Wilkinson Kate: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18100] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am certainly pleased to rise today and speak in support of the Policing Bill at its third reading. It is interesting that we should have the third reading debate today on the very day that the Commissioner of Police Howard Broad has finalised the decision on Taser use—its introduction as a tactical weapon option. 
I think one of the outstanding features of this Policing Bill is actually seen in relation to consultation. The legislation shows how proper consultation with a bit of collaboration and cooperation can actually work and produce a bill that is by and large uncontentious and well received by all. Before the bill even reached the House it was subject to a rigorous and extremely well-managed consultation round. We can give examples in the House of other bills that have not had the same fate but I think we all know which ones they are. Certainly in the case of the Policing Bill New Zealanders were given multiple opportunities to have their say about the future and the future look of the New Zealand Police. Just to reiterate the extent of that consultation to raise awareness of this Police Act review I tell members that as I understand it more than 80 meetings were held around the country and more than 1200 people attended those meetings. I have said this before but in light of what has gone on over the past weeks it is important to say again to members of the public watching or listening that it has been a pleasure to work on this bill which has enjoyed—by and large as I said—the full cooperation and backing of all parties in Parliament. 
For the most part the bill has been non-contentious and it has passed relatively swiftly through the House. That swift passage is due in part I think to the work of the Law and Order Committee—which was very fine work I have to say and very ably led by our chair—and also of Hamish McCardle and the Police Act review team who consulted with those hundreds of interested parties and worked on this bill for the past couple of years. 
The bill has successfully managed to retain the original principles of the Police Act 1958 an Act that came into force when our police spokesperson was 1 year old—I would quite like to add that to the debate. 
Pita Paraone 
: How old? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: One year old in 1958. The bill will also hopefully improve police accountability. We have heard much about the original principles in previous speeches. However I think it is important to mention those principles again as they have stood the test of time and they continue to underpin our police force. Those principles as defined in clause 8 are that “(a) principled effective and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law: (b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence: (c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus: (d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights: (e) policing services are provided independently and impartially:” and finally that “(f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally ethically and with integrity.” Those principles are as relevant today as they were in 1958. 
Before I move on to my main concern in relation to this bill I want to join with others and give the police force in New Zealand the credit I wholeheartedly think it deserves. Yes the police have faced some setbacks in recent years. Yes they have received negative media coverage over the unfortunate actions of a minority who have potentially tainted their public image. But equally I believe that they deserve our support our respect and our confidence. Policemen and policewomen up and down the country do a tremendous job every day in keeping our communities as safe as possible. Unfortunately this is something that can easily be forgotten when the heat is turned on and it is also something that can easily be taken for granted. With the passing of this bill we are enabling the police to do their jobs better by providing them with the necessary tool kit to allow them to deal with 21st century situations. 
My main concern—and I must say I was disappointed with the Minister’s recent flip-flop over it—is clause 97 the “cops as councillors” clause as it is colloquially known. It concerns police who can also serve as elected councillors on local authorities. It was just over a month ago in response to my question at the select committee that the Minister assured us that cops could be councillors. In fact the question was quite clear. The question was “So cops can be councillors?” and the Minister responded “Indeed.” I have to say that that change of stance is slightly disappointing in the sense that the Police Association and others have not had the opportunity to be consulted on this turn-round. 
There are still some unanswered questions in relation to clause 97 and the first is: where is the actual evidence of problems occurring where an existing police officer is serving on a local authority or community board? Although I have asked that question it has unfortunately remained unanswered. Is there any evidence that existing police who are serving as councillors are not able to fulfil both duties well? Is there any evidence that any potential conflict of interest has not been dealt with sufficiently? Those questions have remained unanswered and instead we have had the last-minute Supplementary Order Paper an amendment that allows only existing councillors who are also police to remain as councillors. It does not allow for new councillors to be elected if they are members of the police force. 
The second question is: what happened since that meeting of the Law and Order Committee in July to change the mind of the Minister of Police? We can speculate that maybe some backroom deal was brokered in return for support over other bills. Who knows? But certainly that suspicion has been aroused. The question of why authorised officers and police are explicitly banned from being able to be elected members of local government has been argued on the basis of the age-old principle of the separation of powers and on the basis that the lawmakers should not be the law enforcers. That is a constitutional principle that we really should be careful about departing from. However law also has to be based somewhat on common sense—[ 
Interruption 
]—and the Minister knows about the law of common sense. In some situations there is a question about why the public cannot be trusted to elect the councillors it thinks are the best people to do the job. This last-minute amendment by the Minister has actually been described as a betrayal of the trust of all police officers who believed right up until the last minute that they would continue to be able to fulfil their duties as police officers as well as to stand at local body elections. National is certainly disappointed that the amendment moved by my colleague Mr Borrows was voted down. 
Having said that I do commend this bill for all the good it does through confirming and strengthening police governance accountability and organisational arrangements in a way that reflects 21st century New Zealand by making the organisation of the New Zealand Police as a whole more accountable and transparent and at the same time by improving police efficiency. I am delighted to continue to support the passage of the Policing Bill through this House at its third reading.