Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) Link to this

I seek leave for the debate on the Committee stage of the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill to be taken as one wide-ranging debate with unlimited speaking slots.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

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—

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I stand to support the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. I want to talk about some of the aspects of the bill that Labour members are supportive of, and to provide a little bit of history with regard to why restrictions on our police officers being able to stand for council were enforced in the first place. It was not an easy decision at the time.

As most of the Committee should know, a New Zealand First MP, Ron Mark, was a vocal campaigner for these restrictions to be introduced. Initially the Labour Government was not supportive, but at the Committee stage of the Policing Act the Labour Government put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that in the future police officers would not be able to also be councillors. However, those already fulfilling the dual roles could continue to do so. We have heard a lot of discussion about the five police officers who have continued in their roles as councillors, and we have heard that they do so without any problems at all. There was concern—and this is why the restrictions were brought in to begin with—that there would be a conflict of interest for those police officers with regard to their having to enforce by-laws, but the five particular councillors who are also police officers have been very careful to declare any conflict of interest that arises over their time as councillors. That serves as a good example that it can work, that the police can fulfil those two roles without any problems occurring.

One councillor I know of who has done it very well is Alf Filipaina, a Manukau City councillor and police officer. He is respected by the community, he has huge integrity, and he has done a fantastic job. Even prior to the restrictions being brought in, in 2008, he was very careful to make sure he declared any conflict of interest when it came to enforcing by-laws. He has a good track record. Since the passing of that legislation there has not been any problem with the five councillors, and that is a big part of why Labour members are supporting this bill. We have seen that the police are able to conduct themselves in a professional manner with regard to fulfilling the two roles. That is part of the reason that we are supportive of this bill.

Ideally, in our minds it would have been better if the bill were not being rammed through in urgency. It would have been good to get the views of the public, of the police, and of anyone who had concerns or was particularly happy about the bill being passed. Unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to do that, because the bill is going through the House in urgency.

Labour is supporting the bill. It takes off those restrictions and allows the police to hold both positions. Regardless of the fact that they are police officers, they will be able to stand as councillors. It seems only fair, given the examples I discussed before and given that other public servants are provided with the opportunity to run for council despite their role as public servants.

I want to take the time to acknowledge the police force and the outstanding work they do. I think all of us across the Chamber share that view. Without these restrictions, they will be able not only to fulfil their role as police officers well but also to perform an outstanding role as councillors. That is why we are supportive of the bill. There are some significant barriers that the Government will need to overcome in order to make it work without a perception of conflict of interest, and that will be one of the challenges the Government needs to face. For example, a councillor helping to pass a by-law, then policing that by-law in his or her role as a police officer, could raise a conflict of interest.

I will end my call there, but only because I have a cold. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

I think the previous two contributions were very useful, and I agree that the five existing police officers who are also councillors—and I only really know of Alf Filipaina—appear to have conducted themselves with honour and in the correct manner. But when we write legislation in this Parliament, we are not writing it for the better people in society—the ones who are well motivated and have good morality and everything else—we are writing legislation to cover situations where people are not so well motivated, and might act in self-interest or meanness or get involved, if they are on a local body, in political fights. They might act in a way through their other role—in this case, that of a police officer—that is not in accord with best practice. I do not think we can just think that in the future everyone will be angels and everything will be great.

We have to look at the background of local body politics. Watching local body politics in Auckland, in particular, in the last few years, we have seen quite a bit of not only political conflict but also personal conflict. People have been getting quite nasty to each other, including in Manukau City—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) Link to this

Some very good points have been raised in the debate on the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill, and I think it is beholden on me to answer some of those questions. With police employees now being able to stand for local authority elections, obviously there will have to be some changes made to the internal policies of the police to deal with that. Some of the things that may need to be reviewed include some aspects of the Police’s code of conduct. I will read to the Committee a couple of those points. The first is a provision that states: “Where employees do participate in political matters in a personal capacity, they do not bring themselves into conflict with their primary role as Police employees.” That is already part of the code of conduct. Another provision states that employees should remain politically neutral in all of their dealings in the workplace. Some comments have been made about a particular Manukau City Councillor, Alf Filipaina, who is known to many of us, particularly in the Manukau region. I cannot think of one instance when his political situation on the council has had anything to do with his policing, other than that he has probably brought a lot of his knowledge from policing to his role on the council. Certainly he is not standing for the National Party last time I checked. As Minister of Police I have had plenty of dealings with Alf and have never had any worry at all about his ability to do his role professionally.

The Police manual that sets out police policies and procedures will also need to be reviewed. There are obviously some issues relating to the internal policies to make sure that any conflicts of interest are managed. There have been some issues raised about the potential conflict of interest and how terrible this would be, and of course it would be terrible if it ever eventuated. In fact, the affected police officer could end up in an employment situation that also involves his or her elected situation, but so do lots of other councillors. For instance, as a lawyer I can think of a time when a lawyer who may be acting for developers might be elected to a council. Should that person be precluded from election to the council because it may be making decisions about development? The fact is that the lawyer has to point out that he or she is in a potential conflict of interest situation and exit the decision-making process. That is the sort of thing police officers can and already do when they serve on councils. They are aware that they are in potential conflict of interest situations.

There might be some situations, for instance, when they would not be involved in the approving of some by-laws, such as liquor licensing, noise control, determining zones in which brothels can and cannot operate, and the removal of gang fortifications. Those are all issues that involve enforcement by police. Obviously they are probably better not to be part of that decision-making process. Those are not potential conflicts that cannot be managed; they can be managed by people who are sensible, and those people are sensible by virtue of the fact that they have been serving police officers and elected by their communities. If they are not aware of that, then like anybody else who has a potential conflict of interest they must take the consequences if they do not heed it. It is the same way for any member of Parliament. I do not think we should have a situation where we preclude police officers by law—not through their employment situation but by law, making them the only people we preclude. That is a ridiculous situation, and that is why I am very pleased with the support we have had from other parties in the Committee to get this bill through in urgency.

One of the reasons we are debating it in urgency is because those officers need to be able to plan a campaign. They need to be able to make decisions and talk to their families and employers. The New Zealand Police also needs to be sure it gets its own code of conduct in line with this law change. We do not want police officers being precluded from being able to stand because they have taken their constabulary oath or are in a senior position. I support this bill, obviously, but I am also very aware of the fact that it is righting a wrong that was done, let us say, in a mean spirit. I think many of us here in the Chamber accept that a mean spirit was pervading at the time the change took place. Democracy is not just for everyone else in the world; it is also for New Zealand police officers.