be because your eyesight was affected by the amount of weights you were lifting. You are known I am told as a fit person; others dispute that but I am sure it is the case. 
I briefly reiterate what I said in the first reading touching on one point. We will support the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. As I say the issue arose out of a coalition partner who was zealous in his approach to wanting police not to participate in elections. I note in passing that a certain number of public servants are not permitted to participate in elections. This is enforced not by legislation but I am told by their own internal law if you will. For instance the military to a certain level I am told are not permitted to stand for election to this Parliament and that is by their own arrangements within military law. 
I address one issue that I think was raised by Metiria Turei in the first reading and that is the issue of conflict of interest. I had a chance to have a chat to a colleague opposite who has been a member of the constabulary to check the history on this issue and neither of us could remember a time when a conflict of interest had arisen. Metiria Turei raised the issue that a conflict of interest could arise where a police officer in a dual role—as an elected councillor community board member or local authority member and as a member of the constabulary—could not manage that issue. She suggested there could be some sort of great constitutional issue of moment. I have to say from having police officer Robbie Brine as a councillor on the Waimakariri District Council that I cannot recall that situation taking place. My colleague across the aisle having been a serving police officer cannot recall either. 
I think as with all elected roles—even members of Parliament from time to time whether it be Cabinet Ministers or members of select committees—conflicts of interest arise. There is a simple way to deal with them and that is that there are rules in this place and there are rules under the Local Government Act. There are also sanctions that can be imposed by the Auditor-General; we saw the Auditor-General give Environment Canterbury in my own area of Canterbury some scrutiny over a number of perceived or otherwise alleged conflicts of interest by non-serving police—ordinary folk that is—who still trod that fine line in respect of a conflict of interest. That was dealt with by the Auditor-General. So there are safeguards on that side and equally—again taking some counsel from my colleague across the aisle a former serving police officer—I would wager that there would be a great deal of interest taken by the hierarchy from the Commissioner of Police down if a serving police officer was to cross the line or in any way compromise the department or his or her own standing in the way by which that officer approached the decision-making process in a local authority. I argue that serving police officers who are elected—and in general 99.9 percent of folks who are in elected office—know when they have to withdraw from a process and when they have to leave the room or declare an interest. These things can be managed. 
I disagree with our Green colleagues that somehow the world as we know it will end the veil will fall the constitution will be torn asunder as it were and there will be a great series of injustices put forward because serving police officers are enabled to stand in local body elections. It is right to raise the issue and I accept that. I am sure there will be one or two letters to the editor and one or two in the community who will have a go from time to time at serving police officers who have the dual role but there are enough safeguards on both sides—both on the blue uniform side and within the elected local body—through legislation and the Auditor-General to ensure that people can have the confidence that those issues will be dealt with. Such people will be dealt with in the same way if you like as business people who serve on local authorities and may have an interest in property. When local authorities are making decisions on zoning arrangements irrigation issues or whatever decisions local authorities make those business people too have an obligation to ensure that those conflicts of interest are declared and appropriate measures taken so there is transparency. 
I like the Minister of Police commend the bill to the House. I will not go as far as her colleague Melissa Lee who expressed her love and admiration for the Minister but I am advised there is a lot to love. I commend the bill to the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill just as we supported the provision that was put in the Policing Act a year or two back with the support of New Zealand First and Labour and I am not sure who else. We supported the exclusion of police from serving on local bodies and I think there was a good reason at the time. The reasons were well outlined not only by the Greens but by Ron Mark; I think the previous speaker referred indirectly to him. Ron Mark of New Zealand First was very keen on that legislation. The Police Association was at that point and I think still is quite strongly against the exclusion of police officers and is quite in favour of the current bill. So the lines are pretty much the same. 
I think that essentially we have to have a clear separation of powers between the legislators—and that includes the local body legislators—the judiciary and the police as the implementers of the law. I do not think too many sitting judges have run for Parliament or local bodies and served on them. I think they see that they are bringing down decisions on cases of all sorts of citizens who come before them and that they should not confuse that role with being in charge of bringing in laws or by-laws as either parliamentarians or local body councillors. I think the police as the people who implement the law day to day have to be removed from any suspicion that they may be acting in a partisan or political way. That is the particular reason for serving police officers to be excluded. 
It is not like Clayton Cosgrove said just like other conflict of interest situations. Police officers are potentially in a conflict of interest every day they are on duty because during policing they could come across any other citizen including people who voted for them their colleagues on the local body etc. In some ways the provision that was put in the original law which we supported was put in also to protect the police themselves from any suspicion. If for example they told a car that was speeding down the road did not have its registration or was parked in the wrong place to stop and the driver happened to be some political antagonist another councillor or the wife or husband of a councillor there would be no suspicion that the police were acting in a partisan political manner. In most cases they would not be but the suspicion might be that that police officer who is a serving councillor is out to get this other officer who is also a sitting councillor. I think that provision avoided that situation. 
In no way is this a criticism of officers who have served on councils. I know that when the original bill came up I had a chat to Alf Filipaina whom I know well. He is a serving officer who was on the Manukau City Council. He is a great chap and a great community constable and has done tremendous things. If we look just at him and how he has managed the situation we might say there is a bit of an argument to not stop him doing both jobs. But if we look at it at a deeper level and in terms of wanting to remove the conflicts of interest then we should not allow that situation to take place. 
There was reference to the military before and how the military by their own internal system do not allow people to run for office and I think there is a good reason for that. But if it is good enough for the military there is even more reason for the police to do so. The military are not dealing with people day to day on the streets and are less likely to be in a conflict of interest situation than the police are. 
If we add it all up we see that it is important to keep that separation of powers among the judiciary the police and the legislators and not to confuse the roles. For that reason the Green Party is opposing this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the Committee stage of the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill to be taken as one wide-ranging debate with unlimited speaking slots. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Clauses 1 to 5 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I take just a short call to reiterate Labour’s support for the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill mindful that local body elections are upon us very soon. I note in passing that an expedited select committee process may well have been profitable in that it may well have put to bed some of the myths and legends that a Green member has talked about. 
In touching on the conflict of interest issue I think there is a need to deal with evidence. Given that the Policing Act has been around in some form since 1958 and given that members of the constabulary force have been elected as local body officials at least since then and possibly prior to that if there had been stark examples of conflict of interest if there had been a threat to the constitution if there had been a threat to Parliament or if there had been insurrection or otherwise I suspect we would have examples of that. Neither Mr Borrows a past serving police officer nor I in in-depth talks could dredge our memories back to a time when there had been; neither could Mr Hawkins or other colleagues I consulted. The Minister of Police has not touched on any examples so I assume there are none out there. 
There is a difference—a very big historic constitutional difference that is held amongst most if not all Commonwealth countries—between current military serving officers seeking elected office at a parliamentary level and those in the constabulary seeking to be members of community boards for goodness’ sake regional councils health boards latterly or district and local authorities. There are safeguards in place whether they be from the Auditor-General or the Local Government Act on the elections side. In a practical sense if a police officer was to go a bit troppo and do something unusual in his or her role as an elected local authority member I suspect—and the Minister may want to contradict me or she may want to agree with me—that the Commissioner of Police would come down on that officer like a ton of bricks because the police hold dear the sanctity of the nature of policing and its independence. 
I can provide as evidence of that the example of my own serving councillor Constable Brine who as Mr Locke said is required every day in part to administer and enforce local body by-laws and regulations. Some may dispute it but I believe that Councillor Brine has shown incredible integrity in the way that he has acted both as a councillor—and I am not endorsing anybody; that would not be appropriate—and as a member of the constabulary force. 
There is general agreement in the debate that we have to become a little rational. If there is evidence to substantiate the fears that Mr Locke has it is appropriate we deal with it in the debate. In my brief researching of history I cannot note an example where serving police officers who are elected officials have abused their position and put the department themselves or the local authority in a position of embarrassment or worse. As such I think this legislation is appropriate. 
As I have said the current restrictions were born out of the zealotry of one former member of Parliament Mr Mark who for whatever reason felt it was very very inappropriate— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Utu. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I could not comment on that. Mr Mark felt in a zealot-like way that it was inappropriate for police officers to serve as local councillors. For whatever reason those restrictions were a coalition demand and that is the nature of being in Government. 
I say to Mr Locke that he has raised points that are legitimate to debate but if he has examples evidence or facts to lay before the House as an illustration of what he claims may happen and of the fears he claims may manifest in the future it is right that this Committee examine them debate them talk them through and propose alternatives. If they do not exist we should get on and pass this bill. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to support the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. I want to talk about some of the aspects of the bill that Labour members are supportive of and to provide a little bit of history with regard to why restrictions on our police officers being able to stand for council were enforced in the first place. It was not an easy decision at the time. 
As most of the Committee should know a New Zealand First MP Ron Mark was a vocal campaigner for these restrictions to be introduced. Initially the Labour Government was not supportive but at the Committee stage of the Policing Act the Labour Government put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that in the future police officers would not be able to also be councillors. However those already fulfilling the dual roles could continue to do so. We have heard a lot of discussion about the five police officers who have continued in their roles as councillors and we have heard that they do so without any problems at all. There was concern—and this is why the restrictions were brought in to begin with—that there would be a conflict of interest for those police officers with regard to their having to enforce by-laws but the five particular councillors who are also police officers have been very careful to declare any conflict of interest that arises over their time as councillors. That serves as a good example that it can work that the police can fulfil those two roles without any problems occurring. 
One councillor I know of who has done it very well is Alf Filipaina a Manukau City councillor and police officer. He is respected by the community he has huge integrity and he has done a fantastic job. Even prior to the restrictions being brought in in 2008 he was very careful to make sure he declared any conflict of interest when it came to enforcing by-laws. He has a good track record. Since the passing of that legislation there has not been any problem with the five councillors and that is a big part of why Labour members are supporting this bill. We have seen that the police are able to conduct themselves in a professional manner with regard to fulfilling the two roles. That is part of the reason that we are supportive of this bill. 
Ideally in our minds it would have been better if the bill were not being rammed through in urgency. It would have been good to get the views of the public of the police and of anyone who had concerns or was particularly happy about the bill being passed. Unfortunately we will not have the opportunity to do that because the bill is going through the House in urgency. 
Labour is supporting the bill. It takes off those restrictions and allows the police to hold both positions. Regardless of the fact that they are police officers they will be able to stand as councillors. It seems only fair given the examples I discussed before and given that other public servants are provided with the opportunity to run for council despite their role as public servants. 
I want to take the time to acknowledge the police force and the outstanding work they do. I think all of us across the Chamber share that view. Without these restrictions they will be able not only to fulfil their role as police officers well but also to perform an outstanding role as councillors. That is why we are supportive of the bill. There are some significant barriers that the Government will need to overcome in order to make it work without a perception of conflict of interest and that will be one of the challenges the Government needs to face. For example a councillor helping to pass a by-law then policing that by-law in his or her role as a police officer could raise a conflict of interest. 
I will end my call there but only because I have a cold. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the previous two contributions were very useful and I agree that the five existing police officers who are also councillors—and I only really know of Alf Filipaina—appear to have conducted themselves with honour and in the correct manner. But when we write legislation in this Parliament we are not writing it for the better people in society—the ones who are well motivated and have good morality and everything else—we are writing legislation to cover situations where people are not so well motivated and might act in self-interest or meanness or get involved if they are on a local body in political fights. They might act in a way through their other role—in this case that of a police officer—that is not in accord with best practice. I do not think we can just think that in the future everyone will be angels and everything will be great. 
We have to look at the background of local body politics. Watching local body politics in Auckland in particular in the last few years we have seen quite a bit of not only political conflict but also personal conflict. People have been getting quite nasty to each other including in Manukau City— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You don’t have to be in the police for that to happen. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: —yes—and in North Shore City. I have seen quite a few personal clashes mixed up with political clashes of late. Therein lies the problem: it is not necessarily true that police officers who cover both positions will act in a bad way but they can be perceived as acting in a bad way if they are involved in these conflicts in their local bodies. They can be put in a very tricky position if they happen to stop a car for example that is driven by the son of one of their antagonists on the local body. What will they do in that situation? They will be caught in a bind. If they proceed with the ticketing they could get it back from the faction in the council that they disagree with who might say they did it because they were trying to get at the family. If they go the other way and say that they do not want a fight so they will not write out a ticket they get it from the police saying that they are not acting in a politically neutral way. So it is very difficult for them. 
There is also a question of a conflict of interest when bringing in by-laws. Alf Filipaina has stood aside when his council is making decisions on particular by-laws in order to remove a conflict of interest. That is often difficult where there is a very factional situation on a council such as there may be soon in the Auckland Council where two camps are developing in the electoral campaign. They might end up very finely balanced with just one vote between them. If all of a sudden a person in one camp happens to be a police officer and has to absent himself or herself from the vote it changes the whole balance of power on the council. 
A whole lot of problems can arise through having a potential conflict of interest and the easiest way to overcome it is to retain the original law. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Some very good points have been raised in the debate on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill and I think it is beholden on me to answer some of those questions. With police employees now being able to stand for local authority elections obviously there will have to be some changes made to the internal policies of the police to deal with that. Some of the things that may need to be reviewed include some aspects of the Police’s code of conduct. I will read to the Committee a couple of those points. The first is a provision that states: “Where employees do participate in political matters in a personal capacity they do not bring themselves into conflict with their primary role as Police employees.” That is already part of the code of conduct. Another provision states that employees should remain politically neutral in all of their dealings in the workplace. Some comments have been made about a particular Manukau City Councillor Alf Filipaina who is known to many of us particularly in the Manukau region. I cannot think of one instance when his political situation on the council has had anything to do with his policing other than that he has probably brought a lot of his knowledge from policing to his role on the council. Certainly he is not standing for the National Party last time I checked. As Minister of Police I have had plenty of dealings with Alf and have never had any worry at all about his ability to do his role professionally. 
The Police manual that sets out police policies and procedures will also need to be reviewed. There are obviously some issues relating to the internal policies to make sure that any conflicts of interest are managed. There have been some issues raised about the potential conflict of interest and how terrible this would be and of course it would be terrible if it ever eventuated. In fact the affected police officer could end up in an employment situation that also involves his or her elected situation but so do lots of other councillors. For instance as a lawyer I can think of a time when a lawyer who may be acting for developers might be elected to a council. Should that person be precluded from election to the council because it may be making decisions about development? The fact is that the lawyer has to point out that he or she is in a potential conflict of interest situation and exit the decision-making process. That is the sort of thing police officers can and already do when they serve on councils. They are aware that they are in potential conflict of interest situations. 
There might be some situations for instance when they would not be involved in the approving of some by-laws such as liquor licensing noise control determining zones in which brothels can and cannot operate and the removal of gang fortifications. Those are all issues that involve enforcement by police. Obviously they are probably better not to be part of that decision-making process. Those are not potential conflicts that cannot be managed; they can be managed by people who are sensible and those people are sensible by virtue of the fact that they have been serving police officers and elected by their communities. If they are not aware of that then like anybody else who has a potential conflict of interest they must take the consequences if they do not heed it. It is the same way for any member of Parliament. I do not think we should have a situation where we preclude police officers by law—not through their employment situation but by law making them the only people we preclude. That is a ridiculous situation and that is why I am very pleased with the support we have had from other parties in the Committee to get this bill through in urgency. 
One of the reasons we are debating it in urgency is because those officers need to be able to plan a campaign. They need to be able to make decisions and talk to their families and employers. The New Zealand Police also needs to be sure it gets its own code of conduct in line with this law change. We do not want police officers being precluded from being able to stand because they have taken their constabulary oath or are in a senior position. I support this bill obviously but I am also very aware of the fact that it is righting a wrong that was done let us say in a mean spirit. I think many of us here in the Chamber accept that a mean spirit was pervading at the time the change took place. Democracy is not just for everyone else in the world; it is also for New Zealand police officers. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I take another opportunity to thank those members who have constructively supported this amendment bill and to thank the whole House for the way it has allowed this debate to be conducted. 
This Government is committed to supporting our police and their rights as private citizens in a democracy. The bill achieves this objective when it comes to police employees standing for local councils by putting all police staff on a level playing field with other State servants. The bill is a small amendment to the Policing Act 2008 but as it will help strengthen the strong ties that police have with their local councils the bill is important for all local communities throughout the country. I commend this bill to the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will continue to oppose the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill for the reasons we have outlined. It is with a certain degree of sadness; I think that we would like a democracy where everybody including judges the military and the police could contest every position. But there is a case for the separation of powers with national and local legislatures as it were being separated off from people who either stand in judgment over the law like judges the people who enforce the law like the police or the people who are in a particular position as potential enforcement agencies both domestically and internationally like the military. 
I am pleased with the way the debate has been conducted since I have been here. I think that it has brought out the useful points. I think—and I support Carmel Sepuloni on this—that it would have been good to have had a select committee consideration particularly so that the advice of some of the finest legal minds like those of the Law Society could have been brought to bear. The question of separation of powers and of not having a conflict of interest is something that perhaps bigger legal minds than mine could exercise their brains on. I was a little disturbed that there was a comment which might be referring back to Mr Ron Mark who was a New Zealand First MP in the previous Parliament that somehow his bill was a result of his having a bit of meanness a personal agenda or something like that. As I recall his comments at the time both formal in the House and informal were that he was genuinely exercised by the political arguments for this. He did that very vigorously and I think he had good reasons for going down that track. So I am standing up for him to an extent in this Parliament today and saying that there are real arguments for being against this legislation. I think that Ron led the way on them in the last Parliament. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the third reading of the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill and to endorse the bill. I will address a couple of points that the member Keith Locke has made. 
I make the point again that if there is a fear in respect of the future maybe we should look at the past and look at fact evidence and example. It is right that the member Mr Locke raises these issues but I note for the record that in the debate not one example or one piece of evidence has been put forward to show that a serving police officer elected to a local authority has compromised his or her position or that of the department or local authority. I think we should be mindful in this place—to be honest I suspect that often we are not on certain occasions—that when we make these decisions we should deal with evidence and example. I say to Mr Locke that it is right that he raises the issue but I also say to my colleague that he should live in hope—live in hope. 
I suspect that for the people who are serving as both constabulary staff and in local authorities the counterfactual we have is stark real and lively examples of where those five officers have acted absolutely appropriately as far as I am aware in all circumstances in their dual roles. So if we are after evidence to back up our argument then that evidence stands before us. 
I note with interest that the Maori Party is opposing this bill. I will not deal with the notions that its members have put forward. Suffice it to say that I my Labour colleagues and others completely distance ourselves from the language and the venom that was visited upon the New Zealand Police by Mr Harawira—the language and venom. Again I say to Mr Harawira who has chosen not to take a call that if there is example evidence case or allegation he should bring it forward. He should not stand on the sidelines and throw horrific slogans and language at serving police officers members of the Public Service and others. Those slogans and language are deeply offensive to all members of our community because of historical events. We distance ourselves as my colleagues have from those offensive remarks. If that is the basis for opposing this bill then I invite Mr Harawira and the Maori Party to look very carefully at the statements he has made. He is a member of the Maori Party so those statements appear to be representative of the party itself. 
I commend the bill to the House. I commend the members of the police force serving on local bodies. One in my area Councillor Brine has that dual role. They tread a very difficult path from time to time in managing those inherent conflicts in relation to by-laws and various things but as other speakers have said lawyers property developers business people and—I would wager—the odd publican who have stood for and gained elected office have also had to tread that path of managing conflicts of interest as do all elected folk including us in this Chamber. There are processes safeguards and mechanisms like the Local Government Act the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and the Commissioner of Police’s office. They can and are willing to deal with those conflicts in order to ensure there is transparency and integrity in that democratic process. 
My plea to Mr Locke on these occasions is that when he is making statements we should deal with facts and evidence not hyperbole and hypothesis. Let us deal with the facts and the evidence. The truth is that since 1958—and I beg for someone to provide evidence to the contrary—serving officers who have been elected officials have acted appropriately and have not crossed the line that Mr Locke fears they will. I along with colleagues commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time.