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 third time. I take another opportunity to thank those members who have constructively supported this amendment bill, and to thank the whole House for the way it has allowed this debate to be conducted.

This Government is committed to supporting our police and their rights as private citizens in a democracy. The bill achieves this objective when it comes to police employees standing for local councils by putting all police staff on a level playing field with other State servants. The bill is a small amendment to the Policing Act 2008, but as it will help strengthen the strong ties that police have with their local councils, the bill is important for all local communities throughout the country. I commend this bill to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party will continue to oppose the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill for the reasons we have outlined. It is with a certain degree of sadness; I think that we would like a democracy where everybody, including judges, the military, and the police, could contest every position. But there is a case for the separation of powers with national and local legislatures, as it were, being separated off from people who either stand in judgment over the law like judges, the people who enforce the law like the police, or the people who are in a particular position as potential enforcement agencies both domestically and internationally like the military.

I am pleased with the way the debate has been conducted since I have been here. I think that it has brought out the useful points. I think—and I support Carmel Sepuloni on this—that it would have been good to have had a select committee consideration, particularly so that the advice of some of the finest legal minds, like those of the Law Society, could have been brought to bear. The question of separation of powers and of not having a conflict of interest is something that perhaps bigger legal minds than mine could exercise their brains on. I was a little disturbed that there was a comment, which might be referring back to Mr Ron Mark, who was a New Zealand First MP in the previous Parliament, that somehow his bill was a result of his having a bit of meanness, a personal agenda, or something like that. As I recall, his comments at the time, both formal in the House and informal, were that he was genuinely exercised by the political arguments for this. He did that very vigorously, and I think he had good reasons for going down that track. So I am standing up for him to an extent in this Parliament today and saying that there are real arguments for being against this legislation. I think that Ron led the way on them in the last Parliament. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I rise to take a brief call on the third reading of the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill, and to endorse the bill. I will address a couple of points that the member Keith Locke has made.

I make the point again that if there is a fear in respect of the future, maybe we should look at the past and look at fact, evidence, and example. It is right that the member Mr Locke raises these issues, but I note for the record that in the debate not one example or one piece of evidence has been put forward to show that a serving police officer elected to a local authority has compromised his or her position, or that of the department or local authority. I think we should be mindful in this place—to be honest, I suspect that often we are not, on certain occasions—that when we make these decisions, we should deal with evidence and example. I say to Mr Locke that it is right that he raises the issue, but I also say to my colleague that he should live in hope—live in hope.

I suspect that for the people who are serving as both constabulary staff and in local authorities, the counterfactual we have is stark, real, and lively examples of where those five officers have acted absolutely appropriately, as far as I am aware, in all circumstances in their dual roles. So if we are after evidence to back up our argument, then that evidence stands before us.

I note with interest that the Māori Party is opposing this bill. I will not deal with the notions that its members have put forward. Suffice it to say that I, my Labour colleagues, and others completely distance ourselves from the language and the venom that was visited upon the New Zealand Police by Mr Harawira—the language and venom. Again, I say to Mr Harawira, who has chosen not to take a call, that if there is example, evidence, case, or allegation he should bring it forward. He should not stand on the sidelines and throw horrific slogans and language at serving police officers, members of the Public Service, and others. Those slogans and language are deeply offensive to all members of our community because of historical events. We distance ourselves, as my colleagues have, from those offensive remarks. If that is the basis for opposing this bill, then I invite Mr Harawira and the Māori Party to look very carefully at the statements he has made. He is a member of the Māori Party, so those statements appear to be representative of the party itself.

I commend the bill to the House. I commend the members of the police force serving on local bodies. One in my area, Councillor Brine, has that dual role. They tread a very difficult path from time to time in managing those inherent conflicts in relation to by-laws and various things, but as other speakers have said, lawyers, property developers, business people, and—I would wager—the odd publican who have stood for and gained elected office have also had to tread that path of managing conflicts of interest, as do all elected folk, including us in this Chamber. There are processes, safeguards, and mechanisms like the Local Government Act, the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, and the Commissioner of Police’s office. They can and are willing to deal with those conflicts in order to ensure there is transparency and integrity in that democratic process.

My plea to Mr Locke on these occasions is that when he is making statements we should deal with facts and evidence, not hyperbole and hypothesis. Let us deal with the facts and the evidence. The truth is that since 1958—and I beg for someone to provide evidence to the contrary—serving officers who have been elected officials have acted appropriately, and have not crossed the line that Mr Locke fears they will. I, along with colleagues, commend this bill to the House.