Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12056. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.