Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I move, That the Policing Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate point I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee, that the committee report back to the House before 31 May 2008, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

I am proud to open the debate on the Policing Bill. It contains the most far-reaching legislative proposals on policing to come before this House in half a century. The bill will replace the 1958 Police Act and two smaller statutes dealing with aspects of international policing. It will fast-forward New Zealand Police legislation into the 21st century.

These reforms are long overdue. The complex challenges of today’s world cannot be met with laws grounded in an earlier era. The context for contemporary policing is radically different from that faced by the lawmakers in the 1950s when the current Police Act was passed, not the least of which are new forms of offending, and technological advances that can now be used to combat crime. Indeed, in some cases, the leap we need to make is not just from the 1950s. Several provisions in the existing Police Act—especially in the areas of governance, employment arrangements, and ways to manage staff conduct—trace back to Victorian times.

Although there have been incremental changes to the Police Act over the years, the current legislative framework for policing is still left with unnecessarily prescriptive rules and confused lines of accountability, amongst other drawbacks. In confronting these challenges, the bill reflects the outcome of a wide-ranging review of the 1958 Act that has been undertaken during the past 2 years. The review was not a narrow administrative exercise but sought to promote a national conversation about the future of policing, in order to fundamentally re-imagine what sort of legislative arrangements might best support the needs of a modern New Zealand Police.

In many ways, the Police Act review has been a model process, and the bill now before the House shows the benefits of all the effort that has gone into developing, consulting, and refining proposals for new policing legislation. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the success of the Police Act review and who took the opportunity to contribute their ideas on the best form of legislation for police. This includes important contributions made by independent bodies such as the Law Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. They helped to ensure that the proposals in the bill are consistent with the basic rights and protections guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The review also includes the views of front-line police, as well as of the two main police staff associations, which have been fed into the preparation of this bill. Those at the sharp end of policing are uniquely placed to provide advice on legislation that most appropriately supports the New Zealand Police in the future. Their participation has been a key strength of the law reform process and has led to practical suggestions for this bill. The spokespeople of our various political parties in this Parliament have had access to all the information and have been involved in the process from the beginning, and I thank the members for that.

The Commissioner of Police took responsibility for leading this review, and he and his deputies have been closely involved throughout. Indeed, they have led the work. I am pleased to say that the draft legislation now before the House is roundly supported by police senior leaders.

As well as input from police themselves, a diverse range of individuals, groups, and organisations have contributed to the shape of the bill. Three distinct consultation phases allowed New Zealanders to articulate what kind of police service they want, and gave them a voice to identify the kinds of legislative arrangements that can help deliver that style of policing. It was very pleasing to see genuine engagement and debate about policing legislation from communities throughout New Zealand. For example, territorial local authorities played a prominent role in each of the three public consultation rounds, as did several non-governmental organisations such as the Māori Wardens Association.

As another means of grounding the proposals for the new policing legislation, public research was commissioned on what New Zealanders want and expect of their police service. This too helped thinking about how policing in this country might best be enabled by legislation. These multiple strands of consultation, together with testing and refinements, have come together in this bill. It represents an emerging consensus that has described a broadly based, shared vision of how the law should deal with issues as diverse as the overall role of the New Zealand Police, high-level governance, and accountability arrangements, right through to some of the more administrative nuts and bolts that allow a large State sector organisation to work effectively and efficiently.

Given the role of the police in society and in our constitutional system of Government, police-enabling statutes should command the broadest possible cross-party support. I therefore look forward to working with all members of this House, and hope they will take an active interest in the Policing Bill and provide a strong, clear, durable legislative platform for our nation’s police service. I do not believe there can be any place for political playing with this particular bill.

I turn to the main provisions, and I will mention only a few in the short time I have. There are many, many parts of this bill but there are two main objectives. The first is to reform the legal structure under which the New Zealand Police is mandated and organised; a special focus here is on clarifying the functions of the police, policing principles, and the constitutional relationship between police and the Government of the day. The second goal is to equip the police to better meet the needs of New Zealanders. This involves updating personnel management provision and putting in place a clear and modern framework for specially authorised employees exercising policing powers.

Although the bill breaks new ground in a number of areas, it is important to note that cherished aspects of our policing history are also carried through. The measures in the bill represent a careful blend of continuity and change. For example, in confirming the relative areas of responsibility of the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Police, the bill’s provisions strike a balance between setting out some of the basic reference points in statute, but do not attempt to legislate for all aspects of the relationship. This allows us to preserve, and continue to benefit from, important common law concepts that have stood the test of time, notably the doctrine of constabulary independence, while giving added strength and transparency to the principle of police operational independence.

In the human resource area, the bill aims to create a simplified and more flexible environment that offers much greater scope for modern management and industrial relations practices. The personnel provisions of the bill will help to achieve that. The bill gives a statutory basis to the code of conduct for the police, for example.

Secondly, the bill confirms a longstanding prohibition against the involvement of police staff in elections for political office. Clause 97 drives at the need for police employees to ensure that their participation in elections does not bring them into conflict with their duty to act in a politically neutral way. This clause is one that I know will be closely looked at by some members in this House, and I invite those who feel strongly about this point to make submissions on the bill. I know that Mr Mark has a particular view on this.

I am sure that none of us wants to unpick the large measure of consensus that has developed around this bill. I want to focus on arriving at the best possible form of legislation we can. It is critical that we get it right; policing is simply too important not to get right. If the 1958 Act is anything to go by, the work we do in this Parliament on the new statute for police may well be on the law books for another 50 years.

There is a reservoir of public goodwill towards our police, and a large measure of respect for the citizens in uniform who maintain safety and security in our communities. Those men and women do not routinely carry firearms, which makes the New Zealand police service one of the few unarmed police forces anywhere in the world. This is a consent-based form of policing that is keenly valued by Kiwis and visitors alike, and which is possible only because of the widespread public support for, and confidence in, the New Zealand Police. The Policing Bill is designed to build on that powerful legacy. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to receiving broad-based support from the people’s representatives in this Parliament.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to speak in respect of the Policing Bill, and to give an indication that the National Party will be supporting the bill to go through its processes. It is good to be part of a process that is non-contentious, as the operational workings of the police go beyond political intervention. That is the goal, and that is the way in which they operate on almost all occasions. And that is what we should aspire to on every occasion. So it has been a pleasure to be part of a process that has been open and transparent through the consultation and investigative processes in putting together this bill.

The bill recognises the need to reform legislation governing the provision of policing services in New Zealand. Although many of the principles underlying policing have remained the same over the past century or so—in fact, they did not change a heck of a lot between the beginning of last century and the time the Police Act was written—our current policing legislation does not reflect the realities of modern policing. You see, it is interesting to note that nowadays almost every part of core policing business in this country is carried out by people other than members of the New Zealand Police—in other words, by private operators. That is the stage we have got to over time, in this country.

But it is good to note too that the principles that are fundamental to the Police Act have remained very strongly evident, and are bolstered in the Policing Bill as it is before us. Those principles are described in the bill as: “principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”, and “effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:”. This public support and confidence, although it has been attacked and slightly eroded over recent times, still remains fervently in the hearts of most New Zealanders, who want to believe and do believe in the integrity of the New Zealand Police and of the men and women who make up the ranks of those police officers, sworn and non-sworn.

Policing services are provided under a national framework but also have local community focus, and I think that one of the fundamentals of policing within New Zealand over the last hundred years or so is the local focus that many police have had. It has been a bit of a shame to note that maybe over the last 15 or 20 years, after the corporatisation of the public sector, we have tried to look at a one-size-fits-all model. As we go around the traps we come time and time again to those people who long to live in the days when the local policeman was the rule of law for the local community, and for the various uniquenesses of the local community.

I have to say that we cannot go back. I think back to 1958—well, I do not think back to 1958, because I was a 1-year-old at the time—but from the stories that came out of the police about policing in those times, and because of the fact that we had a piece of legislation, even though it was hacked around a bit from time to time to make it fit, we know that some weird and wonderful things happened back in those days that now, I think fortunately, are consigned to folklore.

In 1958 the Taranaki police district had one police car. It was a 1955 DeSoto—Harry Duynhoven would probably be salivating if he were in a position to listen to this—and driven by the driver for the local district commander. If police had to attend a job they walked, took a pushbike, or caught a taxi. There was no such thing as a police car being available to policemen in the way it is now, or even in the way it was 30 years ago. The police in Taranaki used to get a bit bored on a night shift—I do not know why, Taranaki being the hub that it is of all sorts of activity—and they would disconnect the speedo cable from under the DeSoto and go for a drive around the mountain in the middle of the night. There was not much to do, so they would call in at Rāhotu, Pungarehu, Ōkato, and all those little hamlets around the mountain as they were then. And they could hide the fact, obviously, that they had converted that police car by disconnecting the speedo cable, but they could not hide the fact that they had used all the petrol. So they used to slip down to the local bus station and siphon some gas out of the buses and put it into the back of the police car. I have just recalled, of course, that there is no statute of limitations in crimes, so maybe I should stop about there.

But that was the country we were living in. A policeman attending a job had his whistle, his baton, and his notebook, and that was about it. And that was the way it remained for a long time. I guess the thing I lament about the passing of those days is that policemen relied a lot more on their tongues and their ability to communicate than maybe they do today. When we look at their belts today, we see that they look more like electricians, with things for everything they do hanging off their belts.

Back in those times too, in 1958, it was 13 years after the end of the Second World War. Everyone’s father, uncle, or whoever, had been involved in the Second World War, and the country was fully involved in things like discipline, respect, and all that sort of thing that went with those times. But just 10 years down the track we had a change; we had a different involvement militarily. We had different views on whether we should have been involved, and we had public protests—not for the first time—which were a real kickback on the way people reflected on authority. So the way in which citizens reflected on the police’s ability to deal with them changed significantly.

We had police regulations, which were many and varied, and really strange, but we were largely policing, for instance, by the Police Offences Act, which was 1927 legislation. It was illegal in those days to have one’s tools of trade open to view on a Sunday. It was illegal to allow a stallion to service a mare within public view, at all. Those provisions were all parts of Acts that the country was being policed under at that time.

So we have come now to a place where, through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the job of the police has changed hugely, and the expectations on police have changed hugely, too. For instance, with the introduction of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in 1990, and then the merger between the Ministry of Transport and the police, there was a completely different public expectation of the way in which the police would carry out their job.

I recall the day when, as a constable at Pātea, a father turned up to me and said “I have just caught my boy pinching things out of the house. I wonder whether you could chuck him in the cells for a couple of hours to teach him a lesson.” So I did. I put him in the cells for a couple of hours. It was totally illegal, but I did it in the spirit of community policing and all the rest of it. I am relating this story for a particular reason, and I will carry on with it. I put him in the cells. He was sitting in an ugly old wooden cell at the back of the Pātea Police Station. It came to lunchtime so I went over to the house, carved off a bit of cold roast, poured over some cold gravy, and cut a big slab of bread. I took it back to him and said “Here’s your lunch.” I went back about an hour or so later, expecting to find it sitting on the bench. He had consumed the whole lot, and asked whether there was any more.

The reason why I relate this story is that in New Zealand in those days we tended to think—and some people who are living in the past tend to think we are still there—that we could treat people in that way and it would always be of benefit to them. What actually happened was that that kid was permanently hungry. His father was a criminal who beat the hell out of him constantly, so that child learnt nothing from that style of policing. Those people who are constantly on at us to bring back the days when the good old bobby could put his size 11 boot up the backside of someone or give someone a clip around the ear and that would be the cure of all ills are absolutely ignorant, unfortunately. We now know more about the reasons for offending and the reasons why people offend. I also believe we are more determined to do something practical and with integrity to prevent that.

I believe that the introduction of this Policing Bill will take us to a new place in policing, where people within the community will take more ownership of the way we police. The New Zealand Police itself, which is a wonderful organisation, in spite of the odd lapse and in spite of some members of the public taking smacks at its members on every occasion, is an organisation that will be enhanced by this legislation. It will more truly reflect the New Zealand society in which we live, and I look forward to the positive workings of this bill once it passes through its parliamentary process.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : As chair of the Law and Order Committee I say that we very much look forward to receiving the Policing Bill. I acknowledge the presence in the House tonight of the deputy chair of that committee, Ron Mark, and I know that he is literally just about rolling up his sleeves, getting ready to work on this very important bill. I acknowledge the previous speaker, Chester Borrows, as a member of the committee, and I certainly acknowledge his professional background. I think he will make a very good contribution to the select committee, along with the other members.

I am sure members of Parliament will agree that the reforms proposed in the Policing Bill are timely. As we are aware, and as the Minister pointed out, the Policing Bill replaces the 1958 Police Act and creates a fresh foundation for the legislation that guides the New Zealand Police. This is a law that is more suitable for the 21st century. Indeed, I acknowledge that this forward-looking bill builds on the solid base that this Government and previous Parliaments have already established for policing in New Zealand. In that sense, although we want to update and upgrade the policing legislation, I think it is very important to remind ourselves, but not in any smug sense, that our police service is second to none in the world. We need to reflect sometimes that every service, every group of people, is human. But certainly, as members of the Police Association would remind this member and others, we do have a police service that is second to none in the world. I challenge any member of the House to name another country that has a better police service than New Zealand’s.

But that is no reason to rest on our laurels. That is no reason for smugness. Indeed it is very important that, in order to maintain policing services that are relevant to New Zealanders and appropriate for our unique situation, we ensure this bill reflects changes in our society, supports the dedicated women and men who work in the police, and equips them with the right law to maintain a truly world-class police service. Those are important and ambitious goals, and the bill seeks to achieve them through two key areas of reform.

The first is to bring the governance, accountability, and organisational arrangements into line with the modern legislative environment, the expectation of New Zealanders, and the strong and accountable public sector that New Zealand is recognised for internationally. It is very important that we also reflect on the fact that, in terms of the index of honest Government, honest public service, and non-corruptibility, New Zealand is about the second or third-listed nation. Obviously that is something that we, along with our New Zealand police force, armed forces, and agencies of the law, wish to maintain. As the current Police Act offers virtually no guidance on the parameters of the relationship between the Minister and the commissioner and little clarity about the respective parties’ specific areas of responsibility, we might all agree that there are benefits in the bill’s proposal to more clearly outline the responsibilities and independence of the commissioner, and to highlight specific situations where the commissioner must act very clearly and concisely, independently of the Minister.

The second key area of reform that I note, and it is the one that I would like to focus on in my contribution tonight, is the support for effective policing. There are a number of ways that the bill seeks to achieve more effective and efficient policing, and that has been the result of very wide, comprehensive consultation. I acknowledge that members opposite certainly agree with me on that, and obviously I thank them for their very positive approach to this legislation.

I would like to talk about one issue in particular, which is the collection of identifying details from people detained by the police, as featured in clauses 32 and 33 of the bill. Those provisions are not a significant departure from those in the current Police Act, as I am sure you, Mr Assistant Speaker, will be very interested to know. The Act already allows the police to collect particulars of identification, but clauses 32 and 33 refine a number of aspects in order to better reflect the modern-day opportunities presented by faster and more readily available technology. The refinements in the clauses include suggesting limitations in order to protect individual privacy and human rights during the process.

Taking particulars of identity is the daily task of many front-line police. However, the routine of that activity belies the very critical importance of that function. The activity and the identification details collected play an important role in sustaining the very core of the confidence we have in the justice system that the persons put before the court by the police are indeed who they say they are. Accordingly, I am very interested to note and support the clauses that enable this important part of our policing and justice system to proceed in a way that is practical, efficient, certain, and fair. I know that members of the select committee will also support them, because this is an area of critical concern in terms of ensuring that the community is adequately protected and indeed ensuring that we do achieve the right balance between detecting lawbreakers and protecting members of our community. It is necessary to ensure that we do have checks and balances in that system, obviously.

Clauses featuring modernisation, reform, and clarification are found throughout the bill, and the opportunity for refinement and discussion in the select committee through the submission process, and through the interchange between the select committee members and our advisers, will benefit from the extensive consultation process that underpins this bill. From my perspective as chair of the select committee, I want to say how excellent that consultation process appears to have been.

I am particularly interested in the overall theme also of professionalising and reinforcing the quality of our police. Members should not get me wrong; the police service of this country is very, very professional. However, numerous clauses are aimed at moving the police towards a modern and professional employment framework. As part of that, it is envisaged that the New Zealand Police will continue to develop the existing system of certification, with the possibility of establishing a regulated system of professional police registration at a later point in time. Indeed, members of this House may wish to explore whether there are opportunities to provide for such a model within the bill, and it may be that the select committee process will stimulate further discussion in that area.

It is timely to acknowledge the very important contribution of the New Zealand Police in advising us on the bill, and also the very, very important role of the Police Association. I know that the deputy chair of the select committee will strongly agree with me when I say we will look forward very closely to the input from the Police Association as, of course, it represents the men and women on the beat—on the ground, so to speak.

In conclusion, I say this legislation will clearly enable the police to provide the best policing services for New Zealand, and that is vital as we advance further into the 21st century. I am very confident that the bill will provide a solid footing on which to do that. As I said, I acknowledge the role of the police already. I, along with other colleagues, represent the city of Hamilton, and I acknowledge the role of the New Zealand Police in Hamilton. I look forward to receiving local government submissions on the bill. The Hamilton City Council, for example, has an excellent relationship locally with the police—and I know Councillor John Gower will agree with that. But I think we are really looking forward to the maximum number of submissions coming from a wide range of local government and other community organisations, so that we can truly come to a situation where we have the best tools by which to advance what is frankly the best police service in the world.

I commend the bill to the House, and, like other members of the select committee, I look forward to seeing the submissions made on it.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : As a previous speaker has said, the National Party will be supporting this legislation. Before I actually talk about the bill I will pause for a minute to make this comment to the people who are listening. So often we hear criticism of this Parliament. We hear that we are always bickering and playing politics, etc. and that we are always at each other’s throats. There are times when we actually work together to come to some agreement, but, sadly, I never see those times reported. I think it is worthy for us to pause and note that this bill certainly has support and will be worked on at the select committee, where it will, no doubt, be further developed. So here we have legislation on which we have been working constructively as a Parliament. Sadly, it will pass without much recognition.

Having said that, I note that the bill itself is extremely important. The first thing I will do is add my comments to those of the previous speakers who have already recognised the very good police force we have in this country. Like every organisation, it has its moments. There is the odd person in the police who lets them down from time to time, but, in the main, they are good men and women who have their hearts and minds in the right place. They are certainly servants of the community. We can be proud of them as they are the people of this country who represent the front line as far as our fight against crime goes.

There is no question that times have moved rapidly recently, and times have certainly moved rapidly since the legislation that this bill is replacing was passed. Today it is common to see the police working not just with the community but in the community, as well. Police are also working not just as policemen or policewomen but as part of the community. They work, for example, with the Māori wardens, in schools, and in traffic policing. The police work closely with all sorts of different organisations, such as St John Ambulance and the New Zealand Fire Service. The police work with many different organisations that provide service to the community, and they have become a big part of those sorts of functions within the community. We can be proud that they have moved with the times.

I am sure we all have one or two stories to tell. I remember the good old days when police officers were more, I guess, individualistic. At times, particularly in smaller communities, they decided that maybe there were some things that could be straightened out on the spot. I have been proud to work with and become a very good friend of a number of these people, who are very decent New Zealanders—good people.

I remember an incident that occurred when I was a clerk of a local authority up north when we had the Project Employment Programme (PEP) schemes. It was Christmas time and I had to go across from one town to another in order to pick up the payroll, which in those days was all in cash. The amount of money was in excess of $100,000. I was a little nervous at having to drive 30 kilometres with this amount of money from the township where I had picked it up. So I said to the local constable: “Look, I’d really appreciate it if you could spare an hour and a bit and come with me to make sure there are no problems.” I asked mainly because about 9 months earlier there had been an incident where something untoward had happened. He said it was no problem. The said constable went into his office, got out his pistol, and put it in his pocket. We hopped in the car and away we went. We had a lovely chat all the way to the bank. Halfway back, with a boot full of $100,000 in notes, he said he had a bit of problem. He said he had a bit of a tummy upset and was caught short. He asked me to pull over to the side of the road so he could fix himself up. He jumped out of the car, left the pistol on the seat, and shot into the bushes. I was sitting there thinking: “Man, I hope no one comes by now, because I don’t know how to fire this pistol, and I don’t think the constable’s in any position to rush back and do anything at the moment.” So there I was sitting on the side of the road with $100,000 in the boot. Those are the sorts of things that happen.

The other story is about a jail in that particular township that was actually never used. It became a chook house. One evening the said policeman decided he needed to arrest someone. It was quite late, and it was dark. He arrested a gent just to keep him in overnight. He took him to the jail and pushed him halfway through the door—there was no light on, of course—and all of a sudden the chooks decided to fly out and started flapping round the guy’s ear. Well, I can tell members that he went straight from being quite drunk to being sober. He ran straight over the top of the cop and up the road, and no one saw him for 3 weeks. It certainly solved the problem. It is those funny little incidents that we remember fondly. There was probably so much more respect for the police then than there is today. I must say that the atmosphere around that town was one of fairness and respect, and there was a view that the town was well settled. These days it is different.

We also need to consider things from the point of view of our police doing the job. When one speaks to a policeman or policewoman one-on-one, one finds that part of the worry they have is that they feel we as a Parliament, but particularly our laws and the courts, do not support them enough in the work they do. They are unhappy with some of the laws they have to administer. They do not like to think that people they spend many hours searching for, tracking down, and finally finding—people who have offended against the community—can then just walk away by getting bail or getting some smart lawyer to represent them, and they do not get their dues. I think that is an issue that this country needs to think seriously about. The community wants this Parliament to think about it. The police, too, would be happier if there was a better outcome in a lot of cases where they actually do their job and apprehend people, rather than finding that the wet bus ticket comes out and insufficient punishment is meted out. If we are expecting the police to support the communities in the way that communities expect, then we must make sure we give them every opportunity and every support where we can.

This bill will do a lot to help in that way. It will focus more on policing in a modern age. It is the sort of thing that has a lot of support across the country and across the community, and, as I said, that is reflected here today in this Parliament. That is a good thing. It is a good step forward, and I hope it will have support. No doubt people will have their views, and that is how it should be. There will be good debate in the select committee; I have no doubt about that. This bill will be thoroughly examined. I am sure the public will take a very keen interest in it. I am sure, as has been said previously, that local government will want to make sure it has an involvement apart from just representing its communities generally. The police themselves, I am sure, will be keeping a close watch on what we do. This is a good bill and we should move it to the select committee to allow it to be considered in more depth.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Policing Bill. Firstly, I extend my compliments to the Minister of Police, the Hon Annette King. As far as New Zealand First is concerned, the way this bill has been put together and the way in which the review was conducted and managed cross-party should serve as an example to all Ministers in the Labour Government. I would be lying if I said there were not other Ministers who in their time have shown a distinct inability to act in such a way. That has been something of a shame, because, in areas such as policing, the impact on the nation as a whole is hugely important. This is not the type of legislation we want to come back to in the term of a new Government to amend, simply because the governing party of the day was so ideologically driven or intractable as to be unable to accept the recommendations of outside parties or opposing parties. I mean it sincerely when I congratulate the Hon Annette King, her staff, and the Commissioner of Police on the way this bill has been brought to the House and on the processes it went through.

It is fair to say that the police have taken a bit of a hammering over the last 8 years. Both New Zealand First and I have played our part in that, where we felt it was appropriate. Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the police were fair and occurred through activities and conduct of their own making and doing. That is regrettable. In the main, we have seen adjustments made, but not always. I have to say that some of the criticisms have been entirely unfair and have been made by people who have no understanding whatsoever, other than in their narrow, confined area of interest, of the greater security needs of communities, of the nation as a whole, and, in fact, of the rights of wider New Zealand to expect and demand the sort of police service they do.

New Zealand has changed a lot since 1958, as has been said in this debate thus far. There are matters dealt with under the Police Act 1958 that are entirely inappropriate now, and procedures and protocols that no longer fit. New Zealand now is more widely exposed to media scrutiny and criticism and to political scrutiny. MMP, in itself, has brought a whole new focus upon all Government departments. As law and order is so often one of the big issues come election years, politicians have—rightly—put the police under a lot more scrutiny that ever was the case before. That is not to mention lawyers, members of the judiciary, civil libertarian campaigners, and human rights activists, who all have their expectations and demands, and many of them legitimately so.

New Zealanders have high expectations of the police and demand their accountability. New Zealand expects and demands protection from the police. New Zealand expects and demands response from the police. New Zealand expects and demands top priority from the police. New Zealand is right to have such high expectations. That is why New Zealand First has been so driven in its support and championing of a greater separation of the complaints process from the police, in respect of the independence of the now newly established Independent Police Conduct Authority. We have applauded those changes, but we would go still further. We would ensure the absolute, unequivocal independence of that office by giving it statutory independence through making it an Officer of Parliament, and we have consistently said so. That is something we will, hopefully, have an opportunity to address in Government.

New Zealand believes that the public’s high expectations of the police need to be met with the equivalent resources, structure, powers, and command and control mechanisms that this bill seeks. It also needs to be recognised that the lot of a police officer is not necessarily a happy one. If I cast my mind back over the observations I have made of many of my extended family members who have served this nation in the uniform of the New Zealand Police I can say that it is sad but true that after police officers have been exposed to the criminal fraternity, the large number of domestics they attend, and the tragedies they witness on our roads every day of every week of every year, they become hardened and cynical. Police officers lose patience with and tolerance of the criminal fraternity who continue to appear in front of them time and time again, pleading their ignorance when they are as guilty as all hell, will be so again, and are often proven to be.

It is understandable that police officers—men and women—are human beings who look at the tragedies they have to deal with, week in and week out, and they look at their family and ask themselves: “Why are we back dealing with this character again, and who the hell is he to have the nerve to now go complaining to this person and paint us as being a bunch of brutal, non-caring, unthinking, violent, and oppressive people, who just happen also to be police officers?”. It saddens me that those criticisms are levelled at them, but I understand how, often, these police officers can become a little jaded and worn by the very work they do. We need to recognise that. We need to stop paying the little bit of lip-service that we do, on occasion, and recognise that these police officers seek to do one thing—that is, serve our nation. They serve the people, the community, and their families by making sure the communities are a safer place for them to live in.

Therefore, it is sad that, on occasion, we have seen officers subjected to what is described in these documents and in the Bills Digest as being something of a Victorian process when it comes to their being held accountable for indiscretions, a lack of discipline, or a failure by themselves to comply with the law or with the police general instructions. They are put through the hoops. I have seen police officers hung out to dry, complete with their families, and have their name splashed from one end of the country to the other in newspapers for 12 or 24 months, only to be proven innocent. They do not receive one apology or one red cent of compensation for the trauma they have been put through by people who have lied their way through the entire police complaints process, and have even lied their way through the courts.

I have highlighted in this Chamber on numerous occasions the case of Constable Kerry Joyce down in Christchurch, who was part of the early-bird team that policed the square in Christchurch. All the MPs in Christchurch know is not a safe place, although the former mayor Garry Moore got most offended when someone said that Christchurch is not a safe place. The work that officers like Kerry Joyce and Colin Campbell did in the early-bird patrols made, for a brief point in time, the square in Christchurch a safe place.

When Kerry Joyce was accused of kicking a person in the mouth and breaking his dentures and was then hung out to dry by some rather vigorous prosecution, which took place by an officer from the professional standards division of the police, many of us looked at the case and said that it was a load of rubbish and he would be proven innocent—and he was. The problem is that the process had Kerry Joyce suspended for almost 2 years and it dragged his name and his family name through the muck publicly. I have yet to see the police say sorry or reimburse him. Thank God we have a Police Association that stood by him and assisted with the legal costs. It is good to see that this bill seeks to deal with these issues and to modernise them.

In my closing minutes, I note the welcome changes in the clauses to section 53 of the Act that now make it an offence for anyone—either a man or a woman—to refuse to assist police. The section in the Act states that only a man can be prosecuted for refusing to assist police. The clauses also up the penalty from $500 for that refusal to $2,000.

I note also clause 97, which seeks to deal with the politicisation of the police force by allowing serving officers in uniform to be elected to local government. I simply say to the House that New Zealand First will be looking closely at this because we say that local government now has a greater impact on people than central government in many, many respects. If it is inappropriate for a police officer to stand for Parliament and be an MP whilst a serving uniformed officer, then it is equally inappropriate for him or her to be in local government. Some of the stories published about things that have occurred down in the Waimakariri area have been well canvassed through the media. I will be looking forward to input from all parties that have a view as to whether a police officer in uniform should be a local government politician at the same time.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party supports the Policing Bill. The bill updates a lot of police legislation and is a basis for police regulations. The provision for a code of conduct in this bill and the development of a code of conduct is very important, particularly in the wake of the Margaret Bazley report, which showed so many problems historically in the police force that a clear code of conduct was essential. Also the bill strengthens the internal accountability arrangements in the police—there is a very clear expression of them. Alongside that, of course, there is what we might call the “external” accountability, which takes several forms. The first of those, which has been referred to already, is through the newly established Independent Police Conduct Authority, which has started off quite well. I think it has more resources than the previous less-resourced Police Complaints Authority, and under Justice Goddard it is coming out with decisions at a much quicker rate and hopefully that will continue.

Another form of accountability, of course, is to the Government. That is often a vexed relationship and it is hard to put down specifically in legislation. I think this bill states just that the police are to obey lawful Government directives. It is tricky because on the one hand we do not want the Government’s sticky fingers in the day-to-day operation of the police, and the politicisation of the police through that. So the autonomy of the police is, for operational purposes, very important. But on the other hand there can be a tendency, sometimes, for the Government to go the other way and not get involved, not give directives, and not be part of decisions where there is a significant shift in policing taking place, potentially disrupting the good relations of the police with the community.

I am thinking of the issue the police are currently mulling over—and have done a trial on—and that is whether to introduce the Taser stun gun. It is true that the police approached this issue seriously. They had the trial, and did the reports, and we appreciate that. There could be a bit more openness in the reporting on that trial. The point I have made on behalf of the Green Party is that when we are going into such a new domain with a weapon that can kill people, that can be quite frightening to the general public, and can disrupt good relations with the community. The Government should also be involved in that process as a representative of the community, and I have continued to criticise the Government for having a hands-off attitude to that.

It is good that the bill talks about the importance of good relations between the police and the community, and other organisations. I like some of the wording in the explanatory note that says “Policing legislation should also reflect that the Police does not have a monopoly on policing. Successful policing relies on a range of partner organisations in the public and private sectors,” and that has happened. The police and different Government agencies are working together better in terms of protecting the border. There is now a very close relationship with the Defence Force, with the Department of Conservation, with Immigration, and with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. You name it, they are all working together, and the police are an important part of that. That is going very well. Clause 8 is very clear when it states: “(b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:” and “(c) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:”. All of that is very important and is another reason why I referred to the Taser weapon, which would disrupt that.

One of the provisions in the legislation reinforces the point that the police do not have the right to strike. That makes the Police Association very important for representing the rights of police officers to the administration. I have been disturbed over recent times—in the last year or two—that the Police Association is getting a bit combative in relation to the community. If anything happens—be it the Bain case, be it a police shooting, be it a pepper spraying, the use of a Taser, or whatever—where there is a bit of community criticism, we can almost count on the Police Association, at least through Greg O’Connor, coming out with a statement that really bashes anyone who dares to raise questions, or to criticise. Such people are considered as wishy-washy liberals who live in leafy suburbs, etc., etc. That is not good enough if we are to have trust between the community and the police, and have legitimate challenges.

A good dialogue improves things for whatever side—whether some people in the community think the police have exceeded their mandate, or the police think that some members of the public are getting a bit chippy and do not have proper foundations for their criticism, it is good to have a dialogue and it should be carried on as respectful dialogue.

As to the question of biometrics, the Green Party is always a little bit worried when biometrics is introduced but in this case we realise that there is the importance of police DNA and that the biometrics applies to the police—that police DNA can be excluded from crime scenes and things like that. So there is more merit to introducing a certain amount of biometrics in relation to the police in this bill, compared with some of the introductions that the Green Party is worried about outside of the bill.

There are other provisions, such as for people who have not been arrested to be detained to get their identifying details—a whole lot of identifying details. There is a certain merit to that, too, but we have to be just a bit careful that such provisions are not used too much as a reason to do the sorts of things that were spoken about before—with police exceeding their mandate. But it is just something to keep an eye on.

The provisions about the police in overseas operations are a good addition, because our police are playing an increasing role and in some ways New Zealand is specialising in this work. People think a lot about the Defence Force in peacekeeping but what we might call the police peacekeeping overseas in the Solomons, etc., is equally—sometimes more—important. It is work on the ground directly with the local community, as in the Solomons today, and our police have been very successful at that work. Laws around that are tricky because sometimes there is a double jurisdiction. With the Defence Force, there are State forces’ agreements between the New Zealand Defence Force and the local Government—the Solomons Government or the East Timor Government, or whatever it happens to be. The legislation covering the police in that respect is equally important to work out—if police officers commit an offence overseas—when they are subject to the jurisdiction of the other country, be it the Solomons, or when they are subject to police regulations in New Zealand jurisdiction on the spot or when they get back to New Zealand. Working that out is quite tricky and it is good that the bill addresses that.

All in all, the Green Party supports this bill. We will be interested in the submissions at the select committee and in getting a good dialogue and seeing where things can be improved, perhaps by looking at the relationship between the Government and the police a bit more closely and what their respective responsibilities are. I take the points from earlier in the debate that the community has a huge role to play in policing. That is why it is important to get it right—to get the relationship between the community and the police right. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question of public confidence in the police has been uppermost in the minds of many New Zealanders for many years now. The group of New Zealanders for whom confidence in the police has been most tenuous would have to be tangata whenua.

The tension evident in the relationship between tangata whenua and the police came sharply into focus one Monday last October, when the police embarked on Operation Eight in Rūātoki. The police raids were conducted at dawn using warrants issued under the Arms Act and the Summary Offences Act, accompanied by threats of invoking the Terrorism Suppression Act. A cordon was established on the confiscation lines at Rūātoki. Over 60 houses were raided in Rūātoki, Whakatāne, Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Palmerston North, and elsewhere—and the rest is history.

Subsequent to that day the Solicitor-General referred the Terrorism Suppression Act to the Law Commission for review. Suppressed evidence was flashed across Fairfax media outlets, and before long the Solicitor-General determined that Fairfax should be prosecuted for contempt of court for its publication. Alongside those actions, a raft of complaints were being filed with the courts, the Human Rights Commission, and the Police Complaints Authority. Internationally, the United Nations bodies on human and indigenous rights and on countering terrorism have also engaged in dialogue with the Government about the perceived heavy-handed police tactics.

Everywhere we turn it is apparent that the opportunity to debate the appropriate framework for the exercising of policing powers has never been timelier. Absolutely central to this Policing Bill is the vital issues of meaning and the functions for the governance and administration of the New Zealand Police. What should our police force do and, more to the point, what are the key values that should underpin their role?

In a 2002 review of the New Zealand Police undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri, former Commissioner of Police Rob Robinson reported that previous research about the perceptions that the New Zealand Police and Māori have of each other made for grim reading. He described Māori trust and confidence in the police as being low. The challenge 6 years on is therefore to consider whether this bill will do much to restore confidence.

We are pleased to see one of the key recommendations from Dame Margaret Bazley’s report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct given life in this bill. The bill clarifies governance and accountability arrangements, including specifying a description of the roles of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police. Within this it explicitly states that the commissioner will be responsible to the Minister for the general conduct of the police.

It was the firm belief of Dame Margaret that introducing a code of conduct for sworn police officers would bring the police into line with other State sector employees. A code of conduct should be the basis for identifying and addressing behaviour that does not meet expected standards. As this House is more than aware, there is a host of evidence out there in the public arena about police behaviour that does not meet any standards of acceptability. The Māori Party is proud to stand by policies and practices that are derived from kaupapa tuku iho values, which provide for the well-being of all. These values and principles guide our behaviour and instruct us in the way in which we carry ourselves in all aspects of our lives.

As an example of such values, we stand by the pursuit of manaakitanga towards others. It is our practice and principle that we take care not to trample on the mana of others while clearly defining our own. It was because of these beliefs that we joined with ACT, United Future, and the Greens to call for a code of conduct for all members of Parliament. It was to our utter amazement that the other parties could not see any value in setting a desirable code of conduct for MPs. Of course, it raises the issues for this House about transparency, accountability, and consistency. How can any party not support a code of conduct for themselves then expect any Government department or agency to take one up? It is a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

We welcome the move towards an environment in which a code of conduct has meaning. We also welcome the opportunity for the other 59 recommendations of the Bazley report to be debated in relation to this bill. Although many of the recommendations signal changes at the operational level, it would appear to us that if this is a once-in-50-years review of the Police Act, it would be sensible for everything to be dealt with at once.

It is very pleasing to see up front in the bill that effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence—it is pleasing and absolutely vital. As an example of how this principle could work in action, we need to think only about the recent publicity around the police’s preoccupation with introducing the Taser. The Māori Party raised our concerns about the proposed introduction of the lethal Taser weapon, in a formal complaint to the Human Rights Commission. It was our view that decisions on weapon use need to benefit from public input—input that the police have relentlessly avoided.

The business case for trialling the Taser was developed in 2005 and made public in late 2006 as a result of an Official Information Act request. In that business case, the police suggested that there were no particular implications for Māori and Pacific peoples. That consultation had been restricted to specific sections in the police bureaucracy. Looking a bit further at this issue, the statistical data now available from the Taser trial of last year indicates that 56 percent—almost 60 percent—of Taser subjects were either Māori or Pacific peoples. When we took these issues up in mediation with the Police Superintendent, John Rivers, his explanation for the disproportionately high numbers was that “Māori and Pacific people have a greater propensity to commit violent crimes.” That remarkable statement was then followed by his observation that “There is no racism in policing.”

Clearly, it was the view of this police official that Māori and Pacific peoples just have an inclination, a tendency, towards crime. It is a view that would be useful to have tested with the police’s own iwi liaison officers or Responsiveness to Māori officials. These types of statements must form a basis for consultation with the wider public. This whole issue of how consultation is undertaken and whether priority is given towards achieving wider support and confidence must be a key focus of inquiry in the select committee process.

In the case of the Taser trial we argued vehemently that public consultation should have occurred prior to the trial, given that policing is carried out, in part, to ensure public safety. It would therefore seem important that the public have a say to ensure that policing should be publicly accountable. We are very pleased to see that it now seems to be a call supported by the principle in the bill that effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence. In the case of the so-called terror raids, we argued that the network of iwi liaison officers, the Māori advisory committees with representatives from local Māori communities, and the Māori Focus Forum should have been called on to not only work with the Māori communities involved but also be expert advisers to the police senior management.

Whether the issue is Tasers or raids on communities, the relationship between the police commissioner and the Minister is a critical one, as is the question of who sets policy directions for policing—a publicly elected Government or appointed bureaucrats. Although the bill spells out the role of the Commissioner of Police, it fails to specify the responsibilities of the Minister. We will be very interested in select committee feedback on this point.

Finally, in the interests of the first principle of the bill that “principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”, we will be very interested as the bill proceeds through the select committee process to hear the results from what the explanatory note of the bill describes as being a “robust consultation process”. The Māori Party supports this bill.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to indicate its support for the introduction of the Policing Bill, and to place on record our admiration and support for the work that the men and women of the New Zealand Police routinely carry out day in, day out.

One of the most telling experiences I can recall with the police occurred one Christmas Day, when I was keeping my brother company at his Christchurch radio station. He was doing the shift during the day, and nothing else was going on in the city. We were joined by the two young constables who were the only two police in Christchurch on duty that day, only to get a phone call from Christchurch Central Police Station asking to speak to the more senior of the two. He took the call, and he came back ashen-faced and said: “We have got to go, my partner and I have to go out, there’s been a road accident and we have to go and explain to a family why their husband and father has been killed on his way home from work with the Christmas presents.” I doubt whether those two young constables would have been much more than in their early 20s, yet that was the job they had to do on that Christmas Day. I can tell members that every Christmas Day I think of that occasion and how I am sure it certainly ruined their day, not to mention, obviously, the day of the family who was suffering. But it is just part and parcel of the duty we place on the police and expect them to carry out on our behalf.

When I look at the explanatory note of the bill I see that the reasons set out as to why it is important to replace the Police Act 1958 are that the current legislation includes “unclear responsibilities and confused lines of accountability: constraints around the ability to place the right people in the right jobs: an overly prescriptive system for managing staff performance and discipline issues: little guidance to work with partner agencies, domestically or internationally: few supports to enable the use of modern policing tactics.” When one reflects on the conditions under which the 1958 Act was passed, none of those criticisms are at all surprising. Mr Borrows, in his opening remarks, made a social commentary about the situation of New Zealand in 1958 and some of the customs that occurred around policing at that time. I think it is important to talk about the state of the police in 1958, or immediately beforehand, that gave rise to that legislation, because that, in turn, will show how out of date it has become and why the need for change that this bill contains.

During the 1950s in New Zealand the police were in an even bigger state of crisis than we might imagine them to be as a result of certain activities of late. In 1953 a new police commissioner had been appointed, somewhat surprisingly—Commissioner Eric Compton. I think he had jumped from the ranks of the inspectorate straight into the police commissioner’s job because the hierarchy of the police at that time was deemed to be too old. Indeed, I recall an account where the existing Commissioner of Police said that his appointment would take place over his dead body, and so it proved to be, apparently, a week later. That was symptomatic of the state of the police then. The problem with Commissioner Compton was that he had a very dubious record in terms of his association with various gambling elements in Wellington. He did not have a particularly good record, I understand, in terms of the clearance rates of murders in this city. The net effect was a lack of confidence in his appointment—this bold new face for the future—which led to a commission of inquiry that led to his retirement in 1955, and, for the first time in the history of the police, the appointment of a civilian Controller-General of Police, Mr Barnett, between 1955 and 1958.

So it is hardly surprising, when one looks at the criticisms of the 1958 legislation, to see the comment about unclear responsibilities and confused lines of accountability, or an overly prescriptive staff management performance and disciplinary regime. It is a direct product of the culture of the time and the malperformance, if one likes, of the New Zealand Police at the time that gave rise to that legislation. It is clearly not appropriate in the context of 2008 to be moving down that same path and to be retaining those provisions.

The 1958 legislation was criticised as having little guidance to work with partner agencies domestically or internationally. Well, clearly, in 1958 international policing was not an issue. Most travel to New Zealand was by ship. It took days, if not weeks, if one was coming from Australia. There was certainly not the degree of instant communication and instant movement of criminal elements across the borders then that there is now. Nor in 1958 was there the threat of international terrorism, or the need for better intelligence about movements. There certainly was not the drug scourge that we face today, and in 1958 the police had only just given up their role in terms of domestic security. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service had been established just a couple of years earlier and the old special branch of the police that was the security service had been either abolished or absorbed within the Security Intelligence Service.

So the situation that the police have laboured under, I think extraordinarily well, for the last 50 years has been of a time that is clearly well beyond us. The circumstances of the time, the structure of the time, and the custom and wider social mores have also moved beyond what was the case in 1958. So it is important to have a review now that this legislation gives effect to that recognises not just those changes, but also deals with a number of the recommendations that came out of the Bazley report, and a number of the specific instances of police conduct—and I do not mean particularly the recent trials, but police conduct more generally—that have arisen over recent years, and some of those have been alluded to in the course of the debate already this evening.

The old notion of the constable on the street corner who was virtually in one’s face—I can remember Constable Ribbons down the road from us with his big, wide handlebar moustache who would shoo kids biking on the footpath away by fear and terror—has gone. When one rings the police now, it is often difficult to get them to come and respond to an incident unless it is particularly serious. So there are challenges afoot. We all imagine it may be a factor of our growing older that the police seem younger and less experienced today than we remember them being in earlier times—

Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s not true.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I know it is not true, but it is the perception, and perception sometimes guides reality. I realise that Dr Mapp has this air of eternal youth about him, but it is the reality for a number of other people. We do grow older and we do have differing perceptions.

Chris Tremain: It’s the hair that will tell you.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member raises a good point, and he can draw his own conclusion. I think that this bill is timely. I think it does recognise that a number of situations have changed over the years and they need to be accommodated in law. References have been made by Mr Locke and one or two other speakers to the role of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Again in 1958 when this legislation was put in place, or even when the regulations in 1992 were amended, the authority was either non-existent 50 years ago, or it was in a very different state 15 years ago than is the case now.

So all these things need to be worked into the environment within which the police operate to make sure that we can give them a legislative framework within which they can continue to do the job we ask them to do, in difficult circumstances, with confidence and aplomb. I am confident that once this bill is through the select committee we will be satisfied, as a Parliament, that we have a very robust and sound piece of legislation to work with.

My only plea in closing is that it is not another 50 years before it is reviewed. I think that the select committee should give some consideration to whether it wants to put either a sunset clause into this legislation or make a very strong recommendation about when it is that the Act, as it will become, should be reviewed further. It is clearly a nonsense now to be debating a bill that is 50 years old, that has well passed its use-by date, and to be thinking of putting in place another piece of legislation that, unless we are very prudent, will have the same logical outcome in due course. I think that is a matter the select committee could consider, and, like other members, I look forward to what the select committee may conclude and to the bill coming back to the House in due course.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : I rise to take a brief call in support of the first reading of the Policing Bill. I think it is pretty clear from all the speeches we have heard tonight that this is important legislation, but it is also showing the House at its best. I think that the bill the Minister of Police has brought before the House for debate tonight, which was tabled in the last week before the House rose, has been quite a good model of the way that legislation such as this, which needs the broad support of political parties in Parliament, plus the support of all New Zealanders obviously, has been able to develop. I know that there has been a lot of consultation and development on it. Mr Dunne made the point that when a piece of law is 50 years old one questions its relevance, so taking 2 years to do the consultation and listen to people to get ideas to develop the bill into its current form seems to me to have been time spent that has been well worthwhile.

I know that the New Zealand Police has taken this rare opportunity very seriously and has provided a lot of opportunities for people in organisations that deal with the police, such as Neighbourhood Support or Victim Support, right through to territorial local authorities, and councils that have a daily relationship with the local police in a way that local members of Parliament do not have to the same extent, from a central government perspective. All those people who have such an important role to play have had their voices heard, and I think that has been a very important way of building up support for this legislation.

Nearly every speaker has mentioned what New Zealand was like 50 years ago, and I take their word for it. But one thing I do know is there were only just over 2 million people living in the country then, and now we have just over 4 million—4.27 million actually, I am advised by Statistics New Zealand. But there has been a huge change just in the size of the police organisation, from a little over 2,000 staff to 10,500 now, and with another 1,000 police on the way, of course, as part of the Government’s relationship with New Zealand First. So the police are playing more and more of a role in our society, but in a much broader sense.

I think all of the speeches and the consultation that has gone on—the articles that have been written—point towards the different ways that the New Zealand Police now interacts with our communities. That means that the need for reform has been very well established. The existing Act has within it very unclear responsibilities, and it is overly prescriptive for the kind of age we live in now. So the bill sets out pretty clearly why the need for change is evident, and the way it will then be done. I hope it will be done in a way that is open for continual change as the country evolves and develops, as Mr Dunne made reference to, and I am sure that when the Law and Order Committee considers the bill, the committee will give it the best consideration it can. In a funny way, a lot of the consultation has already been done, so it will be interesting to see the kinds of things that come up specifically about the bill as it has been written.

We all accept that we need a police force today that is much more networked and connected into the community and the law needs to be written in a way that does that, in terms of the relationship with the community, but also the police need this for their own internal procedures. I know that one of the things the bill changes is in the employment area. The police are moving from more of a military style of dealing with employees, to a more modern employment practice. I am looking forward to the bill coming to the Law and Order Committee where hopefully we can improve what is already good legislation, and maintain the multipartisan support that it has, and I am sure that the New Zealand community will appreciate that.

I will close similarly to the way that Mr Dunne started, and say that the police touch all of our lives at different points, both individually and also in the community work that we all do here. In my own constituency this week there was the terrible, devastating air accident at Paraparaumu Airport, where three young men lost their lives. A lot of responsibility fell on to the local police officers who work in our community, and are from our community, to deliver some pretty tough messages and also to try to get things back to order in the way that they could, in that calm, solid way we expect the New Zealand Police to be there and to be relied upon. So no matter what point in time we are at there is always a local example such as that where one is reminded of the work the police do. As the member for Otaki I want to record my thanks to the police for the very tragic work they have had to undertake this week. It proves that police work is a living occupation, it is important to our community, and legislation like this needs to be relevant to today. I support the first reading of the bill.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I am pleased to rise today to also speak in support of the Policing Bill at this first reading. We in the National Party are strong supporters of our police force. These men and women do a difficult job, and for the most part they do it exceedingly well, in difficult circumstances. We all must be strong supporters of the police in New Zealand, and in that sense I am pleased to see this bill recognising the need to rewrite the 50-year-old Police Act of 1958—when my colleague Chester Borrows was 1-year-old—to reflect the realities of modern policing and equip the New Zealand Police to provide the best policing services that we can to all New Zealanders. I also firmly hope that this legislation will be an important step in restoring public confidence in our police force after a series of knocks in recent years.

The Police Act, which dictates the governance, organisation, and administration of the New Zealand Police, was in dire need of reformation, and the facts speak for themselves here, with more than 25 amendments being made to it since 1958. Our society has changed enormously since the introduction of the Act in 1958, and therefore the context—and we have heard about this several times tonight in the speeches—of modern policing in New Zealand must change along with it.

I am pleased to see that this bill stays true to the spirit of the original Act and to the first principles on which it was founded. These basic principles, as referred to earlier by my colleague Mr Borrows, largely remain the same within this Policing Bill and are described as having stood the test of time. The new bill applies these principles to the situations we now face in the 21st century, and better positions us for the future. I think it is important to reiterate and reflect on those principles, and I think they are worth repeating and are worth re-emphasising. Those principles are that principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society, under the rule of law; that effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence; that policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus; that policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights; that policing services are provided independently and impartially; and, finally, that in providing policing services every police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.

Many members of the public will be happy to see the incorporation of many of the recommendations made by the Bazley report of April 2007 in response to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. The establishment of the new code of conduct, which from 1 February 2008 now applies to all New Zealand Police employees, both sworn and unsworn, outlines the standards of behaviour expected and allows everyone to better understand their professional responsibilities and the way in which this impacts on the organisation. The cornerstone of this code is that all employees of the New Zealand Police will work to the highest ethical standard. Internal disciplinary arrangements have also been aligned with the new code of conduct environment. It is important that the New Zealand public understands that policing in our country is done in a legitimate and principled way, and that issues of the past have not undone the trust and the faith that we have put in this organisation.

The review of the Police Act is encouraging in that it has already been subjected to an extensive round of consultation before getting to this point. New Zealanders have been given several opportunities to have their say about the future face of our police force. As well as over 80 meetings that took place around the country, including over 1,200 people, a Policing Bill wiki was launched, giving ordinary New Zealanders an innovative way to suggest wording for the new Act by posting their suggestions on a website—similar to an online whiteboard. This wiki format, which is similar to Wikipedia—an online encyclopaedia—has generated a lot of attention both here and overseas. It has been a great tool in encouraging the public to actively engage with the public sector and to put their views forward. It is something that we may see more of in the future.

Another important feature of this Policing Bill is the recognition that the police do not have a monopoly on policing. Although this may seem obvious to some, it is the first time there has been an acknowledgment in legislation that says policing is a shared responsibility—shared between a number of partner organisations and both the public and the private sector—as well as recognising the efforts of individual citizens. We can all help to uphold the law, keep the peace, and prevent crime. Social agencies, along with local authorities, can work alongside the police in supporting the social well-being of our communities. We can, and we all must, make a positive contribution to a safer New Zealand, and we must take up this challenge.

I hope that through this bill we are able to allow greater support and guidance for police work, and confirm and strengthen police governance, accountability, and organisational arrangements in a way that really does reflect 21st century New Zealand. I hope that we can improve effectiveness and establish a clear framework for the exercise of policing powers by particular police employees. By doing this, we will allow for the delivery of better policing services for New Zealanders, and it is only then that we can have a truly modern police force in New Zealand.

It is also important to reflect on the police mandate and their key areas of responsibility, which are: crime prevention, keeping the peace and maintaining public safety, law enforcement, community support and reassurance, national security, participation in policing activities outside New Zealand, and emergency management. We cannot overemphasise the vital role of our police force. It is imperative that it has this mandate—the right tools to undertake that role. This bill adds to that tool kit, and we support both the police and this bill.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I move, That the Policing Bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2008, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

• Motion agreed to.