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 second time. I take this opportunity to thank the parties who have agreed to support this bill. Their support will ensure that the bill is passed in time for this year’s local government elections. In the short term, the bill will give certainty to those police staff who intend to stand for the elections later this year, and it will give them time to plan for their campaign. Longer term, it will give assurance to all police staff that there are no legal restrictions to their right to stand for local councils in any future elections.

I think I can safely say that we as a society have high expectations of the way our police conduct themselves not only in the line of duty—that is, performed in public view—but also, to an extent, in their personal lives. But this does not mean that we should take private or democratic rights away from those who choose to take the constable’s oath or make a career serving the police. The police have had various staff serve on local councils for decades without issue. The potential for conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived, can be managed so that they do not arise. At the end of the day, if a local community is not happy with the way their councillor has performed, they will simply not elect them again. The bill will ensure that when it comes to standing for local councils, nothing in legislation prevents police staff enjoying the same rights as other State servants. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I know that you have been in the gym so the delay in calling me may be because your eyesight was affected by the amount of weights you were lifting. You are known, I am told, as a fit person; others dispute that, but I am sure it is the case.

I briefly reiterate what I said in the first reading, touching on one point. We will support the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. As I say, the issue arose out of a coalition partner who was zealous in his approach to wanting police not to participate in elections. I note in passing that a certain number of public servants are not permitted to participate in elections. This is enforced not by legislation but, I am told, by their own internal law, if you will. For instance, the military to a certain level, I am told, are not permitted to stand for election to this Parliament, and that is by their own arrangements within military law.

I address one issue that I think was raised by Metiria Turei in the first reading, and that is the issue of conflict of interest. I had a chance to have a chat to a colleague opposite who has been a member of the constabulary to check the history on this issue, and neither of us could remember a time when a conflict of interest had arisen. Metiria Turei raised the issue that a conflict of interest could arise where a police officer in a dual role—as an elected councillor, community board member, or local authority member and as a member of the constabulary—could not manage that issue. She suggested there could be some sort of great constitutional issue of moment. I have to say, from having police officer Robbie Brine as a councillor on the Waimakariri District Council, that I cannot recall that situation taking place. My colleague across the aisle, having been a serving police officer, cannot recall either.

I think, as with all elected roles—even members of Parliament from time to time, whether it be Cabinet Ministers or members of select committees—conflicts of interest arise. There is a simple way to deal with them, and that is that there are rules in this place, and there are rules under the Local Government Act. There are also sanctions that can be imposed by the Auditor-General; we saw the Auditor-General give Environment Canterbury in my own area of Canterbury some scrutiny over a number of perceived or otherwise alleged conflicts of interest by non-serving police—ordinary folk, that is—who still trod that fine line in respect of a conflict of interest. That was dealt with by the Auditor-General. So there are safeguards on that side, and equally—again, taking some counsel from my colleague across the aisle, a former serving police officer—I would wager that there would be a great deal of interest taken by the hierarchy from the Commissioner of Police down if a serving police officer was to cross the line or in any way compromise the department or his or her own standing in the way by which that officer approached the decision-making process in a local authority. I argue that serving police officers who are elected—and, in general, 99.9 percent of folks who are in elected office—know when they have to withdraw from a process, and when they have to leave the room or declare an interest. These things can be managed.

I disagree with our Green colleagues that somehow the world as we know it will end, the veil will fall, the constitution will be torn asunder, as it were, and there will be a great series of injustices put forward because serving police officers are enabled to stand in local body elections. It is right to raise the issue and I accept that. I am sure there will be one or two letters to the editor, and one or two in the community who will have a go from time to time at serving police officers who have the dual role, but there are enough safeguards on both sides—both on the blue uniform side and within the elected local body—through legislation and the Auditor-General to ensure that people can have the confidence that those issues will be dealt with. Such people will be dealt with in the same way, if you like, as business people who serve on local authorities and may have an interest in property. When local authorities are making decisions on zoning arrangements, irrigation issues, or whatever decisions local authorities make, those business people too have an obligation to ensure that those conflicts of interest are declared and appropriate measures taken so there is transparency.

I, like the Minister of Police, commend the bill to the House. I will not go as far as her colleague Melissa Lee, who expressed her love and admiration for the Minister, but I am advised there is a lot to love. I commend the bill to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party opposes the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill, just as we supported the provision that was put in the Policing Act a year or two back with the support of New Zealand First and Labour, and I am not sure who else. We supported the exclusion of police from serving on local bodies, and I think there was a good reason at the time. The reasons were well outlined not only by the Greens but by Ron Mark; I think the previous speaker referred indirectly to him. Ron Mark of New Zealand First was very keen on that legislation. The Police Association was at that point, and I think still is, quite strongly against the exclusion of police officers and is quite in favour of the current bill. So the lines are pretty much the same.

I think that essentially we have to have a clear separation of powers between the legislators—and that includes the local body legislators—the judiciary, and the police as the implementers of the law. I do not think too many sitting judges have run for Parliament or local bodies and served on them. I think they see that they are bringing down decisions on cases of all sorts of citizens who come before them and that they should not confuse that role with being in charge of bringing in laws or by-laws as either parliamentarians or local body councillors. I think the police, as the people who implement the law day to day, have to be removed from any suspicion that they may be acting in a partisan or political way. That is the particular reason for serving police officers to be excluded.

It is not, like Clayton Cosgrove said, just like other conflict of interest situations. Police officers are potentially in a conflict of interest every day they are on duty, because during policing they could come across any other citizen, including people who voted for them, their colleagues on the local body, etc. In some ways the provision that was put in the original law, which we supported, was put in also to protect the police themselves from any suspicion. If, for example, they told a car that was speeding down the road, did not have its registration, or was parked in the wrong place to stop, and the driver happened to be some political antagonist, another councillor, or the wife or husband of a councillor, there would be no suspicion that the police were acting in a partisan, political manner. In most cases they would not be, but the suspicion might be that that police officer who is a serving councillor is out to get this other officer who is also a sitting councillor. I think that provision avoided that situation.

In no way is this a criticism of officers who have served on councils. I know that when the original bill came up I had a chat to Alf Filipaina, whom I know well. He is a serving officer who was on the Manukau City Council. He is a great chap and a great community constable, and has done tremendous things. If we look just at him and how he has managed the situation, we might say there is a bit of an argument to not stop him doing both jobs. But if we look at it at a deeper level, and in terms of wanting to remove the conflicts of interest, then we should not allow that situation to take place.

There was reference to the military before and how the military by their own internal system do not allow people to run for office, and I think there is a good reason for that. But if it is good enough for the military, there is even more reason for the police to do so. The military are not dealing with people day to day on the streets, and are less likely to be in a conflict of interest situation than the police are.

If we add it all up we see that it is important to keep that separation of powers among the judiciary, the police, and the legislators, and not to confuse the roles. For that reason the Green Party is opposing this bill.