Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I move, That the Policing Bill be now read a second time. This bill is a major piece of legislation, though it is not very long by the standards of some of our current pieces of legislation. The bill replaces the Police Act of 1958, which is some 50 years old and is certainly fairly ancient legislation—perhaps Mr Borrows remembers the passing of the bill; I am not sure. Not many of our statutes on the books these days are still in their principal form dating back some 50 years. Clearly there is a need to update the Police Act, given the enormous changes that have occurred in society and the enormous changes that have occurred in the nature of the police force and policing in New Zealand. Fifty years ago, of course, nearly all members of the New Zealand Police Force were men, with very few women in the police force at that stage. Now a substantially increasing proportion of police officers in New Zealand, including senior police officers, are women. Nearly all police officers in 1958 were of Pākehā background. That is certainly no longer true, and the police are increasingly representative of the much more complex and multi-ethnic society that we have seen emerge over that period of time.

There has been wide consultation around this legislation, and I know that the Minister of Police is extremely keen to see this legislation passed. The bill continues the best features of the current legislation, particularly—and most crucially—the independent role of the police and the traditional role of the police constable. I have to say that I am often concerned in this House and outside when members of Parliament talk to the Government, about the Government, or in criticism of it, implying that the Government should in some way interfere in the way that the police run their own affairs, and should be directing the police about how they carry out investigations, whether they carry out investigations, whether charges should be laid, and so on. It is a fundamental principle, in my view, of a police force in our kind of democratic society that they are operationally independent of the political system—obviously they are accountable to Parliament and the Government, but they are not directed by Parliament or the Government in the way in which they operate.

I am very pleased to see that in New Zealand, under this bill, we are continuing the tradition of an operationally independent police force and not going down the track that I see British politicians talking about amongst both major political parties, which is introducing an elected element into the management of the police system. The Conservative Party is actually talking about electing chief constables, and the British Labour Party is talking about electing police authorities with supervisory powers over the police. I think that that would be a very bad track for us to proceed down. We have seen in the United States, where senior police officers are elected or politicised, that that creates all kinds of difficulties that we do not see occurring within New Zealand.

The police, of course, are clearly responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and in a modern, complex society that is no easy business, indeed. It often requires difficult issues of prioritisation. The police occupy a very special and difficult place in regard to the issues around employment practices, in terms of conditions of employment. But I am pleased to note that the Minister of Police was so keen to see this bill passed that she has rushed, run—indeed, sprinted—and almost qualified for the Olympic Games in arriving here for the second reading of this bill. I am sure that she will be very pleased to take the second call on behalf of the Government.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to indicate the National Party’s support for the passing of the Policing Bill. I have to say that the process of putting the bill together—consideration across parties, and the select committee process—was very much a non-partisan effort. Many of us from various parties felt that we had the opportunity to have a great deal of input into the way the bill proceeded.

The Policing Bill underlines a number of aspects of the Police Act 1958, and, as Dr Cullen said, it has been a long time coming. The principles, which form part of that Act and have stayed pretty much the same over the past 50 years, include, as stated in clause 8: “principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”. Although we would all agree with that, other impacting legislation has, over the years, changed the way in which policing is done. If we look back, for instance, at changes to what we now call the Summary Offences Act—which was the Police Act 1927, as Mr Deputy Speaker would have learnt when he was at the Police College, as did those of us of a similar vintage—we see that some of its provisions seem completely Draconian and archaic compared to what we are dealing with today.

Paula Bennett: It was a long time ago.

CHESTER BORROWS: It was a long time ago.

There was, for instance, impact from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It changed the face of policing in respect of acceptable practice in dealing with accused persons, what warnings had to be given, and what rights had to be extended. The game changed significantly. If we look forward through until today, we see a police service that is different from the one we had just 15 or 20 years ago in terms of civilianisation, which is probably a politically incorrect and old-fashioned term. Now we see the difference between sworn and non-sworn staff, and non-sworn staff carry out some duties that are parallel to those carried out by their sworn compatriots.

As stated in clause 8, another principle on which the Police Act is based is that: “effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:”. The New Zealand Police, or any other police service around the world, could not operate in the ratio of numbers that it does within this country without the support and confidence of the public of New Zealand. The police forces around the world that do not operate with such confidence have to be far more paramilitary and oppressive.

Another principle states “policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus:”. If we compare, for instance, our national police service with Britain’s, we see that there are 43 police forces in Britain. There are 37,000 of them within the United States. People in New Zealand have the comfort of knowing that the law that applies to them in one area generally applies to them in another. Another principle is: “policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:”, and that reflects the legislation affecting human rights that has been passed since the Police Act 1958 was passed.

The next principle is that “policing services are provided independently and impartially:”. We now have an Independent Police Conduct Authority. That authority does act independently, but it also, with another leg, acts with police assistance to ensure that people who are confronted by the police have their rights respected and their complaints dealt with independently and impartially, and it ensures that if they have been dealt with and prosecuted by the police, they have been dealt with in an impartial manner. Lastly, clause 8 states: “in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.”, and every employee is therefore subject to the Employment Relations Act and also to the provisions of this bill as they replace the Police Act 1958.

It was interesting to go through the select committee process and see the issues that were raised by the submitters. Largely, submitters were positive in respect of the bill and wanted only a little tweak here and there. Those who were concerned with human rights or, for instance, with the way biometric data would be preserved and used in investigations, made their submissions known, but most of the committee accepts that we live in a new age, and that, for instance, DNA is just a new fingerprint and has the ability to exclude as well as include suspects in any investigation.

During the select committee process, two issues stuck out. One was the delegated powers of the Commissioner of Police in terms of being able to delegate duties to those who are not sworn police and are also working within the policing area. The Police Association raised this as an issue, and initially that was to be dealt with by regulation. As a result of the process, that will be done by empowering legislation within a fairly tight time frame. Members of the committee felt that that was fair enough, bearing in mind the precedent that it set.

The other issue that became relatively contentious was the ability of police to stand for, and be elected to, territorial local authorities. It was raised by one or two submitters, and I guess they came from two camps. One had a particular area—and in some cases, a particular councillor—in mind, and the others were legal purists who talked about a separation of powers and said that those who write the law should not be those who enforce it. But other submitters made the point that police who serve on councils tend to bring to the table far more than just the fact that they happen to be sworn police officers. Police serve on a number of councils around New Zealand, and where they put themselves up for candidacy they tend to get an overwhelming response from members of the public, and tend to poll highly, which indicates the confidence that members of the police service enjoy from their local community.

National members did not agree with the position of the bill as it was to come back to the House, as it would not allow for members of the police to stand in elections for local councils. We indicated at that stage that we would put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the bill. I am pleased to say that during the select committee process in respect of estimates, and when speaking to the Minister, the Minister indicated that the Labour caucus was in favour of the status quo as it was in the Police Act 1958, and that members of the police should be able to stand for, and be elected to, territorial local authorities.

This is different, of course, from their ability to stand for central government, which members of the police are prevented from doing. If a member of the police wishes to stand as a candidate for central government, he or she must go on leave without pay from writ day, and then await the outcome of the election. If the candidate is successful, he or she must resign; if unsuccessful, police duties may be taken up again.

I believe that the New Zealand Police Association lobbied strongly for retaining the right of local police to be able to stand for local councils and serve in that way, and National was pleased to put forward Supplementary Order Paper 213 in an attempt to preserve the status quo as it is in the Police Act 1958. Given the support of the Labour caucus, we expect to see that transition in the course of the Policing Bill going through the Committee stage and the third reading.

It is good to see before the House a bill that will have such a significant effect on the enforcement of law and order in this country—probably for the next 50 years—and that recognises the changing face of policing, and the stresses and strains on our men and women in blue who serve us so well. National is pleased to support the Policing Bill.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : First of all, I thank my colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for the interest he has shown in this historic piece of legislation. He has ensured that it reaches the Order Paper in time for its passage before the election, and also took the first speech tonight because, although I am a particularly fast runner, I could not make the House before it was time for me to speak, so I am very grateful for his support. I also thank members of the House for their support. The member who has just spoken, Chester Borrows, has been from the beginning a continuous supporter of the Policing Bill, and I think that that probably reflects his knowledge of policing from many years as a former police officer, and his interest in policing. I also thank other members of this House: Ron Mark has shown particular interest and been very supportive throughout this process, but so have the Green Party, Māori Party, United Future, and ACT. So, in terms of all the parties of this House, this is one of those rare occasions when we have tremendous support for a piece of legislation.

Tonight I also want to acknowledge Superintendent Hamish McCardle, who is in the gallery. Superintendent McCardle and Mike Webb are two people who have really been the architects of this bill. They have put in countless hours to get this bill into shape for introduction. For them, it is almost like watching a baby grow. They have been with this bill every step of the way, and I want to acknowledge that Superintendent McCardle is here tonight, supporting it again.

When I introduced this bill in February this year in its first reading, I noted that it contains the most far-reaching legislative proposals on policing to come before the House in 50 years. After all, the old Police Act is 50 years old, and we could describe it as legislation that is covered in sticking plaster, because it has so many amendments attached to it. So this is very far-reaching legislation—a total rewrite of a major Act.

I also drew attention to the multiple strands of public consultation, testing, and refinement that have been threaded together in the bill, and that mean that it does largely represent a consensus view. I thank all the members of the Law and Order Committee for the constructive way they have approached the fine-tuning of this bill. I believe the draft legislation has been strengthened as a result.

I wish to draw attention to some of the more significant changes heralded in the bill. First, the bill provides an important acknowledgment that trust and confidence in the police hinge on policing being conducted in a principled way. Clause 8 identifies six principles that are broadly agreed to be important in the New Zealand policing tradition. They include acting impartially, and Chester Borrows has already mentioned that; upholding high standards of ethics, integrity, and professionalism; and providing a national service linked strongly with local people and communities, just to name some.

The bill also recognises that the police cannot and do not act alone in responding effectively to safety and security needs. This is why clause 10 highlights the roles played by a range of partner organisations, as well as the efforts of individuals, families, and communities. For example, we see real progress being made when the police work in partnership with groups like Māori wardens, Neighbourhood Support groups, and community patrols, and where the collaborative links are formed with organisations like, for example, the private security industry.

I also draw attention to clause 16, which clarifies the relative areas of authority of the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Police. In future we will not need to rely solely on custom and convention, or case law, to understand where the line is drawn between the legitimate role of the chief of police and the Minister of the Crown, or those who act for them. This is a major step forward and it is strongly supported by constitutional experts.

This bill also contains a number of provisions designed to support the operational effectiveness of the police. Although time constraints do not allow me to reveal all of them in detail, I do want to briefly highlight clauses 32 to 34, which update powers relating to the identification of suspected offenders who have been lawfully detained by police. For instance, clause 33 will allow front-line police to obtain a suspect offender’s identifying details without the need for the person to be physically arrested, facilitating the use of summons and other notices to commence proceedings. This improvement should reduce the opportunity for people to provide false identities and, in turn, prevent precious time and resources being wasted in the justice system while the law catches up with the offenders.

I want to single out three aspects of the bill’s personnel provisions that will support the commissioner’s ability to employ a modern police workforce. First and foremost, the bill provides clearer recognition of the office of constable and reinforces its central place in the New Zealand system of policing, but it breaks with the old-style thinking that assumes we need to run two parallel employment frameworks for general police staff and those who are constables. Part 4 confidently takes police into the mainstream environment where all police staff work under a unified system for setting terms and conditions of employment. This is a sensible evolution and long overdue.

Secondly, the bill gives a statutory basis to a code of conduct for all police staff, reinforcing the importance of ethics and integrity in the way policing is done in New Zealand. Thirdly, I want to highlight the way the bill provides greater assurance about the skills and qualifications of the men and women empowered to perform particular policing functions. Unlike the situation under the 1958 Act, the bill will introduce an explicit requirement that a person who is appointed as a constable or an authorised officer is adequately trained and capable of exercising his or her powers. Although this has always been a legitimate expectation, clauses 22(2) and 24(2) will make it a statutory requirement that recipients of policing powers and duties are suitably qualified to discharge their assigned responsibilities.

The Policing Bill contains important innovations but also carries through cherished traditions. The bill reforms the legal structure under which the New Zealand Police is mandated and organised, and will better enable the police to face future challenges. The bill as a whole is welcomed by the men and women who serve in the New Zealand Police, and it has been particularly pleasing to see such a wide measure of support and public support coming from the police, staff associations, and the community at large. I now call upon members on all sides of the House to add their backing to this bill, which promises, I believe, to help ensure that both Kiwis and visitors to our country will continue to receive the highest standard of policing. I do commend this bill to the House.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of the Policing Bill at its second reading. Firstly, I too acknowledge the work of the Law and Order Committee, of which I am a member. I must say that it was a nice change to be part of a process that was for the most part non-contentious and non-partisan, and that had the full backing and cooperation of all parties in this House. That is something that unfortunately the public does not get to see much of from this Parliament. This rare expression of unity is certainly in marked contrast to the furore that followed the passage of the Electoral Finance Bill through the House.

This bill is a real testament to the efforts of Hamish McCardle—and I note that the Minister has already acknowledged his efforts—and the Police Act review team, and I thank them for their enormous contribution, as well. I also recognize the extensive and innovative consultation process, held over almost 2 years, that has allowed members of the public to engage in this lawmaking process in so many different and unique ways. Everyone who had an important role to play in bringing this legislation to the House has had his or her voice heard, and I hope we will see more of this kind of involvement in the future.

We are, and should be, strong supporters of the police in New Zealand. The National Party is a strong supporter of the police, and I believe that, by and large as a country, we have widespread support for, confidence in, and respect for, the police force, despite some of the setbacks experienced in recent years. I recognize here today the tremendous work the police do every day in keeping our communities safe. It is not an easy job, nor is it a job that can be just left behind at the end of the day. Sometimes, when the organisation is under scrutiny, that point is easily forgotten. I believe that New Zealand has a police force we can all be proud of, and I am pleased that through this bill we are truly modernising the New Zealand Police by providing its members with the necessary tool kit that will allow for the delivery of better policing services for our communities in dealing with 21st century situations and that will better position us as a nation for the future.

I will give a recent example of how modern and in touch with our community our police can be. In a recent radio interview in Christchurch, there was the story of a policeman who picked up a young schoolgirl who was a truant and took her to school. Her mother, unfortunately, left for work every morning at about 6.15 a.m. She was not there to make sure that her daughter went to school; there was nothing to give this young woman the discipline or the incentive to go to school. So the local policeman, off his own bat, decided that he would pick her up every morning and take her to school, and within one week she was back enjoying learning and enjoying school. That is a true and remarkable testimony to the importance and role of our police work in our community—work that does actually make a real difference.

I think we have done well in ensuring that this bill stays true to the spirit of the original Act. The first principles on which it was founded remain largely the same within this Policing Bill, and are described as having stood the test of time. These founding principles are, firstly, that “(a) principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”. The principles have been mentioned by the Minister and are contained in clause 8 of the bill. They also include the principles that “(b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence: (c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus: (d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights: (e) policing services are provided independently and impartially:”, and that “(f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.” These principles are as relevant today as they were in 1958.

I mentioned earlier that this bill was largely non-contentious, but there was one point—and it has been mentioned by my colleague Mr Borrows—on which we perhaps did not all agree. That was the inclusion of a new clause, clause 97, that sought to deal with the politicisation of the police force by allowing serving officers in uniform to be elected to local government—colloquially known as “cops as councillors”. Questions were raised about why constables, authorised officers, and supervisors were 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. Some submitters were concerned that because local bodies had bylaw-making powers, a constitutional anomaly would allow the law enforcers to also be the lawmakers. That was mentioned by my colleague Mr Borrows, and it was based on the legal purists, as he said. I know that New Zealand First and Labour members of the committee also shared those concerns, and it was a question of whether those lawmakers should be the enforcers of the laws they had had a part in making.

It therefore came as somewhat of a relief to National—and also to the Police Association, which agreed that the proposal was, in its words, “ridiculous and unjustified”—when the Minister confirmed and acknowledged at the select committee that she and her party supported the status quo, which does allow the police to put themselves up for election at local body elections. This proposal does not actually affect many police officers. In fact, I understand that only about six officers throughout the country are also local authority councillors. I think it is important to be aware, to acknowledge, and to trust that it is up to the individual police officer who is also the councillor to deal appropriately with any perceived or arguable conflict of interest situation. Similarly, it is up to the public, when voting for those councillors, to elect those they think are the best people for the job. If the best person for the job happens to be the community cop, then it is up to the community to make that election and make that vote.

As an example, Mr John Morrissey is an example of a police officer stationed in the Coromandel area and doing a fine job while also serving as the Coromandel-Colville ward councillor on the Thames-Coromandel District Council. He is in his second term as councillor, and is able to do both jobs well, at the same time. His re-election showed that voters believe he is doing a good job, and I am certain that Mr Morrissey is not alone. In fact, I know he is not alone. In the electorate where I reside, we have a Mr Brine who is in a similar situation. He is not in his first term as councillor, he deals with any conflict of interest situations appropriately, and his appointment was reinforced when he was duly elected by the ratepayers and citizens of the Waimakariri district. They obviously have the faith to think that he is one of the best people to do that job.

I am pleased that we have all come to some sense in this House, and that this clause will be removed through Supplementary Order Paper 213, which my colleague Chester Borrows has prepared. I urge the support of the House on that. This leaves a bill that confirms and strengthens police government, accountability, and organisational arrangements in a way that reflects 21st century New Zealand, thereby making the organisation as a whole more accountable and more transparent while at the same time improving police efficiency. We commend this bill to the House at its second reading, and trust that its remaining stages will run as smoothly as its introduction has.

RON MARK (NZ First) : First, I heartily congratulate the policing review team and the Minister of Police on the manner in which this police review was conducted, and the legislation formulated and brought to the House.

Only a small number of submissions were received; they were from some 34 groups in all, of which only 22 were heard by the Law and Order Committee. That is probably a fair indication of the degree of acceptance in the wider community that the review had been thorough, the issues well canvassed and discussed, and the bill pretty much on track. I pass on the congratulations of New Zealand First to the policing review team, the Minister, and the advisers who assisted the select committee in its work. But I specifically congratulate the Minister on the process. A lot of legislation comes to the House, some of which we could assume is not contentious at all, if people took time out and consulted more broadly and were prepared to accept differing views. If that happened, we might actually find that a lot of other business would progress through this House with far less angst and a higher degree of consensus, if the process that happened with this bill was duplicated in other portfolios.

I congratulate also the select committee. It has been a pleasure working with the team, and the reason we arrived at this point with virtually unanimous support in the House reflects the way this entire bill was handled.

There is not really a lot more to be said. I think most of the speakers have covered some of the ground. We can reflect that the bill deals with some language change. People will have to get used to it. Members who have been law and order spokesmen for quite some time will have to get used to not using the terms “sworn” and “non-sworn officers”. There will be no such definition. We will be talking about “constables”, “authorised officers” and “supervisors”, but, essentially, everyone in the New Zealand Police will be police employees. That is a very clear change in definition, and the reasons have been clearly outlined.

The other strength of the bill is that it recognises that police do not police in a vacuum these days. They have long come to accept that their effectiveness in the community in preventing and resolving crime depends on the type of relationships they have. In fact, it relies on the police having strong relationships and a high degree of respect for those other citizens in our communities who work to preserve, protect, and make safe the citizens in their communities. The standout examples for New Zealand First are security companies, which are increasingly being used by New Zealanders, whether corporates or private citizens, to enhance their security. Māori wardens have long been a specific focus of New Zealand First, hence the rather large allocation in the Budget, first time up, of funding from the Treasurer to Māori wardens to ensure they are established in areas where they have died out, that they are trained, that they are effective, that they understand the statute that governs them, and that they have a clear, fundamentally strong, and working relationship with the police.

I think the Budget and the initiatives that have been undertaken and supported by the Commissioner of Police and the police in general in respect of Māori wardens have actually leapfrogged ahead of this bill. But this bill will cement in statute that relationship, as it will with those Neighbourhood Watch and Neighbourhood Support groups that we see out in our communities every day of the week, every night of the week, as they patrol our communities. Māori wardens, and the relationship they have with the police, given and respecting that they have their own statute, are a lot stronger and a lot more effective now, due to the new relationship and the new initiative where the police themselves have taken the responsibility of providing training at the Royal New Zealand Police College, and the underpinning of that relationship through this Policing Bill will only give strength to that initiative.

We have already seen a 29 percent decrease in crime in the central business district of Rotorua. We are seeing strong reductions in crime—in particular, street crime—in other areas where there is a high density of Māori population. As this bill comes into effect and as we continue to advance, the decreases in street crime, particularly where it relates to Māori youth, will continue. I have only one other hope, one other wish, one other dream for Māori and their relationship with the New Zealand Police and it is this: I look forward to the day when every Māori family in this country has a police officer sitting at their breakfast table—he or she being a member of their family and a member of the New Zealand Police. When we see that level of integration we will see a fundamental change and shift in the way in which Māori themselves behave in our communities. I shudder to use the word “behave” but it is unavoidable. Who knows, even Hone Harawira might be a cop one day!

The independence of the Police Commissioner is paramount. It is interesting that we sometimes stand in this House and make demands for the Minister of Police to act. Of late in the last 12 months a number of MPs from the Māori Party, the National Party, and even from my own party on occasion, have demanded that the Minister intervene in an issue and tell the police what they should be doing. The fact is we all know that is wrong, and we all know that what makes the difference between a New Zealand democracy and a Zimbabwean one is that our Commissioner of Police stands independent and alone. We all know that the three tenets that underpin our democracy—the separation of powers between the judiciary, the Parliament, and the police—are fundamental to a strong, healthy democracy. This bill reinforces that principle.

The question of community input into policing priorities is a much-vexed question, and often leads to calls for police commissioners to be elected or for police area commanders or district commanders to be held accountable by the mayors of those respective communities. I do not think that argument will go away, and the amount of vitriol we hear, the level of discussion on occasions, will pretty much be dependent on how communities see the police in their area in terms of their effectiveness and the effect of prioritisation as the community feels it should be. We live in hope that as we go forward there will be a greater degree of discussion between police commanders, their communities, and the community of mayors within each of those areas or police districts.

There will be changes to police general instructions as a result of the bill. One of the things that I like is that we have introduced and we are more specific about offences such as failure to help a police employee. In the bill we have spelt out very clearly that a person who fails to give help when asked commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000. I am particularly pleased about that. There is the offence of killing or injuring a police dog. A number of police dogs have been killed or severely injured in recent years as a result of the increasing levels of violence in our communities and the propensity of certain offenders to resort to violence. The punishment includes 24 months in jail or a fine of $15,000, or both, and is a pretty fair depiction of the community’s revulsion at such practice.

New Zealand First supports this bill and will continue to do so as it progresses through the House. Thank you very much.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is supporting the Policing Bill. We thank the Law and Order Committee for the work it has done on the bill.

I think the points Ron Mark made on the independence of the police are very important. Many occasions in this Parliament, particularly those involving MPs, make it clear that the separation of powers is required if the police are to look objectively at cases. I think that the relationship between the police and the Government is laid out reasonably well in the bill, at least on one side—that is, the responsibilities of the police.

One of the points covered by clause 16 is to give effect to any lawful ministerial directions. Unfortunately, the provision does not spell that out as fully and adequately as the previous police amendment bill did, which has been subsumed into this legislation. That is what I understand from the discussions that took place around that amendment bill. One thing that can be worrying is a situation where a ministerial direction to the police is not fully known to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the general public. I think it is important that any ministerial directions be tabled in the House, as was intended with the previous bill, so that there is a clear understanding that the police are not being pushed around for political purposes by an incumbent Government.

I think the line between what the Government should get involved in and what the police are in full control of has been highlighted in the controversy around Tasers. The Government and, I think, the police have defined it as an operational matter that comes within the independent orbit of what the police themselves should be responsible for. But it can also be argued that given the impact of having, essentially, a higher level of armament of the police force with the addition of 50,000-volt stun guns, it is something that is not just within the immediate operation of the police, and there should be more community involvement, just as if there were a decision to arm all the police generally—in the way that American and other police are armed—then surely it would be something that the general community through its representatives in Parliament and the Government should deal with. That decision should not be handled purely by the police.

That relates to one of the points in the principles—and it is not a bad set of principles—outlined in clause 8. Clause 8(b) states: “effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:”. Clause 8(d) states: “policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:”. Both of those points apply to the Taser decision. One of the concerns the Green Party has raised about the possible introduction of the Taser weapon is that it might undermine the ability of the police to enjoy a wide measure of public support and confidence, and that it might—to relate it to clause 8 again—lead to the undermining of policing services being provided in a manner that respects human rights. We have already seen some transgressions—mainly with pepper sprays and in some respects in the year-long Taser trial—that could run contrary to those principles under clause 8. So that is very much an open question. I think it is possible that the bill should be amended a bit further in order to clarify that relationship between the Minister, or the Government as a whole, and the police.

Another question that has been under some discussion is the increasing use of civilian staff. In the public debate on this bill, there has been some concern about jailors, guards, and transport enforcement people being civilians, and, sometimes, crime investigators having powers of arrest. They are all operating outside the sworn officer force. I think the Police Association has raised some concerns, and I am not sure whether they have been fully addressed in this final version of the bill.

Another question that concerns the Green Party, and one that was raised in some of the submissions, is the powers of search held by the police. There do not seem to be sufficient qualifications that there have to be reasonable grounds for a search in the provision in the bill for searching people outside of police premises and police cars. There is new wording that tries to rectify that; I am not sure whether it fully meets the circumstances. People might be searched when they are in all sorts of odd places, where it is harder to insist on there being a reasonable requirement for searching. If someone is arrested, it should not be the case that it is just open slather and the police automatically have the right to search that person.

Another provision in the bill that is actually quite good is the provision for officers serving overseas, because it is true that one of our major contributions—it may become our most important contribution—to international peacekeeping, as it is sometimes called, is done through the work of our police officers. They have done a fantastic job in places like the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. It is good that that role is now being integrated into the police system through the Policing Bill. I think, as well, we need to budget for that overseas work much more clearly, because if the police think they are losing some funding and resources to those overseas operations, it can create conflict for them. If we plan more consciously for it as an ongoing component of police work, it should be funded accordingly.

With those few comments, I say that the Green Party will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēna koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I was just listening to Mr Ron Mark’s speech before about fining people $2,000 if they do not go to the assistance of the police. Well, people should fine me $2,000 and fine me now, because if I ever see the police pounding on my neighbour Mr Mangu Awarau, they can yell at me, they can point a gun at me, they can ask me, they can do anything and I ain’t going to come to their assistance. They can put me in jail, but I will not come to their assistance. A policeman’s job is a policeman’s job, and he can do it himself.

The historian Richard Hill called our early police “the iron hand in the velvet glove”, yet by 1958, when the Police Act came into force, New Zealand police officers were still running around with just a baton, a torch, a whistle, and a set of handcuffs. Fifty years on from that and our police still operate under the terms of that Act. But in the wake of a massive drop in public confidence in the police following front-page allegations and convictions of horrific sexual assaults by the police themselves, the police terrorism raids against Tūhoe, and the Bazley Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct, it has become obvious that a review is well overdue. However, I can tell members that, for many Māori, confidence in the police died a long, long time ago. In many Māori communities that confidence has been replaced by bitterness and anger at the way in which the police have been used as stand-over agents for rip-off landlords, thieving businessmen, land-grabbing developers, and rapacious Governments both red and blue. So this bill to tidy up how the police are run, what accountability they should have, and what the commissioner and deputy commissioner should be doing is way overdue.

The Māori Party has a few suggestions to make but we were really surprised to see that a Gallup poll of 6,700 cops and support staff, released in February 2008, found that most of them do not even trust the force to provide them with a good place to work, that the fundamental requirements of a strong and vibrant workplace fall short, and that with only 9 percent being really happy in their work the New Zealand Police is way down the bottom of the list of places where people actually want to work. So this bill to update police governance, accountability, and organisation is a positive move, but we need to make sure that how the bill is written actually translates into how the police operate—and it does not.

Dr Trevor Bradley from the institute of criminology at Victoria University reckons that although having principles and functions of policing is a positive development, the bill does not actually lock the principles into practice. For example, the bill talks about public consent and legitimacy but provides no framework for local consultation or accountability. YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki pointed out that although there are clear obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that police respect the interests of young people, there is no reference in the bill to the questioning of, or getting information from, those young people, and there needs to be. The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has long called for police operational guidelines to be published so that people know what their rights are and what limits there are on police behaviour, yet this requirement is not included in the bill either. These examples show clearly how this bill is big on the talk but nowhere when it comes to the walk. That is not really surprising, given how deaf, dumb, and blind this House can be when it comes to recognising and acting on principles of fair play and honour.

Arguably the biggest omission in this Policing Bill is that the principal section of the bill does not refer to the Treaty of Waitangi, does not refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, in fact, does not even mention the Treaty of Waitangi at all, which opens up a really interesting scenario. The rationale for why a Treaty clause should be in the bill was part of Ngāi Tahu’s submission, presented on behalf of the Commissioner of Police’s Māori Focus Forum. That submission drew our attention to the actions of this colony’s armed police, particularly during the land wars, and highlighted how policing has often been, and continues to be, used as an instrument of Government—often to brutal effect against Māori. That submission should be compulsory reading for all members of this House as we consider how policing should operate in Aotearoa, because it confirms the role that this country’s armed constabulary played in assisting the Crown’s many breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. Our people do not easily forget those policies, those breaches, and those police actions. We remember the use of armed police—ironically charged with preserving the peace—to destroy Māori communities all over the country, from the Hokianga to Takaparawhau, from Hauraki to Whāingaroa, from Tūhoe to Taranaki, and from 1846 right through to the cowardly police anti-terrorism raids in the Tūhoe territory in 2007.

Ngāi Tahu called for the bill to say more than it does about recognising the status of tangata whenua, and that Māori should be expressly recognised in the bill—like in clause 10, which acknowledges the role played by those other than police in policing, but does not even mention the Māori wardens who voluntarily provide a whole range of policing, escort, security, and guidance services. Ngāi Tahu’s submission said that it was important for policing to reflect the foundations of our nationhood, and that the absence of a Treaty clause in the bill was a big disappointment but consistent with the way in which statutory recognition of the Treaty seems to have fallen from political favour. I repeat that this submission from Ngāi Tahu was on behalf of the Commissioner of Police’s Māori Focus Forum, and its criticism that this bill does not comply with Treaty justice should be of great concern to members of this House. Yet the Law and Order Committee decided to completely ignore the focus forum’s advice. Well, the Māori Party will not be ignoring the advice of the Commissioner of Police’s Māori Focus Forum, and during the Committee stage we intend putting up a Supplementary Order Paper to have a Treaty clause put into the bill. We will be reminding the Government, again, that the Treaty of Waitangi is as important to police operations as it is to those communities the police are supposed to serve.

Finally, I wish to raise the issue of Māori in the police force, because when we had a look we found that over the past 6 years the percentage of Māori cops across the country has gone up by only 0.1 percent, from 11.4 to 11.5 percent, and that the number of Māori in the non-sworn force has actually dropped from 11.1 to 9.3 percent over the same time. Everyone knows of the massive gulf in trust between Māori and the police, yet clearly the New Zealand Police’s recruitment strategy for Māori has failed miserably to address that mistrust, because it has failed to bring more Māori into the force.

I wish to advise that the Māori Party will support this bill only in order to try one more time to get issues such as the Treaty, consultation, and accountability included in the bill. But we may not support it further if those matters are not properly and fully addressed, because without them this bill will do nothing more than simply update the rules governing an organisation that has historic problems dealing with racism, corruption, and violence, and that has an arrogant disregard for the rights of the citizens who pay the wages of our police force. Make no mistake, the Māori Party wants a strong, positive, and well-supported police force, but—and members can take it as read—we will no longer accept a police force with the inherent problems that this one has, and this bill simply does not deal with those problems. Kia ora.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : United Future supports the second reading of the Policing Bill. It supports it as being timely and also as being a move towards bringing modern policing requirements, and the legislative framework by which they are provided, up to date. It is worth observing that this bill replaces an Act that has been in place for some 50 years. It is further worth observing that the 1958 Act was conceived in the most extraordinary of circumstances. During the 1950s there was a controversy surrounding the then Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Compton, that forced his resignation and led to the appointment—for, as far as I am aware, the only time in our policing history—of a civilian Secretary of Police, Mr Barnett. The 1958 Act was conceived as a way of dealing with the issues that had given rise to the problems that had led to the replacement of the commissioner and the appointment of a civilian head. That was a long time ago, and they are not the only things to have changed or altered significantly in the last 50 years.

I heard the previous speaker make an observation that is commonly referred to—that is to say, that the reputation of the police has been dwindling over the years for a variety of reasons. I actually think that when we look at it we see that every time over those last 50 years where the police have been put in the position of being in conflict with the community over some interest or another, that has led to some challenge to their authority. I refer to the Viet Nam War protest in the 1960s as an example, where the police were in the front line of maintaining law and order against a large popular movement opposed to an action of the Government of the day. Just over the weekend I was reading again the accounts of the police actions during the 1981 Springbok Tour, where the same sorts of issues were at play.

I suspect that in both situations there were police officers doing their duty who felt very strongly sympathetic to the cause of the protestors with whom they were forced to deal. They were reflective of the general population in that regard. That brings home to us the difficulty of the role that the police inherently have to perform. They are there to uphold law and order. Sometimes it is in very difficult and dastardly circumstances, such as the horrific crimes they have to be at the scene of—the grisly murders they discover. Sometimes it is in situations that are much more emotional and political, such as I have just described, but at all times it is the police whom we expect to be the upholders of law and order, to be our protectors, and to be the first people on the spot.

Just over the last weekend we have had horrific weather affect the country, and I suspect there were many police officers called out to be in the front line of our civil response to some of the emergencies that were occurring. We take that for granted as being their role. Then we add to that the controversy that has attended the police in recent years, culminating in Dame Margaret Bazley’s report, and a whole series of other unseemly actions that have contributed to a tarnishing of the police reputation. This bill seeks to set aside all of those things and say that here is a regime for the operation of the police in the first half of the 21st century. In that regard it is a very important milestone and step forward, and I am very happy to support it.

I want to make one other final closing comment. This is an occasion on which perhaps the House will indulge me for a moment as I pay a tribute to a constituent of mine who died recently, and I refer to the late Commissioner, Bob Walton. In many senses he was the typical embodiment of the modern New Zealand police officer, and at his funeral he was described as perhaps the greatest police commissioner of modern time. I got to know him in his latter years when he was still, in both a figurative and a literal sense, as straight as a die. He was ramrod upright in his demeanour. He was a great bowler and he was a warm and friendly character, but he was the embodiment of what we expect a New Zealand police officer to be.

I simply want to take this opportunity to pay my tribute to him, and to pay my respects to his family on their sad loss and to the wider police community for the loss of one of their great leaders. I am sure he would be saying tonight that this legislation is exactly what the police need to enable them to face the challenges that they will encounter in the years ahead, and to enable them to continue serving the New Zealand public with the dignity, the honour, and the general good humour and good faith that they have done over the last 50 years.

I support this bill, I look forward to it proceeding, and I rest secure in the knowledge that whatever circumstances befall any of us at any time, the police will almost certainly be there to assist us. There are very few countries in which that remark could be made with confidence and with assurance; we should be thankful that New Zealand is one of those.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I want to make just a short contribution because I am conscious that Parliament will want to see this bill passed through its second reading before 10 o’clock this evening. That affords me roughly 8½ minutes to make a quick contribution on this issue.

I am normally a full-time member of the Law and Order Committee that dealt with this bill. Unfortunately for me, and probably fortunately for the committee, I was not present when this bill was dealt with by the committee; I was subbed on to the Justice and Electoral Committee to deal with the Electoral Finance Bill, as it then was. But I was, in fact, the Opposition police spokesperson just after the last election when the Hon Annette King decided that she was going to move in the direction of a review of the Police Act and set out a series of consultative documents over a long period of time to discuss changes that should be made to the legislation governing the role of police in New Zealand society. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, that that cross-party approach—particularly between the two major political parties, but I take nothing away from the contributions that other parties made to the process—was the right thing to do.

This is one of those pieces of legislation that comes to the House from time to time whereby political parties can assist each other in getting the right result. If the process starts with the best intentions being expressed by all parties, then the chances are that a good result will be forthcoming.

I listened to what the Hon Peter Dunne had to say about the timeliness of the legislation, and I think there is a point that is worth adding to that. The last 18 months have not always been easy for the New Zealand Police. There have been many controversial issues—some of them deserved, some of them perhaps not so deserved, in one or two instances that I can think of—that have caused the police to come under increased public scrutiny. Of course, Dame Margaret Bazley’s report has highlighted many of the areas where the police need to improve and I know that the present Minister and the person who is the Minister of Police following the election—from whatever political party—will be vigilant in making sure those recommendations are seen through to the end.

In many respects the Hon Peter Dunne describes this bill as timely. I think it is, in the sense of a bit of a break from the past. It is an appropriate administrative change, and a signal that the Government of the day and most of the political parties of this House are concerned to see the police modernised. The structure that it needs to have available to it to make a valuable contribution in the future as part of a workable legislative framework to ensure the modernisation of the police—with its roles more deeply embedded in the communities in many ways—is an important factor. It is a good example of just how good the police are at making sure that, particularly, our young people understand the role of the police in society.

I was recently caught at home on a very wet afternoon and turned on the television with my 4-year-old. On the TV was a policeman with a dog—it was actually a puppet dog—Bryan and—

Hon Annette King: Bobby.

SIMON POWER: Thank you, I say to the Minister. I said to my son: “Look, there’s a police dog. They are to be avoided if you can, son.” My son said to me: “Who’s that woman talking to the police dog, dad?”. I said: “That’s Annette King.” The wee dog was in Annette King’s office, having a bit of a chat to her behind her desk and the Minister was engaged in appropriate conversation with the puppet dog. It struck me at that point that my 4-year-old was already convinced that the police had an important role in his view of the world. To this day, of course, one of the first things that he recognises when we are on the road is a police car.

Hon Annette King: It is Annette King!

SIMON POWER: No; it is not Annette King, although he does know who the Minister is now—she will be pleased to know.

Thinking about it afterwards made me realise that if we are to continue to give the police the respect they deserve, our young people have to have a view of them that makes their influence contemporary, and, more particularly, makes it relevant to them. Hopefully, that is what legislation such as this will achieve. This bill will see the modernisation of the police as they continue that longstanding tradition of dealing with our young people and informing them about right and wrong.

I want to finish by saying that we will have a debate or a discussion in the Committee stage to talk about the police’s involvement in local elections. When the Minister came before the select committee during the estimates process, she indicated that she was supportive of an amendment that might be made in that area. We look forward to seeing the support of the Government come to hand when Mr Borrows deals with his one amendment in this area during the Committee stage. But, as I am sure Mr Borrows and Ms Wilkinson have made clear to the House, and in reflection of the fact that the Hon Annette King made sure that this issue was dealt with in a bipartisan way right from the start, we have returned that view of how this legislation should be handled, and we support it at its second reading.

Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) : I have pleasure in taking a short call on the Policing Bill. What more could illustrate how important this is than the fact that the Minister of Police has given time for an appointment with a police dog? I think that only at 2 minutes to 10 could we hear that in this House.

Seriously, I want to acknowledge the good work of the Minister, Annette King, Martin Gallagher, Ron Mark as the chair of the Law and Order Committee, and all the members of the select committee who saw this bill through. Superintendent Hamish McCardle, who is still in the gallery, is a real stayer. We have seen that with the bill and indeed with the fact that he is here tonight. Really, I think it underscores the quality of the debate in the House. I regret only that none of this debate has been witnessed by the members of the media in the gallery this evening. This is, I think, a good example of quality debate and I acknowledge every member of the House who has taken a call. We have had some serious considered debate and we have raised some quite important issues that will require further consideration during the remaining stages of the bill’s journey through the House. That is as it should be.

This bill is laying the foundations, 50 years after the bill that it replaces, for a 21st century policing structure. It ensures, as preceding speakers have indicated, that certain core principles are preserved and, if anything, rightly strengthened. The independence of the Commissioner of Police and police officers—constables—lies at the heart of that. It is my pleasure tonight to support the progress of this bill. I look forward to its further progress in the House, and to, I am sure, hearty debate and serious consideration of the important matters the bill brings before the Parliament.

• Bill read a second time.