CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I speak to Part 3 of this bill by saying that National restates its support for it. A number of matters will come before the Committee of the whole House that the police have sought to have addressed for some long time in order to bring the current policing regime into the modern era. There was wide consultation across the community and across the sector at the time that the legislation was proposed. In further parts of the bill—around Part 5—matters will be addressed, probably this afternoon, about which there will be some contention. But as far as Part 3 goes, I say the National Party will be supporting it.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 3 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 3 as amended agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This debate also includes schedule 2.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : Part 4 deals with modernising the New Zealand police force and putting in place modern employment arrangements. Part 4 supports the commissioner’s ability to employ a workforce with a range of skills, powers, and protections needed to meet current and future policing demands.

In the main, provisions in this part introduce modern human resource management processes to align the police human resources arrangements with the mainstream employment environment and shift internal disciplinary arrangements to a newly created code of conduct environment, rather than carry over the old disciplinary inquiry system from the 1958 Act; and use language and provisions establishing police medical, physical, and psychological health standards and superannuation arrangements.

Two of the most important parts of this part deal with the code of conduct and the old disciplinary inquiry system that was in place for disciplining police officers. Two strong recommendations from the commission of inquiry were to establish a code of conduct for our police and to change the old industrial relation regime in which our police service has worked for so many years, to bring those in line with the mainstream employment environment that we have for the rest of the workers in New Zealand. These are very important changes. One of the complaints against the New Zealand Police has been the slowness in which it has been able to address disciplinary matters. Sometimes those matters have dragged on for years and have often left the public and the police frustrated by the mechanisms used under the old Act. This bill, as I said, modernises the workforce, modernises employment relation arrangements, and brings the New Zealand Police into the 21st century.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : It is a pleasure to have a brief call in relation to Part 4 of the Policing Bill, which, as the Minister in charge of the bill, Annette King, quite rightly says, reflects the realities of modern policing. I have to say there was not much contention within the Law and Order Committee in relation to Part 4.

I would like to relate a story that really demonstrates modern policing in today’s world. The story occurred in Christchurch, and I think it is delightful because it reflects the diversity and the dynamics of the police force today. It concerns a young girl who was a truant from school. Her mother had to get up every morning and leave for work at 6 a.m. The young girl, therefore, had to get to school all by herself, but she did not do so. She did not have that discipline instilled in her as to the importance and benefits of going to school and getting an education. The mother was duly prosecuted for the truancy incidents. But following that, because the mother just had to go to work at that time in the morning and was trying her best, a young policeman in Christchurch took it upon himself to pick up the young truant in the mornings and take her to school.

I think that that reflects a wonderful attitude on the part of that policeperson. In Christchurch we have what is called the “bouquets and brickbats for the week” on the radio, and it was not a difficult decision to make to give a bouquet to the young policeman who had taken it upon himself to pick up the truant, the young girl, and take her to school. He would chat away to her on the way to school, and she suddenly started to think that she actually liked school—that she liked school, liked the discipline, and liked learning. The policeman was not going to do that on every day of her schooling life, but it was enough to break that pattern of behaviour and get her into the discipline of actually going to school. I think that is a wonderful tribute to the modern police force that we have.

Part 4 relates to the employment of police employees, and bearing in mind that the Police Act dates back to 1958, I think that the applicable employment legislation back in those days—and I stand to be corrected—was possibly the Industrial Relations Act, which of course has been superseded a couple of times so that we now have the Employment Relations Act. So this legislation does bring the Policing Bill and its provisions in line with the Employment Relations Act 2000, which of course, except as specifically excluded, does apply in relation to the employment of police. One of the exclusions in relation to the police force is contained in clause 68 of the bill, which make it unlawful for a constable to strike or be locked out, and, under subclause (2), “Where a strike occurs or is threatened, the Commissioner may apply to the Employment Court for an injunction to prevent the strike or for an order for the resumption of full work.” Obviously, one of the duties of the police concerns the security of New Zealand’s citizens, so it is important to maintain that balance so that citizens are protected notwithstanding any potential employment dispute.

There are also provisions for the suspension or removal of police employees, with or without pay, from their employment, on the conditions contained in this part. Similarly, under this bill it is up to the commissioner to prescribe certain health standards, to form the basis, if you like, for police to leave the police force, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, due to incapacity. If a police employee or police constable is not fit to perform competently the duties, or any other duties, that may be reasonably required of him or her from time to time, then that person can leave voluntarily, or can compulsorily be made to leave, the police force.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to speak in respect of Part 4, which contains the provisions relating mainly to police as employees. We have to accept that over time the police service has moved to alter the way in which it has responded to sworn police officers as employees. At the time of the writing of the Police Act in 1958, and as the Act currently is, the police service was seen very much as a paramilitary organisation, very much run along the lines of the other services. So police officers were required to move at the drop of a hat to other stations to take up transfers as ordered and, as I said, the police service was run very much along the lines of a military organisation. But over time those rigid provisions have been rolled back, and now, more and more, police officers are treated as any other employees.

That does not sit particularly well, I think, with the public, because the public, and especially older members of the community who have long memories, tend to think that the New Zealand Police can operate as a military organisation within our communities. We have seen through recent years that the police service is no longer, for instance, able to move a police officer from one station to another to fill a gap. The service is no longer able to order police to undertake certain duties because there is a need in a given area, and that has altered the whole way in which police have been recruited and employed to meet the need.

One of the biggest changes, probably, in the New Zealand Police over the last 25 years has concerned the way in which, when most young graduates left the police college, they went to a bigger area and learnt the trade. A lot of us went to Auckland straight from police college, and learnt through the volume of crime how to deal with it, how to record it, and how to investigate it. Then, later, we filtered down to smaller communities around the country in provincial areas. Now we have the reverse situation, in that the hard-to-fill stations are small stations scattered around provincial areas, and people are recruited into those areas and do their learning in smaller stations. That is a much harder role, and I have to say that the tenure seems to be much shorter among those who are prepared to work under those conditions.

We have also seen restrictions in the way police officers can be treated in respect of their training, and in the way they are dealt with as recruits at the Royal New Zealand Police College. The expectations in respect of physical capabilities, and the ability, for instance, of a grumpy old police training instructor to bark at some recruit to get his back-end regions up to the top of the hill in the shortest possible time, are no longer able to be put quite as bluntly and tersely as they used to be. People are asked, or requested, to take part in various parts of police training, and I do not believe for a moment that that is exactly what the public expect. Nevertheless, that is the way that employment laws are implemented and tend to impact on the way police officers maintain their employment within the New Zealand Police in the modern era.

This legislation confers on police officers a number of new conditions. Part 4 also concerns the application of the Privacy Act, in the way it impacts in relation to assessment and suitability for employment. In other areas of employment and engagement in this country, there is the ability of people to be able to stand apart from certain parts of their backgrounds that may not engender themselves towards employment in the New Zealand Police, so the police are exempt from this in their inquiries into the background of suitable officers. We have to query—possibly—the applicability of other parts of the Privacy Act as they relate to the actions of police, especially, for instance, in respect of the news over the weekend about a police officer who did a number of inquiries on the National Intelligence Application system, and then, through breaches of the Privacy Act, made a number of approaches to and harassments of callers calling into the Police Communications Centres Service Centre. Yet the police’s ability to be able to deal with those, apart from through the conditions and terms of employment, have ceased, now that he has resigned.

So maybe there is scope to look further at offences under the Policing Act—as this legislation will be when it is passed—as they impact upon current officers and their ability to access private information and use it for their own ends. We have the ridiculous situation, as exposed on the weekend, where as soon as somebody resigns from a position within the police, no further action can be taken, because as the officer was an employee the real offender turns out to be the police service itself for failing to maintain the security of the private information. So there is scope for huge change under this legislation; nevertheless, National will be supporting it.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : Part 4 is clearly very much a key part of this bill. If there is any truth in the immortal Gilbert and Sullivan line “A policeman’s lot is not a happy one”, then certainly to be found in Part 4 is the start of a refreshingly new regime. I wish to make three points in connection with Part 4, but before doing so, I would like to pick up the comments of the previous speaker. Chester Borrows has a wealth of experience as a former police officer who provided, for so many years, distinguished service to the nation. He made a comment that, I suppose, I have a margin of disagreement with. I think that the public today, whether they are old or young, still see in the police force an element of the paramilitary. That is so for a number of reasons, and it is certainly to be seen in the concept of a military degree of discipline, which is almost demanded for the very difficult and dangerous work that the police carry out. I think we do well to remember that that paramilitary aspect, with a heightened emphasis on discipline, is no bad thing. When we come to the next part, Part 5, which has provisions relating to international policing, we will see again, it seems to me, a dimension of that military responsibility.

The matters I want to refer to just briefly, though, relate to three particular clauses, clauses 55, 57, and 58. First, clause 55 provides that the Employment Relations Act applies in relation to the police, except where there are specific exclusions. Second, the proposition contained in clause 57 that “the Commissioner must operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer” is a wholly appropriate statement in the context of policing. Third, there is what I regard as a rather unusual provision in the next clause—clause 58—that in making appointments, “the Commissioner must give preference to the person who is best suited to the position.” That clause is headed “Appointments on merit”, and I ask why it should ever be otherwise. It seems to me to be a rather strange statement to make in the context of primary legislation—that there should be anything other than appointments on merit.

The second issue that I will refer to briefly occurs in clause 77, “Restriction on resignation by constable”, which is a most unusual provision restricting resignation from the police. Clause 77 provides that the Governor-General may determine that special circumstances require that a person who has the status of a constable stays in the police. The Governor-General “may, by warrant under the Governor-General’s hand, declare that no constable may resign that person’s employment … except on conditions set out in the warrant.”

The third point relates to clause 68, which contains provisions relating to strikes and lockouts involving constables. It is most unusual ever to see in a non-military context a statement such as the one in clause 68(1): “A strike by, or lockout of, any number of constables is unlawful.”

National, of course, supports Part 4. It contains useful and appropriate provisions. I finish as I started, by expressing the hope that it will improve the lot of those officers who give so determinedly of their time.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 4 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 4 as amended agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The debate on Part 5 includes debate on schedules 3 through to 6.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : The final part of the Policing Bill addresses a range of administrative and miscellaneous issues and splits the bill into three subparts. Subpart 1, which deals with biometric information—clauses 78 to 83—establishes a process to gather and manage staff biometric data for use in pre-employment vetting and as elimination data from non-intentional contamination with crime scene samples. Subpart 2 deals with international policing and it consolidates laws relating to international and United Nations policing. Subpart 3 deals with the improved identification of police employees and authority for exercising police powers.

Part 5 is really the miscellaneous parts of this bill. There is also Supplementary Order Paper 222 in my name, with five amendments sought in this part. The first, an amendment to clause 94, alters the language of how certain information on the enhanced police ID card is described. This is a technical change that will ensure that the new ID card must state certain prescribed information and bear certain prescribed things, but it can be in any form that the commissioner thinks appropriate. This provides a sensible flexibility for any technological changes that might affect the form of ID cards in the future. Clause 100 is also amended so that the related regulation-making power to prescribe matters relating to the new ID cards aligns with the amendments sought in clause 94.

Thirdly, there is a minor textual change to clause 106C(1) in order to clarify the commencement date of the regulations made under the new Act. Fourthly, a new clause 120(1A) is to be inserted, which will substitute a reference to “constable” for a reference to “member of the police” in the Burial and Cremation Act 1964.

Finally, there is a companion Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 226—containing a new clause 106G, and I wish to talk a little about this clause this evening. The new clause 106G deals with sworn officers serving as councillors on territorial and local regional authorities while also serving as active police officers. When the 1958 Act was passed there was a prohibition on sworn officers also serving as local government councillors. The prohibition was to be triggered by the passing of legislation. Fifty years have passed and the regulations were never passed. In fact, the prohibition was never put in place. So for decades sworn officers have been able to be elected as local body councillors. At present five of the 8,400 sworn staff are in such a position. When I introduced the 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 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 by allowing serving officers to also be able to hold political positions in local government.

After listening to the arguments surrounding this issue, it is the Labour caucus view that we should not allow police officers to serve as local government councillors, but that we should enable them to continue to be community councillors. Community boards around New Zealand, as members here know, are able to provide very valuable advice to local government while not, in fact, being part of local government that makes decisions, sets by-laws, and introduces laws, which police officers would go out and police. We have also said there are five officers who in good faith have been elected to local government in New Zealand, and that those five officers should be able to have their positions grandparented as long as they are elected to them.

This has been a hard issue for the caucus to decide on, and I know that other parties in this Chamber have looked hard and long at it. I believe that we have come to an arrangement whereby police officers can continue to serve their community on community boards but are not put into that position where their neutrality as police officers is questioned because they make a by-law, for example, on liquor laws and then go out that evening and police those laws. There was quite a lot of concern that that, in fact, puts the police in a very difficult position and opens them to criticism if they make the laws as local councillors on one hand, and then on the other hand they police them. So what we have attempted to do is get a balance between their rights to serve their community—and, of course, the police serve the community in many different ways indeed. They serve the community by being on all sorts of trusts, on non-government bodies that work within the community, and they will be able to continue to serve their community as community representatives in local government. But in terms of them serving as elected local councillors, Supplementary Order Paper 226 brings into place the prohibition that was expected in 1958.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : Although Part 5 of the Policing Bill covers a number of points, I would like to speak mainly to the “cops as councillors” provision, which is clause 97. Clause 97, when it was first introduced, read: “Police involvement in elections (1) No constable, authorised officer, or supervisor may take part in an election as—(a) an electoral official within the meaning of section 5 of the Local Electoral Act 2001; or (b) an electoral official within the meaning of section 3 of the Electoral Act 1993. (2) Nothing in this section limits sections 52 and 53 of the Electoral Act 1993.” That pretty much reflected the position of the 1958 Police Act, which, of course, the Policing Bill replaces.

The reason there is a bit of conflict between what the Minister calls the status quo now, and what she was calling the status quo a couple of months ago, is this. The status quo currently is that serving police officers can stand for election to local authorities, because the provisions of the Electoral Act talk only about central government elections. That is why we have the situation where five serving officers are currently serving as elected officials on our local authorities. It was interesting, then, to note that the main barrier to leaving the situation as it is actually came from New Zealand First. That appeared very clearly to be because of some conflict that the list member Ron Mark has with someone whom he has run up against in the past, because he was the one who was pushing the issue. That is why, when the commentary was put together, the National Party made it clear that it had concerns around the passing of this bill in the form it came back to the House in, with the current version of clause 97 preventing officers from being able to stand for election to local authorities.

Not long ago, of course, the Minister came before the Law and Order Committee and was questioned on this particular point. My colleague Ms Wilkinson said to the Minister: “Is it Government policy, then, that cops can be councillors?”. The Minister said: “The Labour caucus has agreed that, in fact, the status quo should remain.” So Ms Wilkinson said: “So cops can be councillors?”, and Ms King said: “Indeed, that’s the Labour caucus’s view.” I will just repeat that. Ms Wilkinson said: “So cops can be councillors?”, and the Minister said: “Indeed, that’s the Labour caucus’s view.” Other questions then went on. Ms Wilkinson said: “Obviously there are many councillors who do a fine job if there are potential conflicts of interest. They can deal with those with their own procedures, and at the end of the day it is up to the public to decide whether they can do both jobs.”, and the Minister agreed with that.

That seemed a bit unusual to us, because we thought that we had heard that Labour was not happy with this provision—in fact, it was the Government’s bill. So the National Party member on the Law and Order Committee put the issue to the Minister again, and said: “Can I just ask a quick supplementary, Minister? If National introduced an SOP to revert to the status quo”—the status quo being that police officers can stand for local councils—“would Labour vote for it?”. The Minister said: “We support the status quo, and I don’t know whether you would need to introduce an SOP.” Now, to any one else, that would mean that Labour and National would vote against the clause as it is at the moment and the status quo would remain.

So one has to ask the question, well, what has happened since then? What has been given up by the Government, or what has been obtained by New Zealand First, to change the view of the Labour Government on this particular point? It seems very, very strange to me that all of a sudden there has been what some people might call a flip-flop from the Government on this particular point. It was critical, it was something that we discussed at length, and the Minister agreed that police officers should be able to stand as councillors. She said: “Indeed, that’s the Labour caucus’s view.” There was a question from Ms Wilkinson: “So can cops be councillors?”, and the response from the Minister was “Indeed, that’s the Labour caucus’s view.” Yet today the Government presents to us a Supplementary Order Paper, on the day that we are debating the bill, grandfathering the positions of those honourable police officers who are currently serving their communities well. The Minister also said in her speech, of course, that they are doing a fantastic job and that it is just one of the ways that police officers do go on and serve their communities in their own time—that they are doing a wonderful job in those positions.

I would agree with the Minister on that, because police officers bring to the role of local councillor a real eye view of how communities operate. Members will know that often we find people who hold some standing within the community are put into elected positions as councillors. But how much they really grasp what happens at street level I do not know; in my experience, a lot of them do not grasp that. They may be community leaders in various fields, but for an understanding of how the vulnerable in their community actually react or behave, how those who offend within a community behave, or how search and rescue, emergency services, and civil defence act within the area, one can get a real eye view only from someone who is on the ground at the time, and those people tend not to be elected to district and regional councils. So the ability of a police officer to be able to stand for election to a local authority, gain a seat on his or her local council, and be able to express that view and draw the attention of other elected representatives to it is critically important.

The National Party has put up Supplementary Order Paper 213 in my name, to allow officers of the police to be able to continue to stand for local government. The Labour Party appears now to have changed its position. It says no, only those who are there at the moment can serve as councillors, and they can stand again, but nobody else who wishes to serve their community in that way will be able to do so ever again. The Government has done some kind of deal with New Zealand First. We look forward to hearing from Ron Mark when he gets up to speak to this part of this bill, or to hearing from the Minister, exactly why the deal was done in that way, or why the Labour Party caucus has had a road to Damascus experience whereby in one month it was totally in favour of police officers being able to stand for local councils and represent their communities, and the next month it is not.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I believe that Chester Borrows’ contribution is worthy of a response. I need to say to the member that any caucus of any political party is able to further consider any view and any policy, and to make its own decisions on those views and policies. Labour has a very democratic caucus. The members of our caucus considered the issue further, and, like every other party in Parliament, they spoke to people in their own local communities. They spoke to serving police officers who do not agree that other police officers should be allowed to be councillors. They spoke to members of their communities. At the end of the day we run a democratic caucus, and our caucus decided not to support that view. I think it was very uncharitable of the member to insinuate that a deal had been done with New Zealand First. That insinuation is totally untrue. No deal has been done with New Zealand First. Every party in this Parliament will make up its own mind on any issue, and to say that a deal was done is incorrect. In fact, the Labour caucus came to this view after a lot of consideration.

It is worth reading to the Committee the Legislation Advisory Committee’s view on the issue, which had a powerful impact on many Labour members’ points of view. The Legislation Advisory Committee is a very highly regarded committee that is consistently brought into the select committees and asked advice of, and in most circumstances its advice is taken. The majority of the members of the Legislation Advisory Committee said they believe that there are “especially strong reasons to have a disqualification provision that applies specifically to police officers. In New Zealand police officers have particular standing within the community and are frequently reported in the local media, where their statements carry considerable weight. If serving officers within the local community are also local councillors, therefore, they inevitably confront an ongoing conflict of interest. When they make public statements it will be difficult for the public to determine whether they are making those statements as police officers or as councillors. They are also likely to be able to use their position, or at least be seen to be using their position, to further their political interests. This is inherently undesirable and should be avoided.”

The Legislation Advisory Committee recommended that a provision be inserted into the bill that a police officer who is elected as a mayor or a member of a territorial local authority should be required to resign from the police. That was a very powerful piece of advice given to the select committee, and my colleagues, as they always do, listen carefully to advice, make up their own minds, and make their own decisions. The caucus has decided, on further consideration, that it could not support the status quo.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I will also spend an amount of time in relation to clause 97 of the Policing Bill, which deals with cops serving as councillors. In particular, I will spend time on the flip-flops that we have just heard about. Right from the outset, as stated in the commentary on the bill, we remained unconvinced that it was desirable to restrict constables from involvement in elections—apart from the exclusion of police officers from being candidates in general elections—that is, we were not convinced that cops could not be councillors.

We realise, from a strictly jurisprudential point of view, there is the argument that the makers of by-laws should not be the enforcers of those by-laws, but in this situation I think a little common sense can prevail. The Minister talked about conflicts of interest as though a conflict of interest should preclude any position being taken up, but as we all know, even in our field, potential conflicts of interest are not uncommon. They are not uncommon in any field whatsoever. They are not unlawful. It really is up to the parties concerned to deal with conflicts of interest, to declare those conflicts of interest—or potential conflicts of interest—and to deal with them in the best way possible.

In the past police officers have also been elected as local authority councillors, and perhaps the Minister would take a call and tell us how many incidents or problems have occurred because of the potential conflict of interest arising from those police officers also being local authority councillors. At the end of the day it is up to the individual police officers and councillors to deal appropriately with any perceived conflicts of interest—and I think perceived conflicts of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest. It is up to the individual police officers and councillors to deal appropriately with those perceived or arguable conflict of interest situations. It is also up to the public, when voting at local body elections, to elect the people they think are best for the job. As the Minister has said, five police officers throughout the country are also serving as local authority councillors. They have the confidence of their respective communities. They have been voted in despite the apparent, perceived, or arguable conflict of interest. Again I would ask the Minister—and I would be really interested in her answer—what the problem is. Has there been a problem with existing cops serving as councillors?

I refer to Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Annette King, which she says represents the status quo, and I would have to say it is a bit of a slippery status quo at that. My colleague Mr Borrows has already relayed the actualHansard transcript of the Law and Order Committee hearing, where the Minister clearly said that cops could be councillors. That is what she was referring to as being status quo, and that is what she was referring to as being the view of the Labour caucus. I accept that the Minister can change her mind and make a flip-flop if that is what the Labour caucus decides, but it is indeed a flip-flop and a change from the assurance we were given at the Law and Order Committee that cops could indeed be councillors and that that was the status quo.

We now have a slippery sort of a status quo that applies only to sitting elected and appointed members. As long as those officers are not defeated at some future election, they can continue to campaign for re-election without having to go on a leave of absence, and they will not have to leave the police force if re-elected—grandparenting, as the Minister says. Supplementary Order Paper 226 in itself is somewhat deficient, because even if one accepts that that is the desirable position, there is no time limit. So it is arguable that a police officer who is a local councillor now could step down at the next election and not stand for re-election, but in 10 years’ time that person could stand again and may be covered by the provision in that Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon Annette King: No, they can’t do that.

KATE WILKINSON: If that is not the intention, that is fine, but I am just pointing out that there may be an argument to say that that is the case. Why should one police officer who happens to be a councillor and was the best person for the job when elected be permitted to be a councillor and to be re-elected ad infinitum, yet another officer who is not an existing councillor, but who may be a better person for the job and may be wanted by the public, not be permitted to stand as a councillor?

I repeat that at the end of the day the public are the judges, and they should be the judges in this matter. The public should be trusted not only to buy whatever light bulbs they want but to elect a councillor who they think is the best person for the job, whether or not that person is a policeperson. It is up to the policeperson who is in that situation to deal with those conflicts of interests appropriately. I urge the House to support my colleague Chester Borrows’ Supplementary Order Paper 113, which is supported by many of the public and by the police themselves. If one listens to talkback radio, one finds that the amendment should have fairly universal support. We appreciate there are potential conflicts or potential issues with regard to cops serving as councillors, but we say they can be dealt with within the existing law.

Accordingly, we urge that common sense prevail and we urge support for Mr Borrows’ Supplementary Order Paper in relation to this issue. We believe that common sense should prevail and that the public can be trusted to vote for the person who they think is best for the job, whatever the person’s occupation, and notwithstanding that the person may be a policeman or policewoman. As Mr Borrows has already stated, some of those community policemen, policepersons, are often in the best position to judge—

Hone Harawira: Police officer.

KATE WILKINSON: —police officer will do; actually they are called police employees. Those people are often in the best position to judge and be aware of the needs of the community. The community is in the best position to elect the best people for the job, and the law should enable that to happen. I urge the House to support the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Chester Borrows.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) : I will take a brief call because, unlike the previous speaker, I think common sense has prevailed on the issue. In general, the discussion by the Law and Order Committee, and the public process, around this bill was a commendable process. I think that many select committees, and many agencies of the Government in the community, would be well advised to follow that process in terms of how this really substantial legislation was put together and consulted on in the community. Indeed, if people were to follow the same process used in this comparatively small but important matter, then that would also be the case.

I am interested to note there are two matters in respect of the clause under discussion, which the Opposition tellingly has not referred to. The first has been alluded to by the Minister but is in fact the argument made by legal professionals, including academics. The argument was very strongly made and was echoed by the Legislation Advisory Committee. They said it was most important that we make decisions on the basis of legal and constitutional principle, and they argued for the separation of powers between those who make laws and by-laws, and those who enforce them.

It is true to say that what has been alluded to by Opposition speakers is the fact that this issue has ebbed and flowed a little, and that is often the way it should be. The views of the select committee, as far as I could tell as a member of that committee, were not fixed during hearings, and that is also as that should be. I cannot say, on behalf of the National members on the committee, what their response was to the eminent academics who argued around this important constitutional principle, but I happen to take that point.

The other issue that is germane in this respect and has not been mentioned relates to the huge change that has taken place in local government in this country in the last 15 or 20 years, in particular. Local government now is not the creature that many people remember it was two decades ago. The powers, and breadth of activity and involvement, of local government—as, indeed, some of the members of Opposition are only too aware—have increased immensely, and, given that change, it is an entirely sensible and principled position to take the decision that is reflected in the Government’s position and the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper.

Equally, like people in this House, or others in the community who previously have been involved as an elected member in local government, I welcome the involvement of all members of the community in the activity of local government. But if, as Mr Borrows would have it, it is a matter of people on the ground giving good advice to elected members or to councillors, then I say that that is available anyway. I had better not go into whether that advice was any good in respect of some of the recent policing decisions in Dunedin, but we could discuss that at another time! That advice and front-line experience is, of course, available on a contracted basis or otherwise at all times to local government.

I think the decision to encourage continued involvement at community board level—where there is a much less likelihood of conflict of any kind, or a much less likelihood it would be more difficult to avoid—and also the grandparenting of the involvement and services of those people who are currently involved in this way, is a fair decision. I am somewhat saddened that the National Party has taken no notice of or made no comment on the very powerful legal argument about the separation of powers that needs to happen, given the changing environment in this country—particularly, the changing environment in local government—in the context of such a substantial rewrite of policing law.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I have been following this debate with interest, and had a look at the notes from the Law and Order Committee, and it is my understanding that there is a view held by those outside that there have not been any submissions on clause 97 and that people are saying, and perhaps even making written statements, that no one wanted what the select committee did, and that there were no submissions on the clause. Well, clause 97—

Chester Borrows: No one said that.

DAIL JONES: Actually, people are saying that outside, and I hope Mr Borrows will be the first to tell them that they are wrong when they make those remarks. In the select committee’s report—Mr Borrows was a member and agreed with and was responsible for the report—it makes clear, and I quote: “The concern from submitters was that since local bodies have by-law making powers there was a constitutional anomaly that allows law enforcers to also be lawmakers.” The select committee also stated: “Clause 97 of the bill as introduced prohibits constables, authorised officers, and supervisors from being electoral officials. Some questioned why constables, authorised officers, and supervisors are not explicitly prohibited from being able to be elected members of local government in the same way they are prohibited from being members of Parliament while still constables, supervisors, and authorised officers.” That issue was put to the select committee, thoroughly discussed by the committee, and the committee actually amended the original legislation and came up with legislation, I think, prohibiting constables from being on councils. Mr Borrows was a member of the select committee, which agreed with that proposal. There is no minority report here—

Chester Borrows: Read the commentary.

DAIL JONES: I have the commentary here, and maybe somewhere—

Chester Borrows: Read it.

DAIL JONES: Sorry, I take his point. I apologise to the member. I was looking for a minority report, but it is not there. There are comments elsewhere that New Zealand National members remain unconvinced, so I take their point on that. However, I must congratulate the Minister because it establishes that the Minister has an open mind on this issue, and if the majority of the people of this country express their view, the Minister is prepared to accept it. New Zealand First takes the view, and I take—as a lawyer as I must, and I am disappointed that the lawyers in the National Party do not—the legal view, which was very clear, that there needs to be a separation of powers. Mr David Benson-Pope understands that viewpoint. As a schoolteacher he is able to pick up on that quite clearly and lucidly; it seems that the National Party members who have spoken who are lawyers cannot accept the doctrine of separation of powers, put forward at the highest possible level to the select committee. New Zealand First accepts that view wholeheartedly.

Of course, there is a problem in having a police officer as a councillor, and perhaps we should make clear the distinction in the clause, because this provision does not apply to the community board. Am I right, Minister? So a police constable can be a member of a community board. That is clear, is it not? So a constable can be a member of a community board, but we are talking about the council. I have listened to talkback radio, as well, and what I heard suggested that the police constables would pop into the council, while they were on their holiday leave, to do the work. Now, that is what I heard on talkback in Auckland when this issue cropped up. In actual fact the evidence appears to be that this role of a councillor involves 30 hours a week. How much holiday leave can a police officer get to be able to do 30 hours a week as a councillor? That is the key thing. It is not possible to do one’s job properly as a police constable and also to do 30 hours a week on a local authority.

One example we have is a police officer who is also a chairman of some waste refuse organisation as part of, and in addition to, his 30 hours a week. That is just incredible. It is no wonder there is a criticism in some quarters about the quality of the work done by the police force. We do not want any criticism of that kind whatsoever. So the doctrine of the separation of powers is clear. It is impossible for a police constable to be both a local authority councillor and a police officer and do the work properly.

Of course, he gets another $50,000 a year on top of his police salary, through being a councillor, and no doubt that is an incentive and is why he is doing it as well. If a police constable is interested in doing community work, he or she can be on the community board—it is as simple as that—and it will not take 30 hours a week. New Zealand First takes the view that if the constable wants to support the community, work for the community, and be on the community board, then that is wonderful.

Of course, the example in front of me shows a degree of disagreement between the people in the local community and the police constable in the Coromandel township. Those people in the Coromandel will know immediately what I am referring to. What happens when an area has only two police officers, and one of them spends 30 hours a week on the council as a councillor? If we want to ring that person we have to ring the council offices, or if we want to ring him or her as a resident we have to ring the police station, because both numbers are given. That is totally unsatisfactory. If there is a two-person police station, and one of the officers is a councillor who is doing 30 hours a week on the council, that surely must show that law and order breaks down. I ask Mr Worth and whoever will be speaking next, from any political party, to explain how we can offer a decent service to the community in those circumstances.

Again, if a police constable is on the Liquor Licensing Authority, on behalf of the council, and his or her superior officer appears as a member of the Thames police to oppose the granting of a licence, there we are: the police constable is the judicial officer, but his or her superior officer comes along and opposes the granting of the licence, so does that officer disagree or agree with his or her superior officer? In the case we have here, the local councillor, who was inferior to the superior officer making the application, agreed with the superior officer’s application. Does that seem fair? Is that above board? This is a case for a liquor licence that involves a person’s livelihood in many respects. The inferior officer was the judge, and the superior officer, who is the prosecuting person, asked for the licence application not to go ahead. That is a factual matter given to New Zealand First, and I am sure it must have been available to the other members of the House.

We are very concerned that there is this specific example of a conflict of interest that can arise that I can put to members. Even the National Party members who have been speaking on this matter indicate that there can be a conflict of interest. There should not be any doubt. A police officer should be like a judge—totally of the highest repute, without any possibility of disagreement as to his or her abilities and his or her impartiality. But here we are: we are allowing police officers to be in a position of partiality—exercising influence on the outcomes of people’s lives—and that is a very dangerous situation.

Once again, I repeat, if someone really wants to make a contribution to the community, he or she should go on the community board. [Interruption] That person will not get paid as much—that is a point. He or she might not get $50,000 a year. He or she might not get another $25,000 a year for being chairman of a refuse committee, adding about $75,000 to his or her police income, for a job that that person is not doing very well. But on the community board a person can, if he or she really wants, make a contribution to the community. New Zealand First welcomes police officers making a contribution to the community in that fashion.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will not be supporting Chester Borrows’ amendment, We discussed in our caucus the pros and cons of the issue. There are two sides to it.

If we take the example of Alf Filipaina, who is a Manukau city councillor, a very committed person in both his council work and his police work, and highly respected in the community, we find that he is quite keen to continue in his dual role in that South Auckland community. We can argue that his work as a councillor better informs his work as a community constable, and vice versa. There is an interaction there. He says that he absents himself from decisions on by-laws that he would have to implement. So we can argue an individual case, and we can argue that there are some pluses in allowing the current situation to continue.

But there are also problems, and Dail Jones has just elucidated them a little. There can be a conflict of interest. The New Zealand Police is a disciplined organisation—and it has to be in the current context. Does a person obey police directives in a particular situation, or does that person operate as an elected representative, bringing to bear his or her own experience and own judgment on issues before the council? There can be conflict there. If we allow people to be councillors at the same time as they are police officers, then, obviously, they can be deputy mayors or mayors. We can imagine an extreme situation where the mayor, the deputy mayor, and a couple of councillors, who are all police officers, deal with an issue on which there is a clear conflict of interest.

I think it is right, as others have mentioned, to have a separation of powers between those who make the laws, like members of Parliament, people on councils, and judges, and those who implement the law, such as the police force. So, on balance, the Greens have decided not to support Mr Borrows’ amendment. We accept that not allowing police officers to do both jobs infringes to a certain extent on their rights, but the greater good is served by a separation of powers. It is true that police officers can continue to be community board members. People serving in that capacity do not make by-laws, as I understand it, but they can be engaged with the community, and for people like Alf Filipaina there can be some cross-fertilisation of experience in that role rather than in a council role. I feel quite sad for people like Alf Filipaina. I understand that he can continue in his role under this law—that it would be grandparented. But in terms of the greater good, and particularly given the role, structure, and disciplined nature of the police force, I think it is important that there not be an overlap of roles. Thank you.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : I know that Chester Borrows will come back in a few moments, after I have completed the comments I will make, to talk about this Supplementary Order Paper and its significance.

I would like to talk about three other matters that are contained in Part 5, “Biometric information, international policing, and other miscellaneous provisions”. It is an interesting circumstance that there is a definition of biometric information in the context of police employees being required to provide bodily samples and biometric information. Biometric information is defined as a DNA profile of a person or fingerprints or palm-prints taken from the person. I guess the philosophical proposition behind that requirement is that it is important that those who are taken into the police force are upright and without significant criminal convictions. I would have thought that should be the case for any employee who is taken into any position of trust. This particular provision in clause 79 is perhaps a signal to employees and employers as to a core element in the employment relationship. I do not doubt it is currently the case that those who seek to enter the police are subject to such a requirement. I simply say that such a requirement has a wider universality extending significantly beyond the police force.

The second issue that I would like to deal with, which is contained in Part 5, is the aspect of international policing. I can understand an argument to the effect that it is part of the range of activities of interest to police officers that they may be asked to undertake an international policing engagement. But I would express the hope, in the context of a critical shortage of police officers and rising crime rates—in particular in the area of violent crime—that the number of officers seconded for United Nations and other international policing duties is severely circumscribed.

The third matter I would like to deal with, which I find actually somewhat unusual, is that when we were dealing with Part 2 there was comment made in reference to clause 20 about the New Zealand Police code of conduct—a code of conduct that was designed to set out “the standards of behaviour expected from Police employees.” It is not a schedule to the legislation—it should be. I say it should be because those who drafted this legislation, and the Government that has advanced it, have for some reason decided that there is merit in putting a code as schedule 3 to this bill. But the code is not a code of conduct stating standards of behaviour. Instead it is a code of good faith for employment relationships. I offer the view to the Committee that it is substantially aspirational pap and not appropriately included in a bill of this type. It contains phrases—and I am referring to clause 4 of the third schedule, “General requirements”—such as: “(1) In all aspects of their employment relationship, the parties must—(a) engage constructively; and (b) participate fully and effectively. (2) In their employment relationship, the parties must—(a) behave openly and with courtesy and respect towards each other; and (b) create and maintain open, effective, and clear lines of communication,”. It goes on to say that they should “make time to meet as and when required” and that they “must use their best endeavours to resolve, in a constructive manner, any differences between them.” When it becomes an outcome that provisions like that must be inserted in primary legislation, then I think the executive would do well to pause, because schedules should contain substantive material, and not aspirational material that is implicit in any employment relationship. That said, National supports Part 5 of this legislation and is keen to see it progressed.

RON MARK (NZ First) : Firstly, I apologise if my speech is interrupted with coughing. I am meant to be at home. I did not want to bring all these germs and lurgies into the Chamber. But when one sits at home listening to the radio, and hears the amount of garbage coming out of the mouths of two people who hold themselves up as lawyers of credibility, it is totally beyond one to not come into the Chamber and say something.

I will give Kate Wilkinson, whom I have enormous respect for—she being a lady from the Waimakariri and someone I know through her having rendered me her professional services over time—that I noted a number of little coughs and “ahems” in her speech, which indicated to me that she did not believe what she was saying about clause 97, at all.

Mr Borrows has decided to play a political game of footsie, and he thinks it serves him well. But I have a message for Mr Borrows. We are hearing from out of the mouths of some of his MPs around the traps that National will govern alone. In particular, an MP up in Whangarei is telling everybody that National intends to and will govern alone. If that might come to pass, I would like to hear Mr Borrows say right now in this Chamber, on the record, that he intends to amend this legislation when he is in Government. Mr Borrows knows that what he is saying is constitutional claptrap. It is rubbish. It does not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny from any lawyer of any substance. As a member of the Law and Order Committee, he read the advice from the Legislation Advisory Committee, he heard the advice from esteemed professors of law from Auckland and Canterbury universities, and he heard the advice from the professor from Waimakariri, Wally Clark—another man who is well noted for his views on constitutional matters of law. Clause 97 now represents exactly what the Police Act of 1958 always intended. Section 31 of the Act always intended that police officers not be permitted to stand for council, in the same way that army officers cannot, and in the same way that judges cannot.

There are very, very clear reasons why that convention has always been adhered to. It revolves round the simple fact that in a democracy—not a Zimbabwe—in a free country where democracy is treasured and defended to the utmost, even to the extent of people laying down their lives for it, the one thing that fundamentally underpins democracy and gives it credence and credibility is a separation of powers between the lawmakers, the law enforcers, and those who adjudicate on the law. It is as simple as that.

This situation arises only because some person in a certain police area decided to take a differing view and to allow a number of officers to stand for council and be elected. That created an employment-related issue, which the Police Association decided to fight. It is interesting to note, and to put on the record right here and now, that in 2003, when New Zealand First raised this anomaly and asked questions about it, the then Commissioner of Police, Robbie Robinson, made very clear what the police view was, and it was that what had happened was an anomaly, it was wrong, and any review of the law needed to deal with it. That was his view, and interestingly—Mr Borrows knows this also—it is also the view of the current Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad. In fact, what did Howard Broad say in the select committee? He said: “If you’re asking me if I’m comfortable with the notion of one of my area commanders facing up to a constable who is a councillor on council, the answer is I’m not.” Those were his words. He has not been out there hammering the issue, because, as we know, employment-related issues have resulted from it. We can just see the line-up of Employment Court cases that would have been taken by the Police Association, if the Commissioner of Police had decided to exercise some authority and make it clear to officers that they could not stand for council. So we are making very clear and very precise in the Act what is appropriate and what is not.

Let us also deal with this little nonsense. This change does not mean that a police officer cannot stand for council—not at all. It simply means that he or she has to take leave, and if that officer is elected, he or she makes a choice as to which career to pursue. One of the other things that is forgotten here amongst this debate is the reality of the situation. I tell members to quietly ask any officers who work in a police station where a cop councillor works whether they like it. You see, Greg O’Connor and the Police Association have been very vitriolic in their personal attacks on me, and I understand there was quite a strident discussion with the Minister of Police that I would say bordered on—something. Intimidation springs to mind; bullying springs to mind. That is how I interpreted their approach to me. They ignore the fact that we are talking about only five officers out of 11,500. I tell members to go and ask the 11,500 what they think. They will say that they are sick and tired of it. Firstly, they will say: “Do you notice it is community constables? Do you notice it is youth aid officers? It is not CIB officers—they’re too busy. It is not beat staff—they’re flat out.” They will say that. Then members will hear stories about an officer in a two-person station having to cover all the councillor’s hours. Then they will hear stories from other officers who have had to adjust their shifts, because someone wants to pop off to a council meeting.

I ask the National Party members to answer this question: when the National Party is governing alone next year—which its members are telling everyone it will—will it be happy to have police officers be mayor? That is what Chester Borrows is saying. He is saying that a police officer should be able not only to stand for council but to be the Mayor of Wellington City, and to be a director of a local authority trading entity; that he or she can be a director of two local authority trading entities, and be the mayor, and be a constable. Yeah, right! I ask Mr Borrows to tell me now what that person’s real job is.

It is interesting to hear from Richard Worth how stretched the police are, how busy they are, and that they are deployed all over the world. We get complaints from Judith Collins and—

Dail Jones: Simon Power.

RON MARK: —and Simon Power, and Mr Hayes. They come to Parliament to petition for more police in their area. Yeah? Well, maybe the first thing we ought to do is make sure police officers are policing. And who has been the big critic of that? Mr Borrows, who has been telling everybody: “Oh, they’re not assigned to the front line. They’re not on the beat doing the job. But I don’t mind their being employed as a director of a local authority trading enterprise, or being a deputy mayor of a district council, and spending 45 hours a week as a councillor.” I say to Mr Borrows that he should get his story clean and straight. He should tell members what he stands for, because none of that makes sense, and judging by the grin on the member’s face, I see that he knows it. He actually knows it, and the cameras will record that, and that says it all. The member is playing political footsie. The message for the Police Association and the very few police officers whom Mr Borrows is championing is not to hold their breath if they expect Mr Borrows or Kate Wilkinson to change this legislation back when the National Party is governing alone, because it ain’t going to happen.

I note with interest that neither Mr Finlayson, a lawyer of—

Dail Jones: A barrister.

RON MARK: —a barrister of standing, nor Mr Worth, another lawyer of standing, has argued against clause 97. They might come down later on and add a little bit in support of their colleagues, now that I have said that, but at this point in time neither wants to tarnish his legal career, his legal standing, by arguing against this clause, because each knows the nonsense of doing that. So the next time we hear National Party members bleating on that officers are not assigned to the front line, that there are not enough officers out on the beat, that officers are not doing this and not doing that, there will be only one question that we have to ask them: how many officers would be out there if all of them were councillors on district councils? How much work would be done if all of them were like one officer I know who is spending 42 hours a week as a councillor? Everyone wants to talk about one officer. Look, we have three cases on our desk: Blenheim, Coromandel, and Waimakariri.

If there is one thing that we in New Zealand First have consistently argued for, it is preserving the reputation of the police. We were very angry about the quota ticketing system, because we believed that it undermined the public’s confidence in the police. Well, right now we have police officers involved in politics, and that undermines the public’s confidence in police. Let me also say that while I was coming in in the car I heard on the radio that officers know to excuse themselves when a conflict of interest arises. Well, I say to Mr Borrows that I am sorry but we have cases in writing from constituents who have made complaints that suggest that some officers would not understand a conflict of interest if it leapt up and bit them on the backside.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I find it hugely ironic that New Zealand First should make a big, staged presentation about conflicts of interest, especially—

John Hayes: From the deathbed.

CHESTER BORROWS: —well, Mr Mark got off his deathbed to come here, and that was worthy of him—when we have a party whose leader is a lawyer and was a partner in a law firm. Mr Mark is going on about conflicts of interest, and we have to ask ourselves, with regard to some of the things that have been talked about today and some of the things that are currently before this Parliament, if that leader is as smart as that, how come he finds himself in the predicament he is in today?

Pita Paraone: What’s that got to do with the bill?

CHESTER BORROWS: Well, it has plenty to do with the Policing Bill, because Mr Mark stood up and spoke about a person from Waimakariri. Mr Mark did not name the person, but we all know who the person is, because Mr Mark has been making personal comments in respect of that particular councillor for some time.

The very incidents and examples that were quoted by Dail Jones were from exactly that situation, but the trouble is that the members had their hours mixed up. One member said it was 30 hours a week and the other said it was 42 hours a week, but then he said it was 45 hours a week. But it all relates to one person: a councillor from Waimakariri.

Ron Mark: It was Thames; he was talking about Thames.

CHESTER BORROWS: When the member was talking about the waste management guy, he was referring to the man from Canterbury, right? So there we go. In any event, Mr Mark drew specific attention to a specific councillor from Waimakariri, whom Mr Mark has had some sort of stake with for a long time.

What Mr Mark fails to talk about, though, is the incredibly good work that police officers do in district and regional councils around the country on behalf of their local communities. Then Mr Mark says those police officers would not know when to recognise a conflict of interest even if it bit them on the bum, and would not excuse themselves. In actual fact, those people do that every day, and so do other councillors. When we have a councillor who is in business in a town, that councillor exempts him or herself when the time is right.

We have heard other people who are not supporting Supplementary Order Paper 213, which was put forward by National in my name, talk about a separation of power, and about advice on that from those who came before the Law and Order Committee to advise it on legislative matters. Yet the whole reason we have a Parliament is to make sure that the people who make the law are representative of the constituents of this country, because if we left it only to the lawyers and academics to make the law in this country, we would be living in a pretty clinical sort of a world.

The fact is that those of us who are elected to come to this House and represent our constituents have a job to do, and we are charged with doing that. I make absolutely no apology for disagreeing, for instance, with the advisers who came before the select committee and talked about the separation of powers. In fact, what do we know, one of the submitters came from Waimakariri as well. I make absolutely no apology for disagreeing with the Commissioner of Police, and I am absolutely convinced that he disagrees with me on a regular basis. So what? The point is that we have an adversarial system. We also have a system whereby this is a House of Representatives. It is not a House of head-nodders who will listen to everybody who wants to give advice, then run off down that track.

If we look at the legislation that has been brought forward by district councils and local authorities around the country, we see some of it has gone on to become nationwide criminal law. An example of that is the curfew system that was introduced in Te Kūiti. Another example was the liquor bans introduced in places such as Tauranga, and, for instance, to take account of New Year celebrations in places like Whangamata.

People would say there is a conflict in, for instance, a councillor who gives a view on the importance of legislation around liquor bans then being the person who has to go on to enforce a ban. What about the other Government agencies that have staff members who are working on local authorities? Does it mean, for instance, that a customs officer should not be part of the Taranaki Regional Council, which happens to own the port at New Plymouth? What a ridiculous situation we would have there. Another example would be an Inland Revenue Department officer who is employed by the Government for 40 hours a week, but who also works on a local authority. Will we exempt, then, from serving as a councillor any Government agent who is able, in his or her occupation, to enforce the law? What about health and safety inspectors? Will they not be allowed to be on local councils, too? What about those people who work for the Department of Labour, investigating industrial accidents? Should they not be allowed to be on councils, as well? Just how far will it be taken?

The whole point is that this particular provision came out of the beef of one person, from one party, and it was about one district councillor in particular. It is a convention that one incident does not make the law.

Just to follow up on another point made by Mr Mark, five serving police officers are currently on local authorities, and, as far as I understand it, there are 11,500 police employees. Well, where is the problem?

If we are going to talk about previous mayors, are we going to talk about Mayor Ron Hibbs from Greymouth? He served his community for many years as the local mayor while he was a community constable. He was able to fit his work hours around that office, to the pleasure of his district commander and the commissioner, because later on he was esteemed by the police themselves for the work he had done locally. Are we going to say Ron Hibbs’ service was not worth much and we can forget about his contribution to his local community, or are we saying he was in some way defrauding the New Zealand public, because there was no way he could have been the mayor of a small provincial town and been a police officer for 40 hours a week? In actual fact, the issue of whether some extra duties are going on by way of an officer being involved in a regional council—or in anything else, for that matter—and whether an officer can complete his or her hours of employment are matters entirely between the officer and his or her employer—the police. It is not uncommon for the police to give flexible employment opportunities to people so they can do just that.

I say to those parties who will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 213 that I believe they are being duplicitous. I believe they are not valuing the work of those police officers who have served, and are currently serving, their communities incredibly well on local authorities, and they are not valuing the realism those police bring to the role. Mr Benson-Pope has said that that information can be called upon at any time, but in fact that very rarely happens. If someone has the ability to add to a discussion and to enhance the debate while sitting at a table, that person should be given the opportunity to do so. To fail to support Supplementary Order Paper 213, which will allow our hard-working police officers to continue to serve in this way, is wrong, and those concerned will have to live with the consequences of that.

As a final point, I would like to say it is very interesting that no grandfathering counter Supplementary Order Paper was presented until today. It is interesting to note that the person we all esteem highly—Alf Filipaina from Manukau City Council—has been spoken about in glowing references today, and Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Annette King will allow him to continue serving as a councillor. I bet members anything they like that if he was not there and Mr Robbie Brine from Waimakariri was there instead, there would be no grandfathering clause—he would be gone by lunchtime.

RON MARK (NZ First) : It is worthwhile capping that tirade from Chester Borrows. The first thing that we must make clear to people is that the five officers who are currently serving will continue to serve, including Robbie Brine whom Mr Borrows seems to be so focused on—in fact, no one else has mentioned his name. He will continue to serve as a councillor until he chooses to stand down or is not elected. That is the bottom line. This legislation does not affect him at all.

Chester Borrows: Now.

RON MARK: Now, tomorrow, the next day, the day after that, the day after the next election, and the day after the next election after that. If Robbie Brine or any of those five officers are re-elected at the next local government elections, they will continue to serve. It is a grandparenting clause—it is as simple as that. The second point from Mr Borrows was that these officers make valuable contributions to councils when decisions are being made. I say to Mr Borrows that they can still serve on a community board. [Interruption] Is that not enough money?

Chester Borrows: That’s a pat on the head.

RON MARK: Mr Borrows now denigrates the officers who are serving on community boards. How many officers are currently serving on community boards? Two?

Hon Annette King: Another five.

RON MARK: So Mr Borrows thinks that those five are just a bunch of wallies. He just said to give them a little pat on the head. For those who could not hear it, because his microphone is turned off, I repeat that his response to the officers who are on community boards was to give them a pat on the head. Let us put that in the Hansard. New Zealand’s 11,500 police officers can still continue to make a contribution. They can all stand for community boards should they choose to do so, and they will be permitted to do so.

The next point concerns advice to the council. Forgive me, but during the 12 years that I have been in this Parliament a select committee has always had the ability to call the police whenever it wanted advice from them. In fact, rather than hearing from just a constable, whose view of life is a constable’s view, the select committee can get advice from specialists, heads of departments, and men and women and officers who know thoroughly and intimately the issues involved. The police will select a team to come and advise the committee—Mr Borrows has been in this House long enough to know that—and the council can do the same.

It is interesting that a delegation from the Wanganui District Council, led by the mayor, recently came before the very same Law and Order Committee and gave a submission on a law change it wants made—a law that it has drafted. It was supported by Mr Borrows. And who is sitting on that council committee? Rāna Waitai is on it—a former police officer. [Interruption] He is not one now, but people do not have any problem, whatsoever, with having someone who is a former police officer putting himself forward for election, being elected, and coming forward to do the work that people want him to do. Mr Waitai understands clearly the need for the separation of powers. He clearly understands that—as clearly as some people do not. So the argument that these police officers give quality advice is a nonsense argument. The police can always make officers available to give quality advice, and here is the rub: it will not cost the council anything and it will not cost ratepayers anything. They will not have to fund a $40,000 a year salary. They will just ask them to appear and they will appear, and they will be the right people.

I say to Mr Borrows that he should not hang his hat too heavily on the notion that all police officers have excused themselves from meetings when matters of law and order and public safety have been debated, when appropriations have been made, and when decisions and determinations have been made about the allocation of appropriations and the expenditure of finance—because he might fall over on that one. Enough written evidence is coming into Parliament from other areas around the country, and minutes of council meetings do not lie. Those who are present are recorded. Those who excuse themselves from proceedings because they see a conflict of interest are recorded. Those who do not are also recorded. So enough of the nonsense and enough of the drivel. It is time to move on. Thank you.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of Chester Borrows to omit clause 97 and substitute new clause 97 be agreed to.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to speak to the title and commencement clauses in respect of the Policing Bill. Although we have had a fairly colourful and loud debate in respect of one particular clause, it has to be seen as a great day when policing is brought into the modern era. Yesterday I had the privilege—not the sad duty—to attend the funeral of Constable Dave Armstrong of the New Plymouth police, who died, aged only 56, at his desk while he was working as a scenes of crime officer in the New Plymouth police station last Thursday. The funeral itself and the celebration of policing in New Zealand were incredibly moving, with about 100 officers in an honour guard down the street outside the chapel. One of the officers whom I took up to that funeral was ex - Senior Sergeant Miles from Hāwera, who is a real institution. He started as the senior sergeant in 1972, left in about 1985, and served his country for many years as a police officer in the ranks up to senior sergeant. One of the jobs he attended was the Tangiwai disaster, so that gives an indication of his vintage.

I will repeat a couple of comments I made in respect of this legislation when it was first introduced to Parliament. I made the point that in 1958, when the Police Act we are replacing with this bill was implemented, it was a very different world from the one we live in today. Only a few years after the culmination of the Second World War we lived in a country that was building rapidly in terms of economic growth on the back of wool and meat. We were, as some people called us, the larder of Great Britain. Great Britain was truly great and bought everything that we supplied. If we think back to those times and the way we lived—hugely conservative as a country, hugely supportive of discipline, living in neighbourhoods, with mothers in homes, a tightly restricted supply of alcohol and suchlike, and drugs were virtually unheard of—it was a completely different place from where we are today. The police service then was a completely different organisation from the New Zealand Police today. The only organisation doing policing in the 1950s was the New Zealand Police. Now, of course, a number of organisations right across the country are involved in policing. For example, more security guards are operating in New Zealand than there are sworn police officers. But just to recapture a little bit of history, let me say to members that in 1958 there was one police car in the Taranaki police district and it was a 1955 DeSoto owned by the police—

Hon Annette King: Harry owns it now!

CHESTER BORROWS: Harry has it; he has dibs on it anyway, I bet. The only person allowed to drive it was the district commander or his driver. But the district commander did not know that on the night shift his officers used to grab the car, disconnect the speedo, and go for a wander around Taranaki to visit the outlying stations. They could hide the number of miles ticking over on the clock but they could not hide the fact that they had used all the gas that a big V8 used. There is no statute of limitations under the Crimes Act so I hope people are gracious, but the officers used to sneak down to Powderham Street, put a siphon hose in the back of a bus, and fill up the police district commander’s car with petrol stolen out of the back of the bus. When I told the officer telling me this that that was theft, he said no, it was just good police work.

It is funny to think back that in those days we lived under a totally different regime. Apparently we saw policemen as 10-foot-tall angels—not Hell’s Angels—who would give people a kick up the bum or a clip around the ear rather than put them before the courts. Courts were interesting places too. People would go to prison at the drop of a hat, for what today would be seen as next to nothing.

But, moving on, I say we have to accept that policing has changed significantly. Virtually every core aspect of policing in New Zealand is done by a private organisation in parallel with the New Zealand Police. To be quite honest—and I think the police accept this themselves—the police would be very hard pressed to provide a similar level of overall policing if there were no private organisations now carrying out police work within our country. We will also see, through the implementation of this legislation, access to biometric information, the ability to take and retain DNA samples, and those other investigative techniques that are able to give juries and decision makers within the court system the ability to make well-honed decisions backed up by good information.

The police are able to work in a fairly fluid way where needs are. They have the ability to authorise certain officers, who may not actually be sworn police, to carry out tasks that at present require a sworn officer to do them. That is a good thing, as long as we bear in mind that the spread of those we get to do these policing duties should not be too broad, and that those who are charged with enforcing the law are those who understand it and have the training and the ability to execute it—and execute it in a safe way not only from the police officer’s point of view but from the point of view of the offender or those who run up against the jurisdiction of our local police.

The legislation builds on changes we have seen over the last 20 years and takes account of the way crime is occurring in our communities and neighbourhoods and the way it is investigated by those charged to do so. The National Party is pleased to support the Policing Bill.

I compliment the Minister on the way she has conducted the review of policing to date, the implementation of the new Policing Bill—the replacement for the Police Act—and the collegial way in which she has approached that, with the input that those of us from across the House have been able to have in respect of that, and also with the input of those within the sector, particularly those private providers that I alluded to earlier. I also congratulate Superintendent Hamish McCardle on the work he did in preparation of the review documents, and on the conduct of the seminar that drew expertise from around the world and around the country to consider the matters before the review, as it was then, prior to the compilation of the Policing Bill as it is now, and the new Policing Act as it will be very shortly. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to have input into that, and I believe that it will be a bit of a hallmark in the way that Governments present and future will conduct themselves in respect of considering legislation that is apolitical, that will endure over time, and that will have such a huge impact on our communities—hopefully, for the better.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 not agreed to.
• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of the Hon Annette King to insert new clause 2 be agreed to.

• New clause 2 agreed to.

• Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.