Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17928] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is worthwhile capping that tirade from Chester Borrows. The first thing that we must make clear to people is that the five officers who are currently serving will continue to serve including Robbie Brine whom Mr Borrows seems to be so focused on—in fact no one else has mentioned his name. He will continue to serve as a councillor until he chooses to stand down or is not elected. That is the bottom line. This legislation does not affect him at all. 
Chester Borrows 
: Now. 
RON MARK 
: Now tomorrow the next day the day after that the day after the next election and the day after the next election after that. If Robbie Brine or any of those five officers are re-elected at the next local government elections they will continue to serve. It is a grandparenting clause—it is as simple as that. The second point from Mr Borrows was that these officers make valuable contributions to councils when decisions are being made. I say to Mr Borrows that they can still serve on a community board. [ 
Interruption 
] Is that not enough money? 
Chester Borrows 
: That’s a pat on the head. 
RON MARK 
: Mr Borrows now denigrates the officers who are serving on community boards. How many officers are currently serving on community boards? Two? 
Hon Annette King 
: Another five. 
RON MARK 
: So Mr Borrows thinks that those five are just a bunch of wallies. He just said to give them a little pat on the head. For those who could not hear it because his microphone is turned off I repeat that his response to the officers who are on community boards was to give them a pat on the head. Let us put that in the  
Hansard 
. New Zealand’s 11500 police officers can still continue to make a contribution. They can all stand for community boards should they choose to do so and they will be permitted to do so. 
The next point concerns advice to the council. Forgive me but during the 12 years that I have been in this Parliament a select committee has always had the ability to call the police whenever it wanted advice from them. In fact rather than hearing from just a constable whose view of life is a constable’s view the select committee can get advice from specialists heads of departments and men and women and officers who know thoroughly and intimately the issues involved. The police will select a team to come and advise the committee—Mr Borrows has been in this House long enough to know that—and the council can do the same. 
It is interesting that a delegation from the Wanganui District Council led by the mayor recently came before the very same Law and Order Committee and gave a submission on a law change it wants made—a law that it has drafted. It was supported by Mr Borrows. And who is sitting on that council committee? Rana Waitai is on it—a former police officer. [ 
Interruption 
] He is not one now but people do not have any problem whatsoever with having someone who is a former police officer putting himself forward for election being elected and coming forward to do the work that people want him to do. Mr Waitai understands clearly the need for the separation of powers. He clearly understands that—as clearly as some people do not. So the argument that these police officers give quality advice is a nonsense argument. The police can always make officers available to give quality advice and here is the rub: it will not cost the council anything and it will not cost ratepayers anything. They will not have to fund a $40000 a year salary. They will just ask them to appear and they will appear and they will be the right people. 
I say to Mr Borrows that he should not hang his hat too heavily on the notion that all police officers have excused themselves from meetings when matters of law and order and public safety have been debated when appropriations have been made and when decisions and determinations have been made about the allocation of appropriations and the expenditure of finance—because he might fall over on that one. Enough written evidence is coming into Parliament from other areas around the country and minutes of council meetings do not lie. Those who are present are recorded. Those who excuse themselves from proceedings because they see a conflict of interest are recorded. Those who do not are also recorded. So enough of the nonsense and enough of the drivel. It is time to move on. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of Chester Borrows to omit clause 97 and substitute new clause 97 be agreed to.