Ardern Jacinda: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.