Wilkinson Kate: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17740] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of the Policing Bill at its second reading. Firstly I too acknowledge the work of the Law and Order Committee of which I am a member. I must say that it was a nice change to be part of a process that was for the most part non-contentious and non-partisan and that had the full backing and cooperation of all parties in this House. That is something that unfortunately the public does not get to see much of from this Parliament. This rare expression of unity is certainly in marked contrast to the furore that followed the passage of the Electoral Finance Bill through the House. 
This bill is a real testament to the efforts of Hamish McCardle—and I note that the Minister has already acknowledged his efforts—and the Police Act review team and I thank them for their enormous contribution as well. I also recognize the extensive and innovative consultation process held over almost 2 years that has allowed members of the public to engage in this lawmaking process in so many different and unique ways. Everyone who had an important role to play in bringing this legislation to the House has had his or her voice heard and I hope we will see more of this kind of involvement in the future. 
We are and should be strong supporters of the police in New Zealand. The National Party is a strong supporter of the police and I believe that by and large as a country we have widespread support for confidence in and respect for the police force despite some of the setbacks experienced in recent years. I recognize here today the tremendous work the police do every day in keeping our communities safe. It is not an easy job nor is it a job that can be just left behind at the end of the day. Sometimes when the organisation is under scrutiny that point is easily forgotten. I believe that New Zealand has a police force we can all be proud of and I am pleased that through this bill we are truly modernising the New Zealand Police by providing its members with the necessary tool kit that will allow for the delivery of better policing services for our communities in dealing with 21st century situations and that will better position us as a nation for the future. 
I will give a recent example of how modern and in touch with our community our police can be. In a recent radio interview in Christchurch there was the story of a policeman who picked up a young schoolgirl who was a truant and took her to school. Her mother unfortunately left for work every morning at about 6.15 a.m. She was not there to make sure that her daughter went to school; there was nothing to give this young woman the discipline or the incentive to go to school. So the local policeman off his own bat decided that he would pick her up every morning and take her to school and within one week she was back enjoying learning and enjoying school. That is a true and remarkable testimony to the importance and role of our police work in our community—work that does actually make a real difference. 
I think we have done well in ensuring that this bill stays true to the spirit of the original Act. The first principles on which it was founded remain largely the same within this Policing Bill and are described as having stood the test of time. These founding principles are firstly that “(a) principled effective and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”. The principles have been mentioned by the Minister and are contained in clause 8 of the bill. They also include the principles that “(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 that “(f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally ethically and with integrity.” These principles are as relevant today as they were in 1958. 
I mentioned earlier that this bill was largely non-contentious but there was one point—and it has been mentioned by my colleague Mr Borrows—on which we perhaps did not all agree. That was the inclusion of a new clause clause 97 that sought to deal with the politicisation of the police force by allowing serving officers in uniform to be elected to local government—colloquially known as “cops as councillors”. Questions were raised about why constables authorised officers and supervisors were 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. Some submitters were concerned that because local bodies had bylaw-making powers a constitutional anomaly would allow the law enforcers to also be the lawmakers. That was mentioned by my colleague Mr Borrows and it was based on the legal purists as he said. I know that New Zealand First and Labour members of the committee also shared those concerns and it was a question of whether those lawmakers should be the enforcers of the laws they had had a part in making. 
It therefore came as somewhat of a relief to National—and also to the Police Association which agreed that the proposal was in its words “ridiculous and unjustified”—when the Minister confirmed and acknowledged at the select committee that she and her party supported the status quo which does allow the police to put themselves up for election at local body elections. This proposal does not actually affect many police officers. In fact I understand that only about six officers throughout the country are also local authority councillors. I think it is important to be aware to acknowledge and to trust that it is up to the individual police officer who is also the councillor to deal appropriately with any perceived or arguable conflict of interest situation. Similarly it is up to the public when voting for those councillors to elect those they think are the best people for the job. If the best person for the job happens to be the community cop then it is up to the community to make that election and make that vote. 
As an example Mr John Morrissey is an example of a police officer stationed in the Coromandel area and doing a fine job while also serving as the Coromandel-Colville ward councillor on the Thames-Coromandel District Council. He is in his second term as councillor and is able to do both jobs well at the same time. His re-election showed that voters believe he is doing a good job and I am certain that Mr Morrissey is not alone. In fact I know he is not alone. In the electorate where I reside we have a Mr Brine who is in a similar situation. He is not in his first term as councillor he deals with any conflict of interest situations appropriately and his appointment was reinforced when he was duly elected by the ratepayers and citizens of the Waimakariri district. They obviously have the faith to think that he is one of the best people to do that job. 
I am pleased that we have all come to some sense in this House and that this clause will be removed through Supplementary Order Paper 213 which my colleague Chester Borrows has prepared. I urge the support of the House on that. This leaves a bill that confirms and strengthens police government accountability and organisational arrangements in a way that reflects 21st century New Zealand thereby making the organisation as a whole more accountable and more transparent while at the same time improving police efficiency. We commend this bill to the House at its second reading and trust that its remaining stages will run as smoothly as its introduction has.