Wilkinson Kate: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17917] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I will also spend an amount of time in relation to clause 97 of the Policing Bill which deals with cops serving as councillors. In particular I will spend time on the flip-flops that we have just heard about. Right from the outset as stated in the commentary on the bill we remained unconvinced that it was desirable to restrict constables from involvement in elections—apart from the exclusion of police officers from being candidates in general elections—that is we were not convinced that cops could not be councillors. 
We realise from a strictly jurisprudential point of view there is the argument that the makers of by-laws should not be the enforcers of those by-laws but in this situation I think a little common sense can prevail. The Minister talked about conflicts of interest as though a conflict of interest should preclude any position being taken up but as we all know even in our field potential conflicts of interest are not uncommon. They are not uncommon in any field whatsoever. They are not unlawful. It really is up to the parties concerned to deal with conflicts of interest to declare those conflicts of interest—or potential conflicts of interest—and to deal with them in the best way possible. 
In the past police officers have also been elected as local authority councillors and perhaps the Minister would take a call and tell us how many incidents or problems have occurred because of the potential conflict of interest arising from those police officers also being local authority councillors. At the end of the day it is up to the individual police officers and councillors to deal appropriately with any perceived conflicts of interest—and I think perceived conflicts of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest. It is up to the individual police officers and councillors to deal appropriately with those perceived or arguable conflict of interest situations. It is also up to the public when voting at local body elections to elect the people they think are best for the job. As the Minister has said five police officers throughout the country are also serving as local authority councillors. They have the confidence of their respective communities. They have been voted in despite the apparent perceived or arguable conflict of interest. Again I would ask the Minister—and I would be really interested in her answer—what the problem is. Has there been a problem with existing cops serving as councillors? 
I refer to Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Annette King which she says represents the status quo and I would have to say it is a bit of a slippery status quo at that. My colleague Mr Borrows has already relayed the actual 
Hansard transcript of the Law and Order Committee hearing where the Minister clearly said that cops could be councillors. That is what she was referring to as being status quo and that is what she was referring to as being the view of the Labour caucus. I accept that the Minister can change her mind and make a flip-flop if that is what the Labour caucus decides but it is indeed a flip-flop and a change from the assurance we were given at the Law and Order Committee that cops could indeed be councillors and that that was the status quo. 
We now have a slippery sort of a status quo that applies only to sitting elected and appointed members. As long as those officers are not defeated at some future election they can continue to campaign for re-election without having to go on a leave of absence and they will not have to leave the police force if re-elected—grandparenting as the Minister says. Supplementary Order Paper 226 in itself is somewhat deficient because even if one accepts that that is the desirable position there is no time limit. So it is arguable that a police officer who is a local councillor now could step down at the next election and not stand for re-election but in 10 years’ time that person could stand again and may be covered by the provision in that Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon Annette King 
: No they can’t do that. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: If that is not the intention that is fine but I am just pointing out that there may be an argument to say that that is the case. Why should one police officer who happens to be a councillor and was the best person for the job when elected be permitted to be a councillor and to be re-elected ad infinitum yet another officer who is not an existing councillor but who may be a better person for the job and may be wanted by the public not be permitted to stand as a councillor? 
I repeat that at the end of the day the public are the judges and they should be the judges in this matter. The public should be trusted not only to buy whatever light bulbs they want but to elect a councillor who they think is the best person for the job whether or not that person is a policeperson. It is up to the policeperson who is in that situation to deal with those conflicts of interests appropriately. I urge the House to support my colleague Chester Borrows’ Supplementary Order Paper 113 which is supported by many of the public and by the police themselves. If one listens to talkback radio one finds that the amendment should have fairly universal support. We appreciate there are potential conflicts or potential issues with regard to cops serving as councillors but we say they can be dealt with within the existing law. 
Accordingly we urge that common sense prevail and we urge support for Mr Borrows’ Supplementary Order Paper in relation to this issue. We believe that common sense should prevail and that the public can be trusted to vote for the person who they think is best for the job whatever the person’s occupation and notwithstanding that the person may be a policeman or policewoman. As Mr Borrows has already stated some of those community policemen policepersons are often in the best position to judge— 
Hone Harawira 
: Police officer. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: —police officer will do; actually they are called police employees. Those people are often in the best position to judge and be aware of the needs of the community. The community is in the best position to elect the best people for the job and the law should enable that to happen. I urge the House to support the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Chester Borrows.