Jones Dail: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17920] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I have been following this debate with interest and had a look at the notes from the Law and Order Committee and it is my understanding that there is a view held by those outside that there have not been any submissions on clause 97 and that people are saying and perhaps even making written statements that no one wanted what the select committee did and that there were no submissions on the clause. Well clause 97— 
Chester Borrows 
: No one said that. 
DAIL JONES 
: Actually people are saying that outside and I hope Mr Borrows will be the first to tell them that they are wrong when they make those remarks. In the select committee’s report—Mr Borrows was a member and agreed with and was responsible for the report—it makes clear and I quote: “The concern from submitters was that since local bodies have by-law making powers there was a constitutional anomaly that allows law enforcers to also be lawmakers.” The select committee also stated: “Clause 97 of the bill as introduced prohibits constables authorised officers and supervisors from being electoral officials. Some questioned why constables authorised officers and supervisors are not explicitly prohibited from being able to be elected members of local government in the same way they are prohibited from being members of Parliament while still constables supervisors and authorised officers.” That issue was put to the select committee thoroughly discussed by the committee and the committee actually amended the original legislation and came up with legislation I think prohibiting constables from being on councils. Mr Borrows was a member of the select committee which agreed with that proposal. There is no minority report here— 
Chester Borrows 
: Read the commentary. 
DAIL JONES 
: I have the commentary here and maybe somewhere— 
Chester Borrows 
: Read it. 
DAIL JONES 
: Sorry I take his point. I apologise to the member. I was looking for a minority report but it is not there. There are comments elsewhere that New Zealand National members remain unconvinced so I take their point on that. However I must congratulate the Minister because it establishes that the Minister has an open mind on this issue and if the majority of the people of this country express their view the Minister is prepared to accept it. New Zealand First takes the view and I take—as a lawyer as I must and I am disappointed that the lawyers in the National Party do not—the legal view which was very clear that there needs to be a separation of powers. Mr David Benson-Pope understands that viewpoint. As a schoolteacher he is able to pick up on that quite clearly and lucidly; it seems that the National Party members who have spoken who are lawyers cannot accept the doctrine of separation of powers put forward at the highest possible level to the select committee. New Zealand First accepts that view wholeheartedly. 
Of course there is a problem in having a police officer as a councillor and perhaps we should make clear the distinction in the clause because this provision does not apply to the community board. Am I right Minister? So a police constable can be a member of a community board. That is clear is it not? So a constable can be a member of a community board but we are talking about the council. I have listened to talkback radio as well and what I heard suggested that the police constables would pop into the council while they were on their holiday leave to do the work. Now that is what I heard on talkback in Auckland when this issue cropped up. In actual fact the evidence appears to be that this role of a councillor involves 30 hours a week. How much holiday leave can a police officer get to be able to do 30 hours a week as a councillor? That is the key thing. It is not possible to do one’s job properly as a police constable and also to do 30 hours a week on a local authority. 
One example we have is a police officer who is also a chairman of some waste refuse organisation as part of and in addition to his 30 hours a week. That is just incredible. It is no wonder there is a criticism in some quarters about the quality of the work done by the police force. We do not want any criticism of that kind whatsoever. So the doctrine of the separation of powers is clear. It is impossible for a police constable to be both a local authority councillor and a police officer and do the work properly. 
Of course he gets another $50000 a year on top of his police salary through being a councillor and no doubt that is an incentive and is why he is doing it as well. If a police constable is interested in doing community work he or she can be on the community board—it is as simple as that—and it will not take 30 hours a week. New Zealand First takes the view that if the constable wants to support the community work for the community and be on the community board then that is wonderful. 
Of course the example in front of me shows a degree of disagreement between the people in the local community and the police constable in the Coromandel township. Those people in the Coromandel will know immediately what I am referring to. What happens when an area has only two police officers and one of them spends 30 hours a week on the council as a councillor? If we want to ring that person we have to ring the council offices or if we want to ring him or her as a resident we have to ring the police station because both numbers are given. That is totally unsatisfactory. If there is a two-person police station and one of the officers is a councillor who is doing 30 hours a week on the council that surely must show that law and order breaks down. I ask Mr Worth and whoever will be speaking next from any political party to explain how we can offer a decent service to the community in those circumstances. 
Again if a police constable is on the Liquor Licensing Authority on behalf of the council and his or her superior officer appears as a member of the Thames police to oppose the granting of a licence there we are: the police constable is the judicial officer but his or her superior officer comes along and opposes the granting of the licence so does that officer disagree or agree with his or her superior officer? In the case we have here the local councillor who was inferior to the superior officer making the application agreed with the superior officer’s application. Does that seem fair? Is that above board? This is a case for a liquor licence that involves a person’s livelihood in many respects. The inferior officer was the judge and the superior officer who is the prosecuting person asked for the licence application not to go ahead. That is a factual matter given to New Zealand First and I am sure it must have been available to the other members of the House. 
We are very concerned that there is this specific example of a conflict of interest that can arise that I can put to members. Even the National Party members who have been speaking on this matter indicate that there can be a conflict of interest. There should not be any doubt. A police officer should be like a judge—totally of the highest repute without any possibility of disagreement as to his or her abilities and his or her impartiality. But here we are: we are allowing police officers to be in a position of partiality—exercising influence on the outcomes of people’s lives—and that is a very dangerous situation. 
Once again I repeat if someone really wants to make a contribution to the community he or she should go on the community board. [ 
Interruption 
] That person will not get paid as much—that is a point. He or she might not get $50000 a year. He or she might not get another $25000 a year for being chairman of a refuse committee adding about $75000 to his or her police income for a job that that person is not doing very well. But on the community board a person can if he or she really wants make a contribution to the community. New Zealand First welcomes police officers making a contribution to the community in that fashion.