Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) Link to this

I move, That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Nearly 2 years ago when the Policing Act 2008 was passed, there were some provisions within that legislation that set some police staff apart from their fellow State servants. Under section 99 of the Policing Act, all constables, authorised officers, and supervisors without any constabulary powers must be placed on leave if they want to stand as a candidate in a local authority election, and if they are elected they must resign from the police.

Under section 115 of the Act there is an exception for police who were sitting members of local authorities at the time the Policing Act came into force on 1 October 2008, but only for as long as they are re-elected. For other State servants, however, there is no law that stops them from standing or serving on a local authority. They are simply required to remain politically neutral in what they do and follow any departmental rules that are in place. Any conflicts of interest must be declared, but it is up to the individual and the department to manage them. This Government sees no reason why police should be treated any differently, and that is what this bill aims to achieve.

If this bill is passed, then police will have in place rules and policies along the lines of those of other Government departments, which have to manage any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise. Many members of the police already have strong relationships with their communities. It is common to have area commanders, community constables, and other police working together with local councils to make their local community safer. Making it easier for police staff to serve on local councils will help strengthen that relationship. This Government is keen to ensure that when it comes to standing for public office, all police employees enjoy the same democratic rights as any other State servant. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

Let me say from the outset that the Labour Opposition will support this bill. As the explanatory note of the bill states, in the original policing Act, the Police Act 1958, there was a framework for prohibiting police from standing in local authority elections, but, as the bill states, the additional step required—naming the relevant local authorities in regulations—was never taken. It is a fact that in 2008 the Labour coalition Government at the time, with New Zealand First, passed the Policing Act of 2008, which, as the Minister said, put the prohibitions in place. Let me say that one of the primary reasons for that at that time was a political reality—which I am sure all members of the House are aware of—in the form of coalition partners. One has coalition partners, and one has demands from coalition partners, as this Government has had from its coalition partners. A demand was made by New Zealand First, and I think Ron Mark led the charge at the time or was particularly passionate about it for a variety of reasons, and it was agreed to. I join with the Minister—I know this is a rare occasion—in expressing—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am delighted to speak on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. The objective of this bill is to remove the restrictions in the Policing Act to enable all police employees to stand for local council elections without being placed on leave. If elected, they would not need to vacate their position as a police employee. This bill will ensure that police employees are not treated any differently from other State servants, who are not prevented by legislation from standing for election and serving on local authorities.

In response to some of the comments that have been made, regardless of whether someone is a police officer, a shopkeeper, or a Government employee in another capacity, if that person is not doing a good job as an elected representative of his or her community, then the community will not elect that person next time. That is the discipline for anybody standing for council, and it is no less so for someone who is employed as a police officer who stands for council. If the community feels that that person is just not working, then that person will not be re-elected to the council but will be left in the police employee position. That is the way of elections for local authorities. It is that simple, and I do not think it needs expedited examination, as the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove, suggested. I think the legislation is too simple to waste the time of the House on, when it can go through the House simply and easily. The bill just corrects one of those anomalies that we often come across in the course of looking at legislation.

I am delighted to commend this bill to the House and to watch it proceed through its stages.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

The Labour Party supports this bill and I thank the Minister of Police for bringing it to the House. I will wait for just a second as I thought a bolt of lightning would hit me for saying that, but nevertheless it has not. I think this legislation is very important because it will clear up many uncertainties. With the Auckland legislation having gone through the House, people who are police officers have been wondering whether they can stand for election and whether the grandfathering rights they had will still prevail. I have talked to people in the House about this and I must say that I am pleased that this has happened.

We have people in Manukau who serve the council who also serve the community as police officers. Councillor Alf Filipaina is a councillor for Manukau in the Māngere ward, and he does great work with young people especially. Being a police officer does not restrict him in his council work. Very sensibly he has the ability to not involve himself in voting on certain by-laws and things like that, but also he is a person who does very important crime prevention work. The Counties-Manukau Police District is not the easiest area to police. It needs people who know their community, and I think that Alf Filipaina does. It may sound a wee bit like a party political speech to sing his praises, but he is a person whom I think the whole of Māngere is proud of. I imagine that when the super-council is selected he will be one of its members, and I think that is very important.

Alf Filipaina gets out in his community, but sometimes he goes across the border. He may go away from the Māngere ward and out to Manurewa, Papatoetoe, Ōtara, or Pakuranga and he joins in things with a spirit that I think should be duplicated by many others. He is the sort of person we call a “decent bloke” and I think it is very important that we allow people like that to be elected.

The chairman of the Manurewa Community Board is a guy called Mike Bailey who works for the police. He is a police officer. Not only is he the chair of the community board but also he marries people and he dispatches people. He is another person who is totally involved in his community. We have people like Angela Cunningham-Marino on the community board who is also a police officer. She works to help people in the community in many ways. It is these community-spirited people who are working to help people who are suffering from heart disease, and helping people who need guidance and strength. Having police officers like that on community boards and on councils is very important.

Labour, as I said, will support this bill. I would have liked it to go to a select committee. I know that time is short, but I thought a 1-day hearing would not be bad. We could have had the Police Association along and the Police Officers Guild, if we had had this bill before a select committee for a day. But that is not to be. I am sure—in fact, I am positive—that it will not stop the Police Association from having its say, one way or the other. It will do it very publicly. Greg O’Connor is not slow in saying what he thinks on issues that affect his officers.

It is interesting to have a look at the people who want to serve their community in a way that encourages the community, rather than discouraging people. In the Counties-Manukau area we have many, many young people who have lost their way. It is the police that we look to to help those people. Yes, we know that Child, Youth and Family Services do a good job in many cases, and we know that there are other agencies, but to have people who work for the New Zealand Police and who in their own time get out and support those young people is truly important. They are the heroes of the local community. Whenever I see Alf, I see that there is a guy with a big smiley face and a warm handshake. He always greets everyone in the same way.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

The Green Party is not supporting the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. We supported the Policing Bill of 2008, which had this change—[ Interruption] The Minister of Police can cackle all she likes over there, but it is important to have a chance to explain why we have decided that we will not be supporting this bill.

At the time that the original legislation went through in 2008 we agreed, unusually, with New Zealand First that this issue was about the separation of powers between those who make the law and those who enforce the law, and that there was a compelling case to say that those who are responsible for enforcing the law should not be part of the process of making it. There are serious conflict of interest issues. There are issues for constituents, who may well need to have a person, like a councillor, representing them on a matter that deals with a law that that councillor may or may not have made but who is responsible for enforcing.

There are many areas of our law where we are clear on the separation of powers between those who make the law and those who enforce the law. This seems like an appropriate time to make that similar distinction. Since the time we supported the provision the last time it was put forward by the Labour-New Zealand First Government, we have had no evidence or compelling case made to us as to why we should change our position.

Of course, the difficulty is that because this Government is so obsessed with the excessive use of urgency, once again the community will not have an opportunity to explore this issue in full. This is the very important issue of the separation of powers. We would have been very prepared to consider the evidence that would have come to a select committee, in order to see what the circumstances were and to hear arguments as to whether we should continue to support this legislation. We have maintained an open mind on that basis. But because there will be no select committee process, because this Government is pushing through this legislation for no good reason, then neither we nor the rest of the community will be able to explore those issues in full. Because we supported the provision constraining police from acting as councillors or local body authorities, we can have no other position than to continue to support that.

Again, it is very difficult when legislators such as ourselves, and the community, are unable to explore important constitutional issues, such as the separation of powers and the question of whether those who enforce the law should also be responsible for making it, because of this Government’s misuse of urgency and its failure to uphold the democratic right of our community to have a say. We will not be supporting this bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

At first glance, this bill, the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill, seemed to be one that, all things being equal, should have been quite straightforward. The bill amends the Policing Act 2008, the purpose being to remove the current restriction in the 2008 Act that does not allow police employees to stand in local body elections. If successful, the bill will enable all police employees to stand in local body elections without being placed on leave, and if they are elected, they will not have to resign from their jobs as police employees.

When the Māori Party initially read this bill, we thought that it was fair enough that the police should be treated like any other employees and should qualify for the opportunity to stand in local body elections. But then two central concepts came into view: the current context and public perception. Today is hardly the best day to be considering the issue of public confidence in the New Zealand Police. Let me count the ways.

The first count is DNA samples. Firstly, in the heat of the debate generated by my colleague Hone Harawira’s claims about the undue pressure brought to bear upon Māori youths to submit DNA samples to the police, criminal lawyer Graeme Newell also spoke up about these concerns, which he shares. Mr Harawira has supported a number of youths and their families to take the appropriate action by referring their complaints to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The basis of the complaints is that those rangatahi, who are under the age of 17, have been persuaded by the police to submit DNA samples on the pretence that it might help to identify their relatives or would be stored on the off chance that they would be killed and would need to be identified. Mr Newell then came forward, saying that he knew of a case where a police officer had offered a boy a cigarette in return for a DNA sample.

The second count is police pursuits. The second issue to take the headlines in the last 24 hours was a meeting that the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, had with the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, to discuss police recommendations for vehicle pursuits after two separate reviews. The urgency of investigating the proper procedures around police pursuits came tragically into view through the death of Troy MacKay, a Christchurch man who died on Sunday when his car hit a tree after he was pursued by the police. New Zealand now has the unfortunate record of having lost seven lives—people whose lives have gone through the course of their being pursued by the police.

Of course, one can never ignore the need for the police to intervene when it is evident that offending is taking place, whether that be on the road or in leaving a criminal scene. But when we are talking about a Government agency, we must be painstakingly clear that the protocols and policies that form the operational procedures are adhered to, rule by rule.

We understand that two separate reviews have been undertaken into the situation. One is being undertaken by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the other is an independent review conducted by the New Zealand Police. The reports have invited further questions about whether it is appropriate for the police to initiate high-speed chases for minor offences, such as speeding and property theft, or for the suspicion of criminal activity. We need to have that debate as we consider the right balance between the preservation of justice and the preservation of life. The nation has lost seven young men in as many months, of whom the youngest was 22 and the eldest was 38. Let not their lives be in vain.

The third count is sexual misconduct. The final piece of evidence stacking the odds was yesterday’s release by the Controller and Auditor-General of its second monitoring report on the recommendations made by the 2007 Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. The letter from Phillippa Smith, the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General, spelt out clearly why the police force must work hard to implement the cultural changes it suggests are critical after an inquiry was held into allegations of sexual misconduct by the police. The inquiry, we recall, was established after several allegations of sexual misconduct against police officers were made. The Auditor-General’s report recommended that there be an extensive cultural change in the force. Ms Smith stated: “The benefits of change include the public having confidence in the integrity and conduct of the Police. Public confidence is essential for effective policing.” But another worrying line in the release from the Auditor-General’s office was the revelation that progress would stall unless a more concerted effort was put into making the recommendations work.

One of the key recommendations from the report is that the police must, as an organisation, value and use external views on police culture and behaviour. This could be done, for example, by obtaining more feedback on police officers’ behaviour and service delivery through community engagement, and by learning more from complaints information.

I believe that all those three areas of current controversy—DNA samples, police pursuits, and sexual misconduct—cannot be ignored when we come to this bill. But there is the broader context too of the longstanding history of police responsiveness to Māori. I acknowledge the absolute commitment that I know the police are making to improve their performance in this regard. We recognise the valuable role that almost 50 iwi, Pacific, and ethnic liaison officers in the police force play in helping to create purposeful relationship-building with iwi and Māori social service providers. We also acknowledge the quality of the police projects involving partnership with iwi and community agencies that are intended to specifically address Māori offending and victimisation.

Although the gap between the perception and the reality has been reduced, we cannot forget that trust and confidence in the police is lower among Māori than it is among the general population. Countless reports have demonstrated that Māori feel alienated from the police and from criminal justice agencies. The research frequently concludes that a key reason for this lack of responsiveness is that often there is a perception that individuals within the police force lack knowledge of, and sensitivity to, Māori values, culture, history, and beliefs. I stress that we often talk about perception, but, as all politicians know only too well, perception is everything. When we come to this policing bill, we must be mindful of the impact of perception.

The Māori Party has thought long and hard about this issue, and we have greatly appreciated the way in which the Minister of Police has responded to all of our queries about the effect of this bill. We fully understand that any police employees who decide to stand for local authority elections and those who are subsequently elected will still need to abide by any internal policies that the police may have in place. We also accept that such employees must abide by the code of conduct, which sets out that where employees participate in political matters in a personal capacity, they must not bring themselves into conflict with their primary role as police employees. That is all well and good on paper, but, when it comes down to the wire, we return to the impact of the current context and of public perception. Quite frankly, when we talk to our constituency, no matter how wonderful the local community cop may be, the perception of the police in general is adversely affected by longstanding views about the reputation of the police. Those views are not helped in any way by the events that I mentioned earlier on.

Finally, we were prepared as a party to support this bill’s referral to a select committee, but because of the decision to take this bill through urgency, we will have to oppose the bill at every reading. We remain convinced that the issues of perception inherent in this bill must be put to the test of public opinion through the select committee process. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. I will begin by declaring a certain fact: I like the police. I tremendously respect our men and women in blue for three reasons. Firstly, I was involved with the Asian advisory to the Auckland police. Secondly, I was a victim of a crime, and the police came to the aid of me and my family. Thirdly, I love the Minister of Police, and she does a tremendous job.

But aside from those reasons, one needs certain standards to be a police officer —there are standards. One needs to be a good citizen, over 18 years of age upon graduation from the police college, community-minded, fit, healthy, and bright enough to pass a range of assessments. I suppose police officers also need to be patient, because they are involved in highly charged, emotionally charged situations when they are arresting people. They must have excellent communication skills, and they have to be loyal, committed, and have high levels of integrity. In their role, they influence the lives of many people. So being able to make tough judgment calls as well as establishing strong personal relationships with the community networks that they have and confidence in the wider community is integral to the job they do. As well as responding to crime, police officers have to look at the bigger picture. Solving crime is about not just answering the question as to who did it but also why. This requires an ability to understand the community that they serve and, more important, the ability to identify and examine the problem that leads to crime.

Surely the skills that police officers possess are excellent skills for someone standing for a local authority. It seems ridiculous to me that at the moment police officers are unable to stand. Removing these restrictions can lead only to a better partnership between the police and local authorities. Furthermore, a more ridiculous thing is that some police officers are able to do it, yet some are not, depending on when they became local authority members. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I will take a moment to acknowledge our police force and the wonderful work that it does. Often it is a thankless job, and the manner in which policemen and policewomen undertake their work is admirable. Members on this side, and, I think, across the House would say that we all have respect for the police force. I will not go as far as the previous speaker, Melissa Lee, did in acknowledging the Minister of Police; I will leave it there.

Currently, under the Policing Act 2008, if one is employed by the Police as a constable, authorised officer, or supervisor, one must take leave of absence if one intends to stand for election to a local authority or council. If successful, that person has to resign from the Police. The provisions of the 2008 Act clarify provisions in the previous Police Act that also prevented police officers from standing in local body elections, but that were never fully enacted. The reasoning behind the provisions was that it was perceived to be wrong to have the same people making and enforcing regional by-laws. The Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill, which we are currently debating, will remove that restriction. Policewomen and policemen will be able to stand for election to local authorities without taking a leave of absence, and, if successful, they will not have to resign from their police duties. That will put the police in the same position as other public servants.

I think we need a little bit of background to the legislation that Labour put in place in 2008. Labour passed the Policing Act in 2008, and the restriction on police officers standing as councillors was subject to a lot of debate at that time. We believed then, and we still believe now, in having a full and transparent democratic process, so it is a little concerning that we are ramming this bill through the House under urgency with no select committee consideration. None the less, we will be supporting this bill. When we put through the 2008 legislation, we ensured that all the provisions would stop conflicts of interest from occurring. Police officers were not discriminated against; they could still be involved in local body politics, but at the time that meant standing for election only to a community board, because a police officer did not have the same perceived risk of a conflict of interest by sitting on a community board as by being a councillor. It was a difficult decision to make at the time, and there was a lot of discussion and debate. In the end, Labour decided to enact what the Police Act 1958 had originally intended.

This Government must ensure that the perception of conflict of interest is safeguarded against. A councillor helping to pass a by-law and then enforcing that by-law in his or her role as a police officer will raise conflict of interest issues. However, that can be avoided relatively easily by having the councillor in question declaring his or her conflict of interest when the by-law is being debated in council. We have seen that occur with the five police officers who were councillors at the time that the 2008 legislation was passed. They were allowed to continue in that role, and, from what we have heard, there have been no complaints with regard to those five particular councillors.

This issue does not affect many people. At the time that the Policing Act 2008 came into force, as I said, only five police officers were serving as councillors across the whole country. Labour was careful to ensure that those five councillors were able to continue fulfilling both roles for as long as they were elected representatives. I acknowledge the work of those five councillors. Again I say that at no point have there been questions of undisclosed conflicts of interest with regard to those councillors. They have carried out their duties, as both police officers and councillors are expected to do, and they have done so admirably. My colleague George Hawkins was talking earlier about the example of one of those five councillors, Alf Filipaina, a Manukau City councillor. Clayton Cosgrove had another example from his area. I have to agree with both of those members, and especially with George Hawkins with regard to Alf Filipaina. He has always conducted himself with integrity. Without being politically biased, I say that he has fantastic politics, and he is a respected member of the community not only as a police officer but also as a councillor. I think that we need those types of people in both those roles, so we would not want to take that opportunity away from them. In so many ways, they are good examples of why we should support this legislation and of why we are supporting it.

I spoke to Alf Filipaina about this particular bill, and discussed with him whether he has ever been accused of not declaring a conflict of interest, and he said: “Not at all. That has never arisen.” Although he was the chair of the transport committee, and issues could have arisen there, he was very careful to ensure that, whenever there was anything to do with by-laws and enforcement, he declared that conflict of interest and stepped back. There was transparency, and no one could question his integrity with regard to any involvement that he might have as the chair of the transport committee for the Manukau City Council. That seems to be the case across the board for the five councillors who are currently police officers as well as serving as councillors in their areas.

Labour would have liked to see this bill go to a select committee, because we would have liked to hear the opinions of the public and of police officers. I know that this is a big concern for the Green Party, which is part of the reason why those members will not be supporting this legislation. It is also our concern that we will not get that opportunity because this bill is being passed under urgency. That is disappointing, but we recognise that the New Zealand Police Association and the New Zealand Police Managers Guild have been consulted in the development of this bill. As police officers seem to be largely in favour of removing the restrictions on becoming councillors, Labour will be supporting this bill based on that support.

As I said before, police officers regularly demonstrate their commitment to local communities. It is only fair that they get the opportunity, as all other public servants do, to further demonstrate that commitment by standing for election and by serving on local authorities. Most people who are in the position of being a councillor or a local body representative have other jobs, so many of them have declared interests, as well. Given that that is the case, and that a strong case has been put forward by the police with regard to why they should be allowed to do that, we think it is important to support the bill. There is no argument against this Government bill from this side of the House, for once, which is a very rare thing. We support this bill. Thank you.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I am very pleased to see that the Labour Party has been a little circumspect on the decision that it made some time ago and is now listening to Councillor Filipaina and the submissions that he has made. It is a shame that, despite his politics in the past, those members were not listening quite as well as they could have been and they did not take the opportunity to vote for a sterling amendment—that being the submitted Supplementary Order Paper 213, which would have allowed police officers to continue in that role at the time. However, it is great that those members have now come to that position.

It is interesting to note around the House the number of members who, just from my knowledge, have connections with the police. Of course, we have the Minister of Police here, who is the wife of a former policeman. We have the daughter of a policeman sitting over there—Jacinda Ardern—and a former Minister of Police, the Hon George Hawkins, also sitting there. We have the sister of two policemen sitting over here—Rahui Katene from the Māori Party.

I think it is great to be able to acknowledge that people within the police bring a lot to the table, just as each of us individually as members of Parliament brings something of our experience to the table in this House, which contributes to a discussion and brings a different take on life. This is also the case in respect of the council table. The policemen who serve on local authorities around the country are up and about at 2 o’clock in the morning, and they see the responsibilities of local people and the issues that they have to discuss around that council table. They have a different view from other people who, quite rightly, bring other experience to that table.

I am pleased to see that we pretty much have across-the-board support for the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. I have never ever in my short time in Parliament seen the Greens support one pro-police bit of legislation in this House, and I am sure as hell not surprised that they are not supporting this bill. But I am pleased that the rest of us are. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to rise to take a call on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. Obviously I was not a member of this House at the time that the Policing Act was passed, but I do remember the work that went into that piece of legislation, because for a time I worked in the United Kingdom on a review of the way the police worked over there. There was a lot of interest in the collaborative and comprehensive way in which the Policing Act 2008 was drawn up. So I congratulate those who worked on that original legislation on the work that went into it. It was noticed internationally.

I think it might be useful to provide a little more context on the original decision not to allow police officers to stand as councillors and on the position that the Labour Party took at that time. I think that looking at some of the statements that were made at that time demonstrates that the decision was very difficult to make, and that there were very strong arguments on both sides of the case. I think one of my colleagues has already mentioned that the New Zealand First MP Ron Mark took a very strong view on this issue and was quite a vocal campaigner for restrictions being put in place. Initially Labour disagreed with the position that he, in particular, had made, but later in the piece, in the Committee stage, we made the change via Supplementary Order Paper.

I want to reflect on the statement that was made by Annette King at the time in August 2008. She said: “When I introduced a policing bill in my name I raised this as an issue that was worthy of debate. The bill as introduced retained the status quo, but I did set out that it was an issue on which we would like to have some debate and some comment in terms of submissions. My understanding is that the Law and Order Committee heard a number of submissions—in fact, there was quite a large number of submissions—on this part. In terms of where we should sit in relation to this matter, it was the Labour caucus view that the status quo would remain. However, on looking further at the issue and on taking consideration of the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee, which was asked by the invitation of the select committee to present to the select committee on this issue, the caucus was considerably swayed by its view that we ought not to muddy the waters of political neutrality in our police service.” She went on to say that it had been a hard issue for the caucus to decide on, and she knew that other parties in this Chamber looked long and hard at it. I think her comments demonstrate that the decision was very difficult to make. They demonstrate the fact that it was midway through that process that Labour made this amendment originally and that it was made on the advice of the Legislation Advisory Committee—a committee of the House. I think it is fair to say that it was a line call.

After not only the benefit of hindsight but also taking a further look at the fact that there are already police officers who serve as counsellors, we had evidence to suggest that currently it has not proved to be a problem, and that, perhaps, we should reverse the decision that was made in 2008. But I do think that we should always be mindful of the original reasons that it was first put in place.

I know one of the most important principles of policing and community policing in particular—which is something I am very interested in—is not only the principle of constabulary independence but also that the police really earn their right to police from their communities and with the trust and confidence of their communities. It is up to us in central government to ensure that we create the foundations and the framework for that to happen. At the second tier, it is up to the police to make sure that on the front line that trust and confidence is earned and maintained. So I do think central government has a key role to play in that regard. I think that probably the best interest of the police was top in Labour’s mind when it made this decision, but on balance we are comfortable with the notion of moving back to the status quo. That is why we are supporting this bill.

It is always pleasing from time to time to have the opportunity to support a bill that is put up by the Government, and to demonstrate that there is support. We get criticism that sometimes we do not agree with the Government. I always point out that it is because the Government gives us so little opportunity to agree. For an example of that, I need only look back to the last bill that came through on law and order, the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation, which was one of the most awful pieces of legislation I have had the unfortunate chance to observe in this House. That was the last piece of legislation put forward by the Law and Order Committee, but, of course, we were not going to agree on it. [Interruption] I hear considerable disappointment from the Government benches that I have swayed away from my conciliatory statements.

I will dwell a little further on the fact that I think it was Clayton Cosgrove who pointed out the interesting history behind that legislation—

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. Prior to the last election, National promised to remove restrictions on police officers standing as candidates in local authority elections and serving as members. We have a proud record of keeping our promises, and this is yet another promise kept. The New Zealand Police Association and the New Zealand Police Managers Guild support the removal of restrictions, as does Local Government New Zealand.

We have heard Opposition members talk at some length about how sad they were that this bill did not go through the select committee process. I understand that in 2008 when the Policing Bill was considered there were only two submissions against this course of action. Police are respected members of our communities. They are doing a sterling job throughout all New Zealand, particularly in Manurewa where I am privileged to be based. This Government has backed the police with a quiver of new tools to help them in keeping our communities secure and has added to their numbers. We promised 300 more police in Counties-Manukau by the end of this year, and already 240 more uniformed officers have been deployed in that area.

As respected members of our communities, it is only fair and right that police officers be allowed to serve in local government, should they so wish. I am thinking now of police sergeant Mike Bailey, whom I met in the watchtower in Counties-Manukau at about 3 o’clock in the morning, when I went out with an incident car overnight in that area. It became clear to me shortly afterwards that he was not only a hard-working police sergeant but also the chairman of the Manurewa Community Board. It is totally appropriate that men and women of such skill, application, and passion be able to contribute further to the safety and well-being of our communities by building on the existing strong relationships between the police, their organisation, and many community groups.

It is pleasing to note that this bill is now enjoying wide support across the House. It is reasonable at this stage to ask how useful the previous legislation was. Well, thinking of the Football World Cup in South Africa, it was as useful as a vuvuzela to a Trappist monk, or as useful as a dead monkey to an organ-grinder. This legislation was of no use, and it is wonderful to see that across the House this has been realised by all parties. With the singular exception of the Greens—who I understand have yet to support any motion concerned with law and order—we have unanimous support for this bill in the House. This bill removes an injustice to serving police officers, and allows our communities to benefit from their passion and expertise—the passion and expertise of a highly trained group of men and women. I commend this bill to the House.