Cosgrove Clayton: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12053. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I take just a short call to reiterate Labour’s support for the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill mindful that local body elections are upon us very soon. I note in passing that an expedited select committee process may well have been profitable in that it may well have put to bed some of the myths and legends that a Green member has talked about. 
In touching on the conflict of interest issue I think there is a need to deal with evidence. Given that the Policing Act has been around in some form since 1958 and given that members of the constabulary force have been elected as local body officials at least since then and possibly prior to that if there had been stark examples of conflict of interest if there had been a threat to the constitution if there had been a threat to Parliament or if there had been insurrection or otherwise I suspect we would have examples of that. Neither Mr Borrows a past serving police officer nor I in in-depth talks could dredge our memories back to a time when there had been; neither could Mr Hawkins or other colleagues I consulted. The Minister of Police has not touched on any examples so I assume there are none out there. 
There is a difference—a very big historic constitutional difference that is held amongst most if not all Commonwealth countries—between current military serving officers seeking elected office at a parliamentary level and those in the constabulary seeking to be members of community boards for goodness’ sake regional councils health boards latterly or district and local authorities. There are safeguards in place whether they be from the Auditor-General or the Local Government Act on the elections side. In a practical sense if a police officer was to go a bit troppo and do something unusual in his or her role as an elected local authority member I suspect—and the Minister may want to contradict me or she may want to agree with me—that the Commissioner of Police would come down on that officer like a ton of bricks because the police hold dear the sanctity of the nature of policing and its independence. 
I can provide as evidence of that the example of my own serving councillor Constable Brine who as Mr Locke said is required every day in part to administer and enforce local body by-laws and regulations. Some may dispute it but I believe that Councillor Brine has shown incredible integrity in the way that he has acted both as a councillor—and I am not endorsing anybody; that would not be appropriate—and as a member of the constabulary force. 
There is general agreement in the debate that we have to become a little rational. If there is evidence to substantiate the fears that Mr Locke has it is appropriate we deal with it in the debate. In my brief researching of history I cannot note an example where serving police officers who are elected officials have abused their position and put the department themselves or the local authority in a position of embarrassment or worse. As such I think this legislation is appropriate. 
As I have said the current restrictions were born out of the zealotry of one former member of Parliament Mr Mark who for whatever reason felt it was very very inappropriate— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Utu. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I could not comment on that. Mr Mark felt in a zealot-like way that it was inappropriate for police officers to serve as local councillors. For whatever reason those restrictions were a coalition demand and that is the nature of being in Government. 
I say to Mr Locke that he has raised points that are legitimate to debate but if he has examples evidence or facts to lay before the House as an illustration of what he claims may happen and of the fears he claims may manifest in the future it is right that this Committee examine them debate them talk them through and propose alternatives. If they do not exist we should get on and pass this bill.