Sepuloni Carmel: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sepuloni Carmel: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12045. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.