Cosgrove Clayton: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12058. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.