Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) : I move, That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This Government seeks to boost protections for vulnerable workers and breastfeeding mothers by legislating for minimum meal breaks and rest breaks, and the protection of employees who wish to breastfeed their babies at work. These amendments will create minimum standards and a modern workforce in respect of the protection and promotion of infant feeding, and the provision of rest and meal breaks. These amendments also support Government policy concerning the choices of employees, particularly when it comes to their work-life balance and parenting responsibilities. I want to acknowledge the hard work of Sue Moroney MP, whose member’s bill formed the basis for the rest and meal break provisions contained in this bill, and the Hon Steve Chadwick, whose member’s bill on breastfeeding was the basis for the infant-feeding provisions of the bill.

This bill returns to the House with a small number of minor amendments in response to the submissions received by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to clarify the intent of the bill. These amendments include clarification that breastfeeding breaks and facilities are to be provided only where it is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, and clarification that employers and employees can agree to the times that rest and meal breaks can be observed. Where such agreement cannot be reached, these breaks must be provided in the middle of the work period, where reasonable and practicable. The bill was also amended to entitle employees to one 10-minute rest break, if their work period is 2 hours or more, but not more than 4 hours. As introduced, the bill would have entitled employees to a 10-minute break if their work period was 4 hours or fewer.

This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to the protection of our country’s most vulnerable workers. It upholds Government policy to support the work and caring choices of hard-working New Zealand parents while recognising that breastfeeding provides the best start in life for babies. I want to thank the select committee for its work on the bill, and for its report. I also extend my thanks to all those who took the time to make submissions. I commend the bill to the House.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : The Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill should be a relatively uncontroversial matter. Of course employees should be given meal and tea breaks, and, by all accounts, common sense prevails and this does happen. It is interesting, though, that this bill has been drafted with two relatively separate and discrete issues. The first is to deal with meal and rest breaks, which most thought were already enshrined in law, and arguably are enshrined in the health and safety legislation, but this is for the avoidance of doubt; despite the fact this bill is not necessarily needed, if it merely codifies what is already happening in workplaces then it should be relatively uncontroversial. Secondly, the bill deals with the requirement for the employer to provide breastfeeding breaks and facilities.

When asked why both these matters were contained in the one bill, one Government member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee offered the response that it was to make it politically difficult for National. There was nothing at all in that member’s response about whether the bill was needed, nothing at all about what evidence-based research had been done to establish whether in fact there was a problem—it was merely to try to make it politically difficult for us. There was no evidence of a problem, no regulatory impact statement, just the comment that the Government would love National to vote against the bill and the Government would therefore be able to say that National is against giving meal breaks to workers. We are not against giving meal breaks to workers. Although we are not entirely happy with the bill, we will be supporting it, but we will be looking at some practical amendments to it at the Committee stage.

Submitters on the bill, and in particular I refer to the submissions of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, noted that 95 percent of employers provide paid rest breaks of 10 minutes or longer, and 99 percent of employers provide unpaid meal breaks of 30 minutes or longer. Many considered the bill to be “unnecessary”. They said that it purports to address matters that already happen and are covered in employment agreements, that are consistent within the scope of the existing good-faith negotiation framework, and that the terms are prescriptive, allowing for little or no account of long-established work practices or necessary workplace flexibility.

It is interesting that one of the comments in the explanatory note stated: “These amendments, however, are consistent with the majority of active collective agreements so would be expected to support current practice and not require a significant change to current workplace practices in most instances. They would also provide a minimum code to support provision of breaks in those sectors or workplaces where provisions may be light or restricted and where vulnerable workers are like to be present.” However, as one submitter duly noted, in the private sector collective bargaining coverage is about 10 percent, although it is about 22 percent when taking the public sector into account, and, therefore, using existing collective arrangements to all employers may be seen at least statistically as the tail wagging the dog. The explanatory note further notes; “There is a risk that legislating for rest and meal breaks will be seen as reducing workplace flexibility. A legislative approach also presents a risk in sectors and industries where rest and meal breaks of specified duration and frequency are incompatible with business operations.”

Some submitters in some sectors, including transport, hospitality, tourism, and retail expressed concern that the nature of their business precluded the suitability of an overly prescriptive meal break regime. Flexibility is required. A mountain guide halfway up a mountain cannot take a break, just because the law prescribes it, even though it is impractical for the break to be taken precisely at that moment. A waiter at a restaurant who was in the midst of serving customers would not take a break, or indeed want to take a break, precisely as prescribed in the law. Waiters take their break when it is convenient. They work it out with common sense and communication with their employer, and there is no problem.

The major issue raised in relation to meal breaks and rest breaks was not the provision of these breaks but the prescriptive nature of the timing of the breaks. Although one of the union submitters attempted to suggest that the old awards were much more prescriptive, this proved to be a fallacy. For example, in the old tearooms award it is specifically stated that breaks are taken “at a time convenient to the employer”. It is not the same as “by agreement”; it is not the same as this bill prescribes, and neither is it the same as “reasonable and practicable”. Admittedly, at select committee, the bill was amended in an attempt to make it less prescriptive—less “one size fits all”—by providing that the timing of rest and meal breaks is to be agreed between the employer and the employee. It is only in the event that agreement cannot be reached that the default provisions apply—namely one 10-minute paid break if an employee’s work period is 2 hours or more but not more than 4 hours; one 10-minute paid break and one 30-minute unpaid meal break if the employee’s work period is more than 4 hours and not more than 6 hours; and two 10-minute paid breaks and one 30-minute unpaid meal break if the employee’s work period is more than 6 hours but not more than 8 hours. This bill is still not the perfect solution, but it is an improvement; it at least acknowledges the ability of the employer and the employee to reach an agreement.

Underlying this legislation is the notion of what is reasonable and practicable, and concern was certainly expressed by many of the submitters as to what exactly this would mean and what it would entail to test it—yet another process, no doubt, for employers to have to navigate their way through. There is no clear definition of what is reasonable and practicable. Perhaps some direction can be gained by the similar expression contained in the health and safety legislation, and it is of some—but perhaps not much—comfort that further guidance as to what this all means will be provided in a code of practice. Although a code may assist employers to determine what is reasonable and practicable in their and their employees’ particular circumstances, good law requires certainty. Both workers and businesses need certainty as to what this all actually means, and at the moment there is uncertainty. The proposed code will need to be drafted with a lot of thought and research—a lot more, certainly, than was given to this bill.

The transport industry submitters were most concerned as to the consequences of this bill on their respective operations. Their hours of work and timing of work breaks, etc., are already covered under separate subordinate legislation, such as the work time and logbooks rule and maritime rules. This current bill either duplicates in some part, or conflicts in some part, with such industry-related rules. It should be made clear that the specific transport-related rules should prevail; if not, it is clear from the submissions received that the bill, as drafted, risks imposing substantial additional costs on the industry—such costs, of course, would be passed on to the consumer. This “one-size-fits-all” legislation does not fit the transport industry. We heard from a submitter, NZ Bus, that the increased cost on its operations resulting from this bill would be over $9 million.

At the moment, the bill provides that such other enactment would prevail if the breaks provided under that other enactment are additional and enhanced. But, again, what exactly does that mean? A simple amendment that where there is other legislation—such as the logbook rules, etc.—that provides for breaks, then that other, industry-specific rule should prevail is common sense, yet it should not detrimentally affect the workers and their entitlements to proper breaks. Those rules still have to undergo the scrutiny of industry consultation and final sign-off by the Regulations Review Committee, which affords protection for all concerned. The transport industry submitters wanted a specific exclusion to this bill, providing for their specific regulations and rules to prevail as the preferable and more common-sense solution.

Finally, is this bill necessary? Probably not. Are meal breaks and rest breaks necessary? Without a doubt. This bill is another drop in the dripping tap of employment legislation that imposes more and more regulation and compliance on employers, when there is no real evidence from research showing that there is indeed a problem. National endorses the need for certainty in legislation and for proper protections, to ensure that workers have proper meal breaks and tea breaks, etc. It does not endorse unnecessary legislation, but it does support these protections for workers. Therefore we are supporting the bill, which we hope will include the amendments I have mentioned earlier.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I can tell those who were listening to the previous speech from Kate Wilkinson that the National Party supports the second reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It was actually very hard to pick up on that point. National members are trying very hard to support this bill, but they are clearly finding it quite difficult to do so. Kate Wilkinson, National’s spokesperson on labour and industrial relations, spent 10 minutes criticising the bill and saying that it was not necessary, but for some reason—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I bet they won’t support the third reading.

SUE MORONEY: Well, I would like to invite the next National speaker to make a commitment about what the National Party will do at the third reading of this bill.

I am clearly supporting this bill at its second reading. I was very pleased to be one of the two MPs who contributed to the bill as a result of the member’s bill process. Both Steve Chadwick and I had put forward quite similar bills on workplace rights and workplace issues, and to see them combined in this effective way has been a very heartening process to go through.

I was certainly very concerned about ensuring that all workers in New Zealand had the legal entitlement to basic rest breaks and meal periods while at work. I am not sure whether Kate Wilkinson was at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for all of the submissions, but I am sure she heard many of the ones that told us that this is not the case. Sadly, mainly young workers get these basic rights denied to them every day in the New Zealand workplace.

The National Party needs to think very carefully about the rest of its industrial relations platform. We heard from individual workers who told us their stories about not having basic rights—like having rest periods—in the workplace. These very workers will be at risk if the National Party gets its way and has the “90-day Fire at Will Bill” put before the House again. If that legislation is passed, these young, vulnerable workers will get the sack—and this has happened before—for asking for ordinary breaks. Under National’s proposed legislation that situation would be absolutely fine, and there would be no course of redress for those young people in that situation.

Nicky Wagner: Wrong!

SUE MORONEY: It is not wrong, I tell Nicky Wagner. In the select committee we heard from a young man from Hamilton, where I come from, and he had been sacked for taking a 30-minute break during a 12-hour shift. That young man came along—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Order, Mr Bennett!

SUE MORONEY: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been interrupted for quite a few minutes by the barracking of members opposite, and I would like to have some of that time reinstated.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): No, I am sorry. There was a sudden amount of noise just now, but the member will please continue.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you. That young man came to tell us his story. He had worked for the Subway restaurant in Hamilton East, which is where I am from. He was doing a 12-hour shift, and in the course of that shift the company was prepared to give him a break of only 10 minutes. It gave him a 10-minute break in a 12-hour shift! After talking to the company to try to get a reasonable break of half an hour, the young worker decided to take his entitlement to a break in any case. I tell Nicky Wagner that the worker was dismissed. He was sacked for daring to take more than a 10-minute break in a 12-hour shift.

I watched the National members on the committee listen to that submission and sympathise with the young man and say how terrible that was. But did that stop them from continuing to put forward a bill that would give that worker no recourse if the same thing happened in the first 90 days of his employment? Under National that worker would be sacked; he would have no recourse. I clearly remember one of the National members sympathising with that young man and saying: “I hope you’re taking a personal grievance, because what happened to you is illegal.” Under this Government that practice is illegal, but under National’s proposals it would be quite lawful for that to happen to the young man.

National members have to think carefully about this issue. Perhaps they are feeling OK about supporting this bill for workers’ rights because they believe that their party intends to take away workers’ rights—all workers’ rights—in the first 90 days of employment anyway. So perhaps that is why they are not too bothered that National is supporting this bill.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will they change their vote later?

SUE MORONEY: We will have to wait and see whether National changes its vote; there are two more opportunities in this House for the bill to be debated. I look forward to continuing to debate this very important issue about basic workers’ rights—the right to take decent breaks while at work and the right to breastfeed while at work. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : National supports the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. Can I say that again for the previous speaker, Sue Moroney. National supports the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. We understand that this bill is designed to outline minimum requirements for breaks. It will provide facilities for those women who wish to breastfeed, so far as it is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances.

This is a common-sense bill. That is why we support it, and we support it because it reflects what is already happening out there in the workforce. All employers respect and expect to provide rest and meal breaks for their staff. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee there was no evidence to suggest that this was a serious problem. It was also suggested, during the select committee process, that the bill’s provisions are covered elsewhere under health and safety and other industry-specific regulations. I believe that most employers understand the value of looking after employees. They understand the value of providing regular breaks. They understand that value for a multitude of reasons. First of all, refreshed and renewed employees do not tend to have work-related accidents. Refreshed and renewed employees tend to have more community within their workplace. Refreshed and renewed employees tend to be more productive.

I have been an employer for over 25 years myself, and I believe that the key to the successful relationship between an employer and employee is flexibility. National is concerned that this bill may be unnecessarily prescriptive, and that because of its unnecessarily prescriptive nature it could actually have a negative effect. It could reduce the flexibility of the workplace. If it reduced that flexibility, it could make it more difficult for employees and employers to work together.

Businesses, particularly small businesses, need to have a stable and a well-trained workforce to be successful. The churn of the workforce is extremely unsettling, extremely expensive, and extremely unproductive. No employer wants a large churn in employees. The relationship between employer and employee is something to be valued—and I believe it is—and is something to be cherished. Over the years, I have employed a large number of people, the majority of whom have been women, and very often they have been young women with young children. In fact, several of my employees have had babies and gone on to have more than one baby while they worked for me. What tended to happen when they became pregnant was that they would come and see me, and together we would work through how we were going to make it work.

Kate Wilkinson: Common sense.

NICKY WAGNER: It was absolute common sense. We would talk about the work we had to do over the next year and how we would manage it. We talked about how we could make sure the mother, the baby, and the business could work together for a good outcome. It worked really well. In fact, some of my employees used to plan their pregnancy around our busy times at work, because that made it easier for everybody. My philosophy with my employees has always been to say what work has had to be done, and to ask how we were going to manage it. We have got through that work with a mixture of options—like working from home, particularly when babies have been young and needed breast-feeding often. Perhaps working flexible hours in the office has been an option, or employees bringing nannies to the office with them. Often, job-sharing with other people who worked in the company has been an option, but if we were not able to manage that, then we have contracted out part of an employee’s job, for the length of time that employee has been away.

The interesting thing is that one of the best results of this type of arrangement is that employees help each other. I remember that just recently I was at work—working late; it was about 9 o’clock at night—and one of my employees was still there. I said to him: “What on earth are you doing here? It’s 9 o’clock at night; you should be home!”. He said “Well, Tania had to go home early because her son is sick.” I said: “Thank you very much. It’s great that you stayed on. I really appreciate that work you’ve got done, and Tania will appreciate it, too.” He looked me in the eye and said: “Oh well, it doesn’t matter. She covered for me when I had to go home to India for my grandma’s funeral.” And that is what it is all about. That is the flexibility in the workforce, where employees can help each other and employers can work with them.

We have the same situation during the school holidays: some people work from home; some people work in the office. They combine their time and make it work. We just have to get through the workload. People do this not just for the good of their health; it is basically because they can see the benefits. They can see the benefits for employers and employees. There is the benefit to the business of the long service of employees. If people stay in a business for a length of time, they do not lose the skills they develop. They do not lose the business relationships they build. I think that all of us can identify the situation where we ring up a company but the person answering the call is constantly changing. It is frustrating for the customers of a business if they always have to develop new business relationships. If employees are long-serving, the business does not lose its institutional knowledge. That is all retained. It is an enormous waste to a business to lose a female employee just because she is pregnant, just because she wants to breast-feed, or just because she has other family reasons.

Employees also benefit from flexibility in the workplace. They benefit because they have a stable job, they get to have that long-term, stable business relationship with their customers and other workers, and they have the satisfaction of being part of a team.

In conclusion, I say once again that National supports the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It is basic common sense, and it reflects what is already happening out there in the workforce. Our only concern is that it is very prescriptive and might actually reduce the flexibility of workplaces. We want to make sure that those workplaces can incorporate new ideas, can be creative about how they manage their work, and can be productive about how they make their workplace arrangements. I will be very interested to see the code of employment practice that is to be approved by the Minister, and I can only appeal to the Minister to keep it as flexible as possible. Thank you.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I do not intend to take a long call, because I think we are all saying the same things here. From what I can work out, we all support the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with a great deal of support. It is only a small bill, and a few clauses were amended to make it flexible, fairer, and clearer. New Zealand First takes the attitude to legislation—certainly, to workplace legislation—that it should be to encourage people to work to live, not to live to work, and we think this legislation puts in place some reasonable entitlements for working people.

I have to say that we had our doubts—and I think the National Party also expressed its doubts—about whether we needed such legislation, when the bill first came into the House, but we supported it to go to the select committee. Those doubts were quite quickly dispelled when we listened to some of the submitters. So we think we are doing the right thing, in putting this bill into place. The bill might well need some amendment or adjustment of clauses when we get to the Committee stage, to ensure that it does exactly what we all think it means to do, but that is yet to be seen. At this stage, New Zealand First is supporting this bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Exactly 100 years ago miners at Blackball on the West Coast were sacked for daring to ask for 30 minutes for a meal break, instead of the 15 minutes their bosses said they could have. And over the last century those mining heroes have been joined by other advocates in the fight for workers’ rights. There have been many struggles to achieve comprehensive rights for workers—annual and public holidays, sick leave, bereavement leave, penalty payments, overtime payments, and even the supply of milk, sugar, and tea. In fact, it could be thought that every possible right a worker might want would already be accepted practice in today’s modern world.

So it came as a bit of a shock to hear that earlier this year, up north, Filipino nurses were being treated like slaves because of debts they were supposed to owe to their recruitment agencies, which forced them to work in desperate conditions, and bonded them for 3 years at low wages. Or there was the situation that John Minto told me about, after he was rung up by a woman working in the departure lounge at Auckland International Airport. She started work every day at 4 30 a.m. and did not get a meal break until just before midday. Naturally, worker turnover is high there, but instead of trying to find out why that is, Work and Income just keeps sending more workers into the fray—mostly women, and mainly Māori, Pacific, or other recently arrived ethnic minorities. I thought we had got rid of these kinds of conditions years ago, but apparently not.

It is, quite frankly, bloody outrageous that in 2008 we even have to have a bill to make employers give workers paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks. Bizarre as it may seem, the need for protecting workers’ rights is as relevant today as it was 100 years ago. In fact, less than 24 hours ago Te Rūnanga o ngā Kaimahi Māori o Aotearoa, the national representative body of some 60,000 Māori workers, declared its support for the rolling strike action being taken this week by Sky City workers, who are being threatened by moves to roll back working conditions and create a new minimum wage structure. If these horror stories are not enough, here is another one from Laila Harré from the National Distribution Union, who told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about an employee in a high-end dress shop. The employee was told by her boss to use a bucket out the back of the shop, rather than lock up when she needed to go to the toilet.

It makes me ashamed to think that we have some employers in this country who still treat their staff like this in the pursuit of the mighty dollar. But apparently the Service and Food Workers Union reckons that most of the calls it gets are from workers and parents of kids who have just started work, who ask about their rest and meal break entitlements. So yes, the Māori Party supports the provisions for workers to have meal breaks in order to help raise standards for workers in Aotearoa, with the only question being, of course, why it has taken so long. Like many others, I thought that meal breaks were already compulsory, but apparently they are not. Although I know that there are many excellent employers out there doing everything that they can to ensure that their workers are happy and productive, clearly there are also those out there who just do not give a damn.

The other focus of this bill is to allow mothers to breastfeed their children at work. Given that the 2006 census showed that 75 percent of mothers of baby children are now at work just to help make ends meet, this bill is really just simple recognition of that sad reality. Economic circumstances are forcing young mothers to go to work, rather than their being able to choose to go to work to buy luxuries for the house, and this bill allows mothers to feed and nurture their babies in the workplace. Mind you, the other side of this whole issue is the deepening economic crisis that is forcing both parents to have to work to feed, clothe, and house families today, compared with 30-odd years ago, when families were able to be sustained on just one wage. When the 40-hour working week was first introduced, it was based on the understanding that the income for 40 hours’ work would be enough to support a household. Clearly, that scenario no longer applies; clearly, the comparative standard of living has fallen alarmingly, and, just as clearly, we need to be worried about this continuing pressure not only for families to work but also often for both parents to hold down two and sometimes three jobs. It might have been better if the sponsor of this bill had simply extended paid parental leave to 12 months, so that women could actually stay at home rather than have to go back to work with their children at the breast. But in the absence of that move, and in the reality of the pressing economic crisis on families in Aotearoa, this bill allows women to breastfeed in a workplace and, hopefully, it will encourage the Government to move quickly to implement ILO Convention 183, which also arose out of the revision of maternity protection.

The Māori Party will endorse the breastfeeding provisions, consistent with our push for paid parental leave and support for whānau, and we will support the meal break provisions, in line with our clearly stated support for workers’ rights. Tēnā koe, kia ora tātou.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The first thing we ask when we look at this bill is why we would want to push it through Parliament only a couple of months before a general election. The reason is simply that it is part of that incremental change in labour policy and labour relations law that the Labour Government is engaged in. Rather than doing it in one fell swoop, the Labour Government has engaged in a process of incremental change, because it believes that this is the way to hide from the public the changes in the general employment situation it is bringing about.

I think that one of the first things we need to look at is the point that this bill is about breaks and infant feeding; this is not a bill about the 90-day - trial period. All of the Labour members may want to go out and talk about the 90-day bill, but that is not what we are talking about here today. We are talking about something to do with meals, rest breaks, and infant feeding, so the way that Labour has used this session to try to promote legislation not actually being debated in this House today, is a shame, and it really shows the Labour members’ true intention towards this legislation: they do not actually mean what they are doing here today; they have no real desire to progress workers’ rights; and they just see this as being another tick in the box they can give to the unions, leading up to the election campaign, so that the unions can fund them again in their campaign to try to get votes at election time.

We also have to look at this legislation in the sense of what is happening out there in the market place. We are in a situation where there is rising unemployment. By the end of next year the unemployment rate will probably be peaking at around 6 percent. This country is going through a dire situation where people are losing jobs, and they are losing jobs because of the economic management of this country. Employers came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said that they did not need more conditions placed on them in these tight economic times. They asked committee members whether we wanted to make it harder for them to employ someone, or to retain people in situations where they could easily close businesses, but the Labour Government has ignored that. It has totally ignored it, and feels that it is appropriate to put more conditions and requirements on employers, even though employment is becoming very tight in the sense that there will be an oversupply of staff and employees going into the next year, which is quite contrary to what we have had in the past couple of years. So instead of helping employees by making sure that they will have job security and that jobs are there for them, the Labour Government is putting another hurdle in the way of employees at a time when it does not need to do that—it does not need to do that at the time of these economic conditions.

This legislation came before members of the select committee in a form that would have actually hurt employees. It would have meant that some people would lose the entitlements they already had; it was too prescriptive. In some cases employment agreements were already giving greater recognition for breaks. Employers and employees had agreed on something that was less onerous than what was in this legislation, and if Labour had fulfilled its requirement and had just gone through with the bill in the blunt form it had had originally, employees could have lost out. But the reality was that when the bill came to the select committee, Labour became aware that this legislation actually took away some workers’ rights, and it had to amend the bill.

How many pieces of legislation do we see going through this House that have a commentary of nearly 2 pages, and over 1½ pages of that commentary are proposed amendments? That shows what a quick-fix solution this bill has been. It shows that it was not thought out, in its initial form. It shows that the Labour Government did not have the best interests of workers in its initial thoughts. It had only a conceptual basis that it wanted to pay its unions back with, and that has become the start of this legislation.

Let us look at these amendments. There will have to be amendments with regard to breastfeeding facilities and breaks—a “so far as it is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances” clause needs to be added—and there will have to be amendments with regard to the entitlements to rest breaks and meal breaks. The timing of those breaks needs to be further mandated through the legislation, so that people actually know what the timing of those breaks will be and what time frames employees will be entitled to. Some big amendments are required around the timing of rest breaks; many people felt that the provisions were far too prescriptive. Some of the nature of the agreements between employers and employees will also have to be incorporated into legislation, so that if there is already an agreement, then that will take precedence over what the legislation may say.

A very important part of the legislation is the enabling of employers and employees to agree on things. There is nothing wrong with that in a workforce environment where both parties have the ability to negotiate and agree, as they do now. We do not need to take away that ability from employees. The ability for an employee to agree on certain conditions can be to his or her advantage, and if we have prescriptive legislation over little parts of an employment agreement, then we can take away workers’ rights. We can take away their ability to negotiate and agree.

The legislation also affects employers, in the sense that they may be mandated to do things that just do not suit their employment relationships in the nature of their businesses. We very much heard that from bus industry representatives, who were very concerned, because of the nature of their industry, that prescriptive requirements on them would be detrimental for their business. They had no problem with giving people breaks—and they do so now—but they did not want to be told they had to do that in a prescriptive nature, which would mean that the breaks were detrimental to their business.

The ability of an employer and an employee to come together and to make mutually beneficial rules is something that we must cherish and support. If we take that away by incremental legislation that aims to be prescriptive on every little element of the employment relationship, we will be hurting employees. We will be taking away their ability to negotiate. We will be taking away their rights. How can Labour members stand in this House and take away employees’ rights? Why would they want to do that? All this is about is Labour giving payback to its funders, going into an election campaign.

A number of people who spoke on this bill in its first reading raised a very important issue about the bill—that it has not been thought through. The financial consequences of this bill have not been thought through. The research has not been done to see what the implications of this bill will be in the community. There was no regulatory impact statement submitted in time for the bill, and the analysis has been very much lacking. This has been just a conceptual mandate by the Labour Government. The legislation has not had the hard-core research and analysis done that we would expect in a bill, to make sure that it is solving a problem. The nature of this legislation, because it has been so rushed, because it needs so many amendments, and because it takes away the fundamental debate between employer and employee, means that in time it will be shown to have created a number of holes and problems that will have to be sorted out through further legislation, or through agreement between the parties.

When we pass things quickly in the House, just for the sake of an election campaign, it does not make for good legislation. This bill needs to take its time. It needs to be thought out, and to have the proper research and analysis done on it, so that all parties can determine what needs to be done in the circumstances, and it needs to have time spent on it so that we can get the best results for all concerned. That is one of the concerns that many people raised when submitting to the select committee, and it is a concern that many members of the select committee held, as well. They felt that this legislation was rushed, it was not done in a proper process, and it did not take account of what was going on in the market place between employers and employees.

Although the National Party does support this legislation, we believe that the Labour Party and its allies could have done a better job. Employees will be detrimentally affected by this legislation, and it sets a bad precedent for employees when parts of their employment negotiations will now be done through mandatory prescriptive legislation rather than by giving employees the ability to negotiate through the nature of their work.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : I move, That the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is a small bill but it is an important one for the operation of this Parliament in the period immediately after the election. It has received the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee, chaired by the Speaker, and has had further consideration in the Committee of the whole House. I would like to thank the select committee members for the work they did on this short piece of legislation, and to thank the other political parties for all the work, effort, and support that they have given to this bill in order for its third reading to progress today. Thank you.

NATHAN GUY (National) : National is happy to support the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. It is important that we get the process right—

Peter Brown: Two in a row!

NATHAN GUY: Certainly, and I look forward to Mr Dunne’s contribution on this very important legislation—

Hon Members: That is Mr Brown!

NATHAN GUY: Oh, it is too! I beg Mr Brown’s pardon—both members are of a similar vintage.

This is very important legislation because it tidies up the period—on average about 2 weeks—between polling day and declaration day. It ensures that members can travel to Parliament, and stay the night if they need to, if a caucus meeting is called over that particular period of time. It also allows existing members, who no doubt have a lease on a parliamentary office, to carry on those payments over that period of time. Some telecommunications might need to progress over that time, as well. So we are supporting this bill.

The Standing Orders Committee had no public submissions on the bill. It will tidy up the legalities that need to be tidied up. I thank the other committee members, Mr Brown being one, for their support during the select committee process. National supports this bill in its third reading.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : New Zealand First also supports the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill, which I think will go through unanimously. This bill simply corrects a flaw. It gives the Parliamentary Service the authority to pay an MP elected on election night until he or she is confirmed or otherwise dispensed with. I think most New Zealanders would see this as common sense. Any reasonable, freethinking New Zealander would think it is reasonable to pay—not every entitlement, but the relevant entitlements—a person who has seemingly been elected on election night until that election is confirmed, as has been outlined by the member who has just resumed his seat, Nathan Guy.

We think the bill is very simple, straightforward, honest, and fair. Its provisions have been the past practice. New Zealand First supports the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I suspect that nobody is bothering to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill because it is a petty little nothingness on the global stage of free-trade agreements, emissions trading, drug-fuelled Olympics, smog-filled stadiums, and rising fuel costs. But there are a couple of little points that I would like to raise, if I could—[Interruption] What did Mr Dunne say?

Peter Brown: Food costs!

HONE HARAWIRA: I was just thinking about what Paris Hilton said about wrinkly old white dudes—they must all look the same to Nathan over there!

The first point is how foolish the Electoral Finance Act looks now, with the Electoral Commission thinking of taking Tui beer to court for its excellent billboard: “When Winston says no, he means no.”, and “New Zealand First does not accept donations from big business interests.” I have no doubt that many, if not most, of those who voted for that idiotic piece of legislation had no idea how dull, boring, petty, vindictive, and nasty it was going to be. The relevance to this debate is that that bill came about as a direct result of another one of these parliamentary “fix it up” bills. The House saw fit to pass one of those “Yes, we spent the money when we weren’t supposed to. Yes, we took the money from people we probably shouldn’t have. Yes, we took money from business interests and we ain’t going to declare it.” pieces of validating legislation.

It reminds me of another piece of validating legislation that many Māori know about. Back in the 1800s, after stealing, robbing, embezzling, purloining, thieving, pinching, and plain old ripping off millions and millions of acres of Māori land, the robber barons—masquerading as the New Zealand Government of the day—passed legislation that we now know as the Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act, which is how one steals till one is a fat bloated pig, then passes a law to make what one did right. When one thinks about it, the Government of the 1800s actually ain’t much different to the current mob, which just stole millions of acres of Māori foreshore and seabed.

Anyway, that is what “validating legislation” did back in the 1800s, and that is what “validating legislation” still does in the new millennium. Both of them seem to slip under this legislative overcoat that is the Parliamentary Service, which is what the bill before the House today relates to. So I have brought my speech back to the bill under debate!

This bill, however, is supposed to be a little different. It allows the Parliamentary Service to provide candidates who are likely to be elected with certain travel and accommodation entitlements between polling day and the day when the election results are formally announced. But the most obvious point about this bill, for us, is how quickly MPs rush bills such as this through the House to make sure members’ pay goes through without a hitch, yet they dither, dally, dawdle, and delay over dealing with the rampant poverty affecting great swaths of our communities throughout our nation. I take this opportunity to commend both Sue Bradford and Tariana Turia for again raising the desperate plight of beneficiaries, whose needs we should be paying a hell of a lot more attention to.

I recognise this Government for, and congratulate it on, its efforts to encourage people back into work through the Working for Families package, but I also see the destructive effects of the loss of that tax credit when good, hard-working people are dismissed from employment as a direct result of businesses heading overseas. Families come under the immediate stress caused by loss of income and constantly rising prices, children start getting scared of their dad because he has got a lot more grumpy all of a sudden, there is less kai on the table, and both parents are worried about how they will pay the mortgage.

So as we look to rubber-stamp this bill to ensure our money keeps flowing, let us not forget the 230,000 children in this country denied benefits because their parents cannot get a job, let us not forget the 75,000 old people living in poverty, and let us not also forget that Māori make up a disproportionately high number of those suffering the effects of poverty. So, fine, there is no reason why we should not jump up and down about the obscenely high wages we get and how we expect to get them every week, but let us spare a thought for those at the bottom end of the food chain—those in genuine need—and let us see whether we can help feed them first before feeding ourselves.

The Māori Party will be supporting this bill, but, believe me, when it comes to the Māori seats there will not be any gnashing of teeth or hair pulling by the bean counters on polling night. We are looking to make it seven to the Māori Party, and to bring on board Angeline Greensill, Māori Party member of the House for Hauraki-Waikato; Derek Fox, Māori Party member of the House for Ikaroa Rāwhiti; and Rāhui Kātene, Maori Party member of the House for Te Tai Tonga, so that the nation wakes up to a bright new day in politics in Aotearoa the very next morning—a sunny day, a positive day, a Māori Party day. Kia ora tātou.

• Bill read a third time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): When the Committee was last considering the bill, the Hon Annette King had 1 minute and 33 seconds left.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : Thank you, Mr Chairman, and that time sped by last night when we had the opportunity to commence the debate in the Committee stage of this very important bill. We are now going through the part by part analysis of it.

As I said last night, this bill is the foundation to equip the New Zealand Police to provide the best policing services for New Zealanders. In broad terms the bill sets out to achieve two fundamental tasks. The first is to confirm and strengthen police governance, accountability, and organisational arrangements in a way that is suitable for the contemporary age. We are changing legislation that is 50 years old. We are putting in place an Act that will be contemporary. Secondly, the bill sets out to improve police effectiveness, especially by updating human resource management provisions and by establishing a clear framework for the exercising of police powers by particular police employees.

This bill has been extensively tested and refined, and it has benefited from having a very robust consultation process. Part of the success of that process has been the willingness of parties in this House to take a multiparty approach to this important legislation, which we hope will endure for as long as the first Police Act of 1958.

At this point we are debating Part 1, which gives us the preliminary provisions. This part provides an updated list of terms in clause 4, “Interpretation”. For example, the term “Police employee” replaces the term “sworn and non-sworn members of the Police” in order to reflect the single employment framework advanced in this bill.

Supplementary Order Paper 222, in my name, amends Part 1. It is a minor amendment to postpone the commencement date until 1 October 2008. It also proposes to insert a new subclause (1A) in clause 120 of this bill. This will amend a provision of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964, and will come into force on the commencement of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Act 2008. As one would say, Supplementary Order Paper 222 is a minor technical amendment to Part 1.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to restate National’s support for the Policing Bill and to commend those involved in the preparation of legislation that will be enduring and does take account of modern policing methods and those involved in modern policing.

Initially, we referred to the bill as the “Police Bill”, but later the title was changed to Policing Bill to capture the concept that a number of different organisations around the country today are involved in the work of policing. Some of those organisations are private businesses, and some are local councils, trusts, and volunteer organisations, but overarching all of them and with the mandate of the public of New Zealand is the New Zealand Police. So this bill seeks to legislate how the New Zealand Police is set up, and how it remains distinct operationally from the Crown. The purpose of the bill is to provide for policing services in New Zealand, and to state the functions of and provide for the governance and administration of the New Zealand Police.

The New Zealand Police is a distinct and unique body amongst Crown agencies. It operates very much as the catch-all, as well. I say that not to denigrate its role or its ability, but it is in fact the case that where other agencies leave off for various reasons, the New Zealand Police steps in. Not that long ago, people rang the various other Government agencies at the end of the day when no one was there to answer the phone, the answerphone would tell them to ring the police. So we have benefited as a country from a police service that has been prepared to step into all those different roles where nobody else can go and where others fear to go.

A number of new provisions recognise the modern age of policing that we are in. There is, I guess, a step away from the paramilitary organisation that the New Zealand Police was, and recognition of the fact that the police need to operate within the terms and conditions of the Employment Relations Act, the employment legislation that binds the rest of us in society. The bill also recognises the uniqueness of police officers and the rank of constable.

It is interesting to note too the concept of individual officer discretion, which is a fundamental principle of the police in New Zealand. I remember as a young cop having a scrap with a grisly old sergeant who had—

Nathan Guy: How did you get on?

CHESTER BORROWS: I won, actually. I had to defend my right not to arrest somebody, having been ordered to arrest that person for an offence that I did not believe he had committed. I was a cop with just a couple of months’ experience, and I turned round and said “No, I’m not going to. You can arrest him if you like and direct me to do the paperwork, but I’m not going to arrest this guy, because I don’t think he has done anything wrong.” The sergeant and I fell out just after that.

Hon Annette King: Did a lot for your promotion.

CHESTER BORROWS: I can tell members that it did not help my chances of getting off the beat.

The point is, of course, that within the New Zealand Police those decisions are up to an individual officer’s discretion. Constables have the ability to assert sovereignty over those decisions, but they must be accountable for that. It is in the minds of a number of police officers as they work this country’s streets and rural areas—although they do not make a heck of a lot of it—that a decision that has taken seconds to make, because of an emergency situation or some prevailing urgency, is later trawled over by people who are paid an awful lot of money, who have years and years of experience, and, frankly, who have the opportunity to pull to bits the decision that a constable, who may have been a constable with those powers for only a matter of weeks, had seconds to make.

I want to commend the police on this point: if we look at the number of decisions made in those circumstances, we find that only rarely are they found to have been wrong. In actual fact, frequently those decisions that have taken huge amounts of time to make and act on are often the ones that are pulled to bits and found to be wanting.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : I will take just a brief call on Part 1. I want to be very full in my praise of the Minister of Police, who is an outstanding Minister of Police.

Nathan Guy: You are going to take a small one?

MARTIN GALLAGHER: I know that the member opposite is agreeing, because in his heart of hearts he knows that to be true.

I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee, who did a lot of work on the Policing Bill, and particularly the chairperson, Mr Ron Mark. I think Mr Mark would join with me in saying that this is a long-overdue bill—I was the previous chair of that select committee.

I compliment our police advisers. I also compliment the many people who made submissions and, in particular, the New Zealand Police Association. It was my pleasure to attend, along with other members, the event recently when the Minister and the chief executive of that association launched their particular policy document. We do not have to agree with all of the policy document, line by line, but we do acknowledge absolutely that it is an excellent way in which to engage with, and to basically listen to, the organisation that represents the men and women on the front line, so to speak.

I also take this opportunity to highlight the fact that this bill—and I do not mean to be disrespectful towards our very esteemed public servants, whom we hold in great affection—is not totally a product of drafting in some 8th floor, 9th floor, or 20th floor office. The bill is the result of a very comprehensive process of community consultation. I think that it is a very, very good model, and that it illustrates the fact that we do, by and large, have a broad cross-section of the House in support of it. I know that the MP for Hamilton East thoroughly agrees with me, and I know he has been very complimentary about the Minister of Police with regard to this bill.

In terms of the consultation process, this bill followed a 2-year review of current policing legislation by a working group. As I mentioned, the views of front-line police as well as of police staff associations were also fed into the bill’s preparation, so the process really shows how important it is to engage with the profession of policing. The public was also consulted through public meetings, select committees, and a thing called an online wiki.

Hon Annette King: A very new invention.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: It is a very new invention. The Minister has taught me about this online wiki.

Chester Borrows: How many of those can you have and still drive?

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Chester Borrows is very keen on it. It is an example of electronic communication, and the interface in terms of the way we are now using new means of communication. Opportunities were also provided for all parliamentary political parties to have input into the work on the new legislation.

Finally, I again stress the two key objectives of the bill. First, the bill confirms and strengthens the legal arrangements for the way in which the police are organised and governed, with a clearer focus on the balance between independence and accountability. Secondly, it sets a platform for improving police effectiveness, especially by updating the police’s approach to employment practices and by establishing a framework for the exercise of policing powers.

Obviously, through the rest of the Committee stage we will all have an opportunity to go through this bill with a degree of detail that we do not have in first and second reading debates. Without further ado I certainly commend this bill, and I acknowledge the many hands that have been involved in the successful completion of this exercise.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : It is indeed a privilege to see the Policing Bill get through to the Committee stage. Back in 2006 the Minister announced that there would be a significant look at the Police Act, and it was quite a celebratory occasion. A lot of police were around, and it was a very positive time.

I spent just a couple of hours at the Law and Order Committee, and I can say that it was quite interesting to see complete engagement by all and sundry in the submissions process during the time I was there. It was quite interesting to hear Greg O’Connor speak on behalf of the Police Association. I had never seen him in person, but I had seen him on TV a lot of times when there were issues around the police and he was taking the lead position on them. At the same time, the select committee heard a submission on behalf of those who faced the processes for which the police are responsible. That submitter spoke about what was appropriate from the view of those who faced the courts and the justice system. Really, when we think about the police we realise that there certainly is a national implication. There is an overarching need for an Act that is appropriate for the time, for the age we live in, and for the technologies we now have.

Back in 1958—50 years ago—the norm would very much be the police constable on the beat with a baton and a set of handcuffs, and away he would go. That was probably my first experience of the police as a young shearer in North Canterbury. I think the constable was Wattie Johnson. He had quite an impact on our behaviour and our growing up, and we certainly behaved ourselves when he was around.

When we think of those years from 1958 through to the commencement of this process of refining the Act and making it appropriate for the times we are living in, we can think of some pretty tough times that the police have had to face, such as Bastion Point and the Springbok Tour in 1981. Then there was the case of the sole-charge constable who paid the ultimate price in Ranfurly and lost his life in the course of doing his job. It helps us to understand, even in the modern context of things, the variety and range of situations that the police find themselves in. As Chester Borrows has pointed out—and he has a lot of experience—more often than not, 99.9 percent of the time, the decisions made by those wonderful New Zealand citizens who take up a role as police are right.

It is wonderful to see the bill get to this stage. I want to look at one aspect of it. Clause 5, “Status of examples”, states: “In this Act, an example is only illustrative of the provision it relates to and does not limit the provision.” If we look back to the explanatory note, we see that it talks about the roles of others. When we stop and think about policing in today’s context, we know that it is very much about integration with the community, the support of Māori wardens, and the support of many other organisations that the police are actually able to leverage off so as to be able to build a community that we can all have confidence in. That confidence is very important, because with confidence in the police force comes support, and that support is very important with regard to the rule of law and order.

It is fascinating to look at clause 10, which talks about that situation. It talks about the private security industry—I know I am going over into Part 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): You are.

COLIN KING: In terms of clause 5, “Status of examples”, which is in Part 1, there have been considerable changes over time. So much has occurred over the last 50 years. It is also significant that New Zealand has been able to depend on the police force. The first police Act was in actual fact the Policing Act 1886, and, no doubt, when it was updated over time it was set to meet those needs.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : National supports the Policing Bill. We support it because it is designed to provide the best policing services for New Zealand, and that is something that National is very keen to see. It is well and truly time to update the Police Act 1958, which was passed over 50 years ago.

National is also concerned that many Kiwis do not have the confidence in the police that they used to, and, hopefully, this bill might repair some of that damage. As a child I was taught: “The policeman is your friend.” Not all children believe that these days, and I think that that is a real shame. As a kid, knowing that the policeman was my friend made me feel safe; it made me feel that if anything went wrong there was someone there to help me. As National’s spokesperson on youth affairs, it concerns me that so often the relationship between the police and young people is fraught. There are faults on both sides: young people are often rude and disrespectful to the police, but, in return, the police are at times insensitive to, and heavy-handed with, young people. The situation just escalates.

I have been heavily involved with the work being done to address the boy-racer problem in Christchurch. I have worked closely with the police and I have been really impressed at how they have handled the situation. They are in a no-win situation. The boy-racer cars are noisy, and as those fleets of modified cars drive round our city they make life absolutely unbearable for families, business, and anybody with accommodation on those four avenues. Anyone who lives within earshot, really, is affected. The police come under constant attack because people ring up and say: “Where are you? I can’t stand this noise. What are you going to do about it?”. The problem is that the vehicle noise rules are so slack that even if the cars are doing nothing worse than cruising round the streets, they affect the eardrums of the people of Christchurch.

The Canterbury police have been very active on the streets, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, and every weekend numerous cars are ticketed for a multitude of offences. Just recently, over a 3-week period, 74 cars were taken off the road for being unsafe or having illegal modification and 900 drivers were prosecuted—900 drivers in 3 weeks. Of those 900 prosecutions, 193 were for speeding, 197 were for noise, 184 were for licence breaches, 70 were for drink-driving offences, and another 22 were for other charges. However, I note, in defence of the young people in Christchurch, that Inspector Derek Erasmus made the point that the majority of drinking offences were not committed by young people—the offenders were not the boy racers.

There has also been a lot of concern in Christchurch about crime in the central city, because—like in most New Zealand cities—large numbers of people are attracted to the central area. They are attracted by the entertainment; they come in to party and they come in to drink. Many are young people, and many sometimes behave in ways we would not like them to. But the police in Christchurch have worked very hard with new techniques that perhaps were not available 50 years ago to keep control in the central city. They have been working hard with closed-circuit television cameras—in other words, security cameras—to stop things from happening by watching and making sure that people are safe, and they also have been using footage from those cameras to prosecute people if things do go wrong. They have also been working very hard to get a large number of police out on the beat. Yes, we know that is the old-fashioned kind of policing, but it is something that people like to see, because they feel safe, and they remember “The policeman is your friend.”

RON MARK (NZ First) : I guess it is appropriate that New Zealand First makes a comment on Part 1. I have to say, having listened to that speech and maybe a couple before it, that people out there in their motor vehicles heading home this evening are probably thinking that Part 1 is this huge volume of work that covers all manner of issues that police confront on a day-to-day basis, from noisy boy-racers to insensitive police officers. Let us just look at what Part 1 does. The Policing Bill is arranged into five parts. Part 1 contains a small number of preliminary provisions, including an overall purpose statement and a number of defined terms that are used frequently throughout the legislation, and it confirms that the proposed new Policing Act will bind the Crown. We support that.

• Part 1 agreed to.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : In Part 2 I think we are really starting to get into the substance of the Policing Bill, because Part 2, Subpart 1, sets out the principles of this bill. This part confirms the continuation of the organisation known as the New Zealand Police, and describes the important principles and functions for police.

Part 2 is divided into five subparts. Clause 8 is important because it reflects the fact that policing operates, in a large measure, by popular consent. The New Zealand Police, like similar police services around the world, is successful only if it is able to police with the popular consent of the public it is policing for. Clause 8 provides principles of policing that have stood the test of time, and these important principles have been well covered and endorsed by the speakers during the second reading debate.

Without amassing a prescriptive list of functions, clause 9 confirms the police mandate to include activities ranging from maintaining public safety to law enforcement and crime prevention, to national security and international policing. For the first time, the bill acknowledges that policing is a shared responsibility that takes place in a networked and cooperative policing environment. The acknowledgment of that shared responsibility is a very important part of this legislation. Those who believe that the New Zealand Police can solve all the law and order problems we have in this country are missing the point. The police are an important part of the fight against crime, but they have a shared responsibility with other key stakeholders, including the communities people live in.

Clause 10 records that successful policing relies on a range of partner organisations in the public and the private sector, as well as the efforts of individuals, families, and communities. I think it was Colin King who spoke of the role of Māori wardens and others. They are part of the partnership along with Neighbourhood Support, Community Patrols, and the emergence of Pacific wardens. The Pacific wardens scheme is now being developed in Auckland, aided and assisted by our excellent Māori wardens, who have had a long history of working in partnership and are helping to establish yet another model. I have great admiration for those partners, and this bill makes it very clear that successful policing relies on those sorts of partnerships. Local government is another partner in successful policing. I think local government can make a big impact when it works alongside and cooperatively with the New Zealand Police.

Subpart 2 is about governance and accountability. It strengthens the governance and accountability arrangements of the police, and there are major improvements to the old Police Act 1958. It includes proposals like better definition of appointment, tenure appointment, and engagement of the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police. There is now a process to ensure that the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner is transparent. This process involves the State Services Commissioner. Clause 16 clarifies the role of the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Police.

Subpart 3 is about the organisation, and clauses 18 to 24 are the building blocks of a modern police force. Subpart 4 gives general instructions, and Subpart 5 is about command and control. It confirms the commissioner’s command and control of police employees and the chain of command in the police.

This is a substantial part of the bill. It is a part that received a number of submissions, and I am sure members will agree that it strengthens and puts in place the way forward for the New Zealand Police. I am very, very supportive of identifying the need for our police to work in partnership and cooperation with the very communities they want to police.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise in respect of Part 2 of the Policing Bill, and wish to comment on a number of clauses that the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Annette King, has already touched on. They are clauses that give distinct powers to the New Zealand Police, and also recognise the unique relationship that the New Zealand Police has with Government and other agencies in the service of the public of New Zealand.

Clause 7 of the bill describes the New Zealand Police and illustrates some of its history. Clause 7(2) states: “The New Zealand Police is the same organisation as that—(a) established as the Police Force under the Police Force Act 1886;”. The clause acknowledges some of the history of where the New Zealand Police came from as part of the old armed constabulary. I had a conversation with my colleague Hone Harawira yesterday in respect of that, and in respect of the attendance on Parihaka of the armed constabulary way back in the 1880s—1881, as I understand it. It is interesting to note how this bill goes on to reinforce the separation of the New Zealand Police from the Crown—as the Commissioner of Police, in his decision making, and the New Zealand Police itself as an arm of Government.

I had what I think was the privilege to be at Parihaka when the police made their first return visit, which was in the 1990s, and I could not help but think of the shame it was that the police commander organising that visit did not seem to have any sense of the moment—that is, that the New Zealand Police had returned to Parihaka for the first time as an organisation from the time Parihaka was sacked during the arrest of the prophet Te Whiti o Rongomai. It seemed to be a day where some policy was outlined but no cognisance of the historic moment was taken. Of course, over subsequent years there have been times when it appears, superficially on the outset, that the police were acting directly as an arm of Government, and other times, thankfully—mainly due to force of personality of the person in the role—the commissioner has extended his arm and stood at arm’s length from Government decisions. But thinking back on times like, for instance, the Springbok Tour, or other incidents of unrest—various strikes and other public incidents, such as Bastion Point, the 30th anniversary of which was celebrated recently—we look back on those times with, I guess, rose-coloured spectacles or ones that are tinged with a far greater knowledge of history. These views can, at times, be quite accusatory of decisions made by the police or by the Government. However, we cannot look back, except in a historical context.

The principles set out in clause 8 of the bill, which have previously been outlined by the Minister, include principled, effective, and efficient policing. But they also include the principle under subclause (d): “policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:”, and the principle under subclause (e): “policing services are provided independently and impartially:”. It is important to point out those particular principles and the fact that they have been preserved.

Clause 9 talks about the functions of the police, and those include: “(b) keeping the peace: (ba) maintaining public safety: (c) law enforcement: (ca) crime prevention: (d) community support and reassurance:”. I think it is also timely to note that if a division has been created over, say, the last 25 or 30 years between the police and public expectation, the question has to be asked: who moved? Back in the times when maybe some of us—young, sprightly ones like myself—were growing up, there was an expectation of safety and certainty around the police, not only from the point of view of the public and parents raising their kids but also in the expectation of support that the police enjoyed from the public. But incidents have come from time to time, or at phases in our history, that have created a division between the public and the police. For instance, the protests at the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s around Viet Nam, and further on to the introduction of cannabis and how people viewed the use of it as being recreational and not something that should create criminals out of people—others of us saw it strictly as a law and order question—created a division between the public and the police. Then there was the Springbok Tour of 1981, where the country was actually divided down the middle, and right in the middle, as the meat in the sandwich, were the police. I recall the police at that time being completely divided, too, as to who was in favour of the tour and who was against it, but, nevertheless, there was a job that needed to be done.

Through the 1980s there was the corporatisation of New Zealand, and then huge unemployment. With that unemployment came the petty thieving and, again, people running up against the law. So there was a separation between the police and the public, and a change in the expectations of the public in respect of when the police would be involved, with the public saying: “Well, we’re not going to be part of this community policing any more. We’re going to leave that entirely over to the police.” It became harder and harder for the organisation to actually be involved in the day-to-day raising of kids, the day-to-day looking after of problems that were happening within the community, and, with the centralisation of the police, we no longer had what people colloquially called “the bobby on the beat”—the policeman who would give a stern word or a clip around the ear, and send somebody home.

We look back and we say we can long for those days, but the police have moved on—that is reflected within this bill—and society has moved on, too. But I guess what I would like to see within neighbourhoods around New Zealand is a return to taking ownership, as far as what is tolerable and what is intolerable, in respect of behaviour and the nature of crime. The function of the police is crime prevention, but it is also community support and reassurance, and I would like to think of a time when the community is actually going to take some responsibility for the level of crime it is going to own, and the level of behaviour it is going to tolerate.

Clause 20 is about the police code of conduct, and, to a large degree, the code replaces the police regulations. The regulations were a list of dos and don’ts. Many of us former police officers will recall them, as I am sure will Superintendent McCardle who is present today as an adviser. I recall that, as a punishment, we had to write out various regulations. They covered such things as the times we were allowed to sit down while on the beat, that we were not allowed to have a beer while on the beat, and the speed we had to walk at while on the beat. But a particularly comical regulation enacted in 1976, by the then commissioner, decreed that police officers were not allowed to live in de facto relationships, despite the fact that many hundreds of them were. Another regulation, which I think abides until this day, was that a member of the police had to seek permission to marry. Quite frequently, the marriage ceremony was well over by the time the permission was granted, and if the person whom the officer wanted to take down the aisle was not acceptable to the police, but nevertheless through lust, love, or infatuation the wedding proceeded, it was only a $100 fine in any event. Maybe a good wife was worth paying $100 for!

The code of conduct is something that will prescribe the behaviour of police. It is another measure to have come out of the Bazley report—a relatively dark period in police history. However, there is contention around that code of conduct and what behaviour it should prescribe, bearing in mind it has left out some things that a lot of us believe should be in there. We will have to wait and see. The report was due out a couple of months ago and, no doubt, we will see it in the next short while.

National supports Part 2 and we look forward to seeing the movement of the legislation to recognise the issues the police have already addressed. One the beasts that it creates, under clause 24, is an authorised officer. Those officers are not constables but have had powers delegated to them by the commissioner, to take account of the fact that it is not necessary to have sworn officers to do every aspect of policing that traditionally we have come to expect a sworn officer to do. Whether or not it is around jailing duties, scenes of crime duties or other orders, collecting fines, or watch-house duties the provision accepts the fact we are living in a modern age. It recognises that various duties need to be accounted for and that those matters can be handled by people well associated with the role of policing and well experienced in the role of policing without needing the delegation of powers to a sworn officer. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : Part 2, “Organisation and governance”, is of considerable interest because we see very much the visible part of policing as the uniform in our communities. Part 2 really does come to grips with the very structure, and we know that any organisation is only as effective as it is well structured. So when we look at this bill, which we look forward to becoming the Policing Act, we see that it is applied very much to the present-day context. It takes into consideration the principles, the national context, and the community context—that importance of building confidence with the community so the community supports policing in a positive way. It puts everything very much in a positive context; the importance of where human rights are recognised today, the independence of police, the impartiality of the police, the professional aspects and ethics of policing, and that all builds towards integrity and community support.

The functions of the police are pretty basic. They would not have changed, I imagine, from the original set-up of policing as we know it, such as the keeping of peace, law enforcement, crime prevention, community support and reassurance, national security, participation in policing activities outside New Zealand, and emergency management. When we stop and think about those storms we had last week, and of the saying: “A day in politics is a long time”, well, that week seemed like a year. This time last week we were all trying to commute out of Wellington to get back to our electorates and it was wonderful to see just how busy Nathan Guy was—the outstanding member who lives in Ōtaki. He got out there amongst the farmers, alongside the police and the emergency management services, and helped to nurse and heal his future electorate back to good health.

I was not able to get back to Blenheim until the Friday, but it gave me great pleasure to be able to write a letter to the editor acknowledging with humility and respect the contribution the police had made along with all those other people in the community, and civil defence, towards securing the safety of the people of Marlborough. It is on that very basis that Part 2 really comes to grips with the structure around policing.

I turn to Subpart 2 that talks about the appointment of the commissioner. I think that particular process is laudable in the sense that the tone of any structure or any organisation is set from the top. It is just so very important that that process is clearly defined and stuck to with rigour. We see that the process for the appointment of the commissioner is at the pleasure of the Governor-General but on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

That also applies in clause 13, “Appointment of Deputy Commissioners”, again in subclause (1) “on the recommendation of the Prime Minister,” and in subclause (2) “at the pleasure of the Governor-General.” So that part of Subpart 2 takes us through the appointment of the commissioner, which no doubt sets the very tone for the policing structure, as was borne out again by Chester Borrows with his considerable experience. That tone set at the top of the policing structure is an issue that needs to be considered always, because clause 20, “Code of conduct”, states: “(1) The Commissioner must prescribe a code of conduct for Police employees, stating the standards of behaviour expected from Police employees.” Clause 22 is headed “Police employee becomes constable by taking constable’s oath”. That is interesting, and I would like to hear the oath spoken in Māori. So if the Māori Party member has the opportunity of going to clause 22(1), I will do my best effort to read out the oath in English. Basically it states that the constable swears to faithfully and diligently serve Her Majesty, Queen of New Zealand, and her heirs and successors.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) : Tēnā tātou katoa. There is something I must correct for those of our citizens listening. Hone Harawira, a member of our Māori Party, was not preparing to swear at the police; he was being challenged and invited to give the oath that swears allegiance to the principles that underlie the police. As I stand I will make particular mention of a man who, on our marae in the North, embodies the finest sentiments and qualities of our police force—Paddy Whiu. He is soon to be honoured for his long length of service, and if there is anyone who is a walking, living—if slightly rotund—example of good policing in our Māori community, it is Paddy Whiu. Of course, I will not make the reference of rotundity to his face.

This bill is dealing with policing challenges in the time in which we live, and the binary nature of New Zealand society has passed us by. Of course, those of us who come from the tangata whenua are proud of our heritage and our inheritance, but the police, whilst recognising that, have to deal with pluralism. They have to ensure, when they exercise the force of law countenanced by the highest court in the land—this Parliament—they do it in such a way that they enjoy legitimacy through consent. So their activities must be endorsed. Their activities are to keep the peace. Admittedly, there are great debates on our marae, particularly on those of Tūhoe—although they seem to have come to their senses and signed a deal. They are moving on from the dust that was stirred up in Rūātoki, but other fora will have to deal with that—and God bless them! So in the notions of our being a diverse society, and our having to deal with the presence of new religions and the challenges of our rangatahi, there should always be an awareness of the police that says “Yes, we will deal with pluralism, but at the end of the day, if you consistently break the law, and if you want to continually involve yourself in crime, you will end up in the hīnaki and do the time.”

Earlier, our colleague from Whanganui made a very important point: the police are required to make decisions in very trying circumstances, but those decisions can change the course of a person’s life. If they are egregiously offbeat, they can change the course of that police officer’s life. If they are made in a spirit of intemperateness, or without the right information, they can blight a citizen’s life. That is why, in our free, democratic system, under the careful stewardship of the Government—which will persist for a long time to come—they must sit under the rule of law. That is why, despite the changing times, the ebb and flow of birth rates, and the arrival of different ethnic groups, the rule of law has to exist beyond the shadows, beyond the anxieties of any particular group, because underlying civil society, the rule of law is one of the deeper principles that bind us together.

This Policing Bill, I think, is built not only on the efforts of the originators of its thinking, and of reformers, but on fresh ideas. I heard my colleague Mr Gallagher refer to one of those ideas. I would like it recorded that one of the most sensible ideas in interacting with our people, te Ao Māori, has been the reform and closeness of our Māori Wardens working with the tari pirihimana, our police officers. Our Māori wardens realise that they can interpose themselves, because not all the rangatahi are happy about the police. Indeed, I have seven kids of my own, and they have told one or three tales that are best left unstated. But the Māori Wardens are able to intervene, and they are being developed—[Interruption] Far be it for me to invite my two parliamentary rugby, golden oldie players to tell stories about the French police—no, no! We are focused here on Aotearoa.

Chris Tremain: What goes on tour—

Hon SHANE JONES: What goes on tour stays on tour. That is a nuclear button, buddy—do not forget that. However, in rounding up this small contribution, I tell the Committee that the police must be very mindful of biculturalism. But, as South Auckland shows, the reality is our population now comprises so many more different races and ethnic groups, but the police operate under the rule of law and a system, countenanced by this Parliament, that recognises that no member of the police force or individual is beyond the rule of law. Kia ora tātou katoa.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : Before I address the issues in Part 2 that I would like to draw to the attention of the Committee, I commend the Minister of Police for the work she has led on this bill. I also commend her for quite a solid approach in the Wairarapa electorate, where together we have been present when new police facilities have been opened in places like Norsewood. Some quite fine senior police officers, particularly from Palmerston North, have been covering that central area. One of them has moved on, unfortunately, but I offer my congratulations.

I also draw the attention of the Committee to the police code of conduct, and the work done on that by Dame Margaret Bazley, who is resident in Carterton, in my electorate. She has done a very fine job. She is a very fine New Zealander, and I particularly thank her for this work.

I now address the bill and the questions of organisation and governance of the police, which Part 2 covers. If we are to have a police system that works in provincial New Zealand, then the first thing it must have is a telephone system that works. I get complaint after complaint, because people telephone their police station in Featherston, Greytown, Carterton, Pātangata, or Porangahau and they are put through to an operator who is located somewhere else in the country and has no understanding of the area in which the caller is located. It is all very well setting up this legislative framework and replacing 50 years’ worth of legislation and 25 previous amendments, but we have to have a system that works on the ground.

The second point I would make is that a system that works on the ground depends on having good leadership in our police force, and that can be variable, particularly in provincial New Zealand. I would urge the commissioner and the Minister to keep a close eye on that issue. The third point is that we have to have a system that is responsive. There is no point in having a police station in Carterton that is open only occasionally, then resisting, for 3 years, the representations of the local Mayor, Gary McPhee, and then eventually agreeing to appoint an administrative officer—a public face—who can keep the station open from 9 to 5, which is what we now have. My problem is that it should not have taken 3 years to achieve that.

I refer now to clause 9, “Functions of Police”. I suggest to the Minister that she review this clause carefully, because it strikes me that the first job of our police, which is law enforcement, is currently listed as paragraph (c). Personally, I would like to see that as the first item. My second concern is that the second function of the police, in terms of order of importance, would be crime prevention, which is currently listed as paragraph (ca). The third issue ought to be community support and reassurance, followed by keeping the peace, which is currently in paragraph (b).

I then feel that paragraph (f), “participation in policing activities outside New Zealand:” should be dropped to the bottom of the list, because emergency management here in New Zealand is clearly far more important than providing resources offshore. It is not that I am opposing providing resources offshore; I just think it should be the final item in the order of principles, and I ask the Minister to provide for that. I do not want a Supplementary Order Paper on this matter, but I ask her to reflect on the logic of the order of police functions in this legislation. If the Minister wants me to produce a Supplementary Order Paper, then, of course, I will.

I particularly support clause 10, “Roles of others acknowledged”. In our communities we have not only Māori wardens but also community watch groups, because our communities are often small—2,000 or 3,000 people. We have local groups, which are generally made up of older people, that come together to keep a watch in our towns through the night, and they have ready access to our local police officer.

I have some slight reservations about Subpart 2 when reflecting on the Prime Minister’s interference in the departure of former Commissioner of Police, Peter Doone. I am not sure whether clause 12, “Appointment of Commissioner”—whereby the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, appoint the Commissioner of Police—completely removes the possibility of a situation like the Doone fiasco arising again.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I will take just a short call, because I can see there is a lot of interest in participating in this debate. I want to address the issue that the member John Hayes raised with regard to the functions of the New Zealand Police. I am informed—and I am sure members who were on the Law and Order Committee will tell the member—that the order was reordered deliberately by the select committee itself, and that was done by a unanimous decision. When the members looked through the order of the functions, they believed that this was the order they ought to be in, and that maybe the chair of the select committee or other members might like to take a call on that. The functions were listed in no particular order, but when the select committee heard submissions, this is the way they reordered them. That decision came out of the select committee.

The member raised a few points in regard to Carterton. I just say to the member that it relates to this bill in that one of the important parts of Part 2 is working with the community to get the sort of policing we need. In Carterton we managed, with the support of the mayor and the New Zealand Police, to ensure a police presence in the Carterton area, and that the community has the ability to be involved in it. I think that is what was so important about it. I take the member’s point about the time it took, but it was resolved. I know that the mayor, who came to see me about this issue, was pleased with the outcome. He worked with the police and we have a satisfactory outcome from it. A good partnership has been formed between local government, the New Zealand Police, and volunteers, and I think that that is a very good outcome from that situation.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I rise to take a short call on Part 2 of the Policing Bill. I think the unanimity that was clear at the end of the Law and Order Committee’s deliberations on this bill pretty much indicates that there was not a great deal of difference in opinion, and many of the speeches I am hearing now might be described as a bit of a walk down memory lane or an opportunity to highlight some deficiencies in policing in particular areas. I am familiar with the issue raised by John Hayes from the Wairarapa, because I live in Carterton and I have had discussions with Gary McPhee on a number of occasions, but also because he appeared before the select committee on another matter, being a petition from the people of Carterton, asking for extra staff for that office.

With regard to Part 2, I guess that there is a lot that we could talk about. I was just going back through the advice paper given to the select committee—paper No. 4. If members want to understand some of the deliberations and the issues we discussed, then it would be worth their while to grab hold of that paper from the National Party members who were on the committee and read through it.

Some of the issues that have been discussed thus far were dealt with in the committee and the advice gave us cause to question officials more clearly and persistently. One of those issues that the Minister has just dealt with and that John Hayes raised in particular was an issue that we did discuss—the order of priority for policing. I guess what was clear is that it was never intended to be taken as the order of priority. They were simply the functions as listed. But the committee itself noted their observation and did have some input, and that is why we see the paragraphs numbered as differently as they are. It does not make a lot of sense when we read this clause. The paragraphs are numbered (b), (ba), (c), (ca), (d), (e), (f), so we ask the question straight off “Where’s (a)?”. The answer is that it is just the way that the legislation has been presented to the House, and it will be changed in the final print of the bill. We have had that explained. At the end of the day, that was the order in which the committee wanted to see those functions listed.

However, I note John Hayes’ point. There is a good argument as to why (g) should be (f), and (f) should be (g). If we look at where the primary responsibilities should lie, in terms of focus today, we see there is a very strong argument on the member’s part that emergency management might well sit higher on the priority list than participation in policing activities outside New Zealand. However, I am pretty sure that my leader, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, would have a differing view. As the member himself knows, having had such a long and illustrious career in foreign affairs, some people’s perspectives on policing and the allocation of police resources, given the big picture, might be slightly different on that particular point.

I turn to the principles. When we go back through the advice and go back over the analysis of the submissions that were made, it is interesting to note who made those submissions. The Manukau City Council had a bit to say about the current principles and the issues of transparency, accountability, and decision making. The Sensible Sentencing Trust asked and lobbied strongly for victims to be key and paramount, and that the principles of policing be written around the victim. That is understandable because that is their reason for being. They are the people who have dedicated their lives to supporting others. We acknowledge the submission from the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups—

Sandra Goudie: We don’t want victims. That’s the point.

RON MARK: I say to Sandra Goudie that that is a very strong point. New Zealand First would not disagree with the member. We do not want to see any more victims. We want to see a stronger police force whose functions and principles are designed to ensure that we have an effective police force. I guess at the end of the day New Zealand First would always say that no matter how fine our principles, how fine our functions, and how finely tuned the organisation is, which are all matters that are dealt with in Part 2, we do not achieve anything unless we have enough police on the ground.

I come back to Mr Hayes’ point about Carterton. When I am going home to Carterton late on a Thursday night, having left the House, I am pleased to see police patrol cars still moving through Carterton and through the Wairarapa at 1 and 2 o’clock in the morning. I am very pleased to see that. But maybe we would address some of those problems of not having police stations open 24/7 by doubling the size of our police force, which is a view, a perspective, and a policy that New Zealand First has long stated and stands by, and will continue to pursue regardless of who is in Government. Many of the issues covered in Part 2 will, as Mr Hayes quite rightly points out, be met to their fullest extent only when there is a serious increase in policing numbers. It is good that we have been able to address some of that with the provision of an extra 1,250 police officers, and by lifting the Government’s focus to be on police ratios equivalent to those of Australia by 2010, but obviously that is a political battle that we will have to continue to fight.

There are other issues in Part 2, and we might want to discuss them further on. I will take a pause and see what other points there are that people want to discuss, but the responsibility and independence of the commissioner is something that I do want to comment on. Strong submissions were made by people who came before the committee, pointing out that clause 16 was very important and pointing out the absolute, fundamental need for the commissioner to be not only independent but to be totally believed and seen to be independent. If there is a message that I have for this Committee, it is that we all do it, every one of us—we try to stand up for our constituents, we try to stand up for victims, we try to stand against crime, and we come to this House and demand that the Minister take action, here there and everywhere. But we know inside ourselves that the moment a Minister starts to direct a police commissioner to do this and do that, and not do this and not do that, we have crossed the line and we are on a slippery slope towards Zimbabwe.

New Zealand has a tremendous reputation internationally as a result of the professionalism of the men and women in our police force—the way in which they carry out their duties—and much of that is dependent upon the leadership that is demonstrated at the commissioner’s level, and the resistance that he consistently shows towards being politically guided, pushed, and motivated. We have heard criticisms, and I know from the Police Association that they are politically managed and politically manipulated. I have to say that the day we see evidence of that will be a very, very sad day. It is important that clause 16 stands as it is, and it is important that we in this Chamber all realise and accept and support the notion of the absolute, complete independence of the police and the commissioner from the political process in all spheres.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēna koe, Mr Chairman. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I was not going to speak, but I had a good kōrero with my whanaunga the Hon Shane Jones and he gave me my instructions, so what I have to say can be put down to Mr Jones.

Hon Member: You take instructions.

HONE HARAWIRA: I have taken my instructions. Although he said, a bit like the rugby stuff : “Ngā mea e kotiti haere hākoa te hīkoi me waihotia ki te hīkoi.”—those things that go travelling in the night on the marches, leave those to the marchers.

Talking about Part 2, I must say that I was particularly upset to note that in the list of principles there is no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no mention of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and no mention of anything at all about the Treaty of Waitangi. I find that quite appalling—as does my whanaunga Mr Shane Jones, who has also marched on many a march with me for Treaty rights—considering the relationship of the police in this country with Māori. If ever there was legislation that cried out for the inclusion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, then it is this legislation. I note also the very strong comments from the Commissioner of Police’s Māori focus forum, which strongly recommended that the Treaty of Waitangi be included, and which was very, very upset to find that it had not been.

The involvement of Māori with the police and the armed constabulary goes back to the days of Hone Heke and his troubles with the armed constabulary at Kororāreka and in other places—and it just so happens that the Friday just gone was the anniversary of the death of Hone Heke. The police have often been seen to be supporting the Crown in actions that are not particularly legal. And it is not just in the past either; we are talking about Hokianga and the dog sales—the dog tax—through to Takaparawhau and the fight for Bastion Point, from Whangaroa, Raglan, and the role of the police there in trying to enforce the requests of the Minister, and all the way up to what happened with Tūhoe, quite frankly. The involvement of the police has always been very, very much criticised by Māori, so one would have thought that if ever there was legislation where the principles of the Treaty might have effect, then it is this legislation. Yet this bill shows nothing about that at all.

I recall a number of occasions where I have had direct contact with the police. Some of them have been edgy; in fact, all of them have been that way except for the hīkoi. The reason why the hīkoi was not was that somebody high up recognised the value of the Māori liaison officers, put them alongside the hīkoi, and reduced the tension immediately right from the very first day, such that when we got all the way to Wellington, Wally Haumaha shook my hand and said: “Congratulations! A thousand kilometres, 40,000 people, and not one arrest.” That was an expression of the recognition of the Treaty, I think—the way that somebody recognised a way in which that situation could be managed—yet those principles are not even considered here. So I think that is a huge flaw in this legislation.

I make the point also because I note that Māori Ministers and Māori members of the Labour Party have been hugely critical about Māori Party MPs, and myself in particular, who talk about the fact that those members have often voted against the Treaty. For example, they voted to take the Treaty out of legislation, and they also stood silent while the Treaty was taken out of the curriculum. The Treaty is critical to Māori in every piece of legislation, with this one being the most important.

This year we thought we would do our bit to help Labour members, because they are in such desperate straits in the polls. We are trying to revive Labour so that it becomes a coalition option for the Māori Party. We thought we would put forward an amendment that might give the Labour Māori MPs an opportunity to win back something in terms of the Treaty. We will put forward an amendment that gives effect to the Treaty of Waitangi in the interpretation and administration of this legislation. Clearly, we are putting forward a Treaty of Waitangi clause that will enable those Māori members of the Labour Party to actually vote for the Treaty and take away the stain of their having voted to take the Treaty out of all other legislation in recent years. So I signal that we will put forward that amendment later.

I take also the comments from other members about the roles of other people, such as commissioners and deputy commissioners. It has always been a suggestion of the Māori Party that Wally Haumaha’s status be upgraded to that of assistant commissioner, not only because he might become the Commissioner of Police one day but also because if he is at the level of at least an assistant commissioner or a deputy commissioner, then he must be included in discussions about operations such as the one that involved Tūhoe. That would give him the opportunity to involve his men and it would ensure that the kind of debacle that happened there last year does not happen again. And this is not because I say so, but because the Solicitor-General has ruled that it was a pointless exercise. There were no terrorists up there. There may have been firearm charges, but there were no terrorists.

In terms of the status of some of the officers, my amendment is an opportunity to give value to the Treaty of Waitangi and to include those principles in the legislation. I would like to see Labour members support my amendment to include the Treaty of Waitangi in this legislation. It gives everybody the opportunity to see this bill as finally giving recognition to, dare I say it, a very special relationship between the police and Māori in this country. As we are updating this legislation I would love to see something from the far gone past included to ensure that our pathway is a brighter one in the future. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am delighted to speak on Part 2 of the Policing Bill, and to give my wholehearted support to the police. They do an excellent job, and, of course, we do want to prevent victims—that is why we want our police on the front line. This part of the bill talks about organisation and governance. We want to see police on the front line and not being consumed with lots of paperwork, form-filling, and bureaucracy. We do not want to see office employees growing at the rate of knots, which has happened in a lot of other Government departments. We really do not want to see that replicated amongst our police force. We want them out there at the front line.

On many occasions I have offered my own services to help them out there. I am more than happy to do any surveillance necessary in any of these P operations in order to try to prevent any further criminal activity. I think all responsible New Zealanders would be prepared to do the same. They are not prepared to tolerate the P epidemic that exists in our communities, and they want to protect our young people and support them in going forward. I totally support the police.

We have a shortage of front-line police in the Whitianga and Coromandel township areas, and it would be great to see the additional personnel necessary to address that shortage. We have even gone so far as to offer cheaper accommodation, and other services, facilities, and supports, to encourage people to come and police either in the Coromandel township or in Whitianga. Ideally, we would love to have three police personnel in Coromandel, and we would love a full complement of police in Whitianga. So if any police are listening to me tonight, I ask them to please rock up and consider applying for the job. That person will get our full support. The community will back that person, provide some facilities and services, and help him or her to settle into what is a very, very good community. It is just that we would like a much stronger police presence there. The officers in the wider district do a fantastic job, but we want to see a few more police there to support them in doing that job.

As I said, Part 2 deals with organisation and governance. The principles have been espoused already, and they are very good principles. I would like to endorse the comments that Ron Mark made about the responsibilities and the independence of the Commissioner of Police. I think that that cannot be understated in any way. It is absolutely essential that the independence of the commissioner is very strong, and is seen very clearly from the public’s point of view. I think that that independence is a critical part of the commissioner’s role. It is something that a lot of people have expressed concerns about, whether or not they actually made a submission. I think a lot of people have made submissions to their own local members of Parliament and have not necessarily gone through the submission process of Parliament. So it is incumbent upon us to share those concerns as a part of speaking to the Policing Bill, and I do so, and I acknowledge Ron Mark for also doing that.

What else can I talk about in terms of the functions of the police? Well, I am delighted that we have a lot of community support for the police in the form of community patrols. I had the privilege of going out with them one night, and I know that a number of my colleagues have also taken the opportunity to understand what community patrols do, and, at the same time, understand the difficulties the police face when they undertake their role—particularly at night, when people are just rolling out of the pubs, or indulging in other activities.

When people are stopped for questioning at such times, the police never really know what they will confront, particularly if those people have been on P. One has only to look at that Antonie Dixon character who was apprehended in the Coromandel area, at Pipiroa. He was absolutely wild. He was the sword-wielding and hand-chopping individual. The police never know whether the person they confront will be in the wild, manic state that Mr Dixon was obviously in at the time he carried out the offence.

On that basis, communities play a good role in supporting the police in what they do. Community patrols are fantastic. They do a very good job, and a lot of them have a very strong membership that helps them to undertake that role. It is all about just working in with the police and supporting them in that job, and not trying to take over any of the more serious aspects of that control.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I am continuing my theme, “the policeman is your friend”. I would like to endorse the understanding that the police are only part of the answer in keeping people safe and our society lawful. They cannot do it alone. Policing is successful only if the police have public support and confidence. There is no doubt that we all have responsibilities in contributing to a safe and crime-free society. Clause 10 acknowledges that public agencies and other bodies have an important and valuable role in the performance of the functions of the police, and that the police often have to cooperate with others—individuals and groups—to get results.

That reminds me of a speech that was made by the founder of the Buddha’s Light International Association when he opened the new Buddhist temple in Christchurch. He spoke of the role Buddhists have in society. He believes that it is their job to teach and support their people and to make sure they understand what is right and wrong, and to clearly instruct them on their responsibilities in terms of creating a safe and peaceful society. The chief of police in Canterbury, Dave Cliff, was present at that opening, and the grand master quipped that the New Zealand Police would be required only if the Buddhist community failed its people. That is an example of the police working with the Buddhist community, in respecting their contribution, and in understanding that if the relationship is working, the police should not be required.

When we look at the wide variety of functions of the police, in clause 9, we see that they vary from crime prevention and law enforcement, to their supporting and reassuring the community, keeping of the peace, and national security and emergency management. We can see just how many organisations the police have to interact with successfully if they are to do their work well. Those organisations range from local government and mayors, community groups, schools, churches, families—in fact, all New Zealand citizens.

Clause 9(f) concerns policing activities outside New Zealand, and this is an important part of policing duties. Last year I visited Timor-Leste as part of the United Nations group monitoring the first parliamentary elections. While I was there I visited the New Zealand police who were stationed in Dili. I was really impressed by the work they were doing. They were working with the Timorese people in very difficult situations, but they were doing it with skill and sensitivity. They were highly respected by the locals. Although there were police from many nations in Timor-Leste, New Zealanders were mentioned as being highly respected and highly regarded. I think part of that, as Shane Jones mentioned, was that they were a bicultural group and that the Māori language has similar roots to Tetum, the language of Timor-Leste, so the New Zealand police could relate on another level with the local people. I think that reflects that the Timorese would truly believe that the New Zealand police are their friends.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I am delighted to take a brief call on this matter, because I want to say something about Mr Harawira’s amendment, which proposes to insert a Treaty clause into the Policing Bill. I have spoken on Treaty clauses in this Committee and in the House on a number of occasions. I refer to a speech I gave on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill on 26 July 2006.

Hon Darren Hughes: Just remind us again.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: For Mr Hughes’ benefit, because I know he always reads my speeches and, indeed, memorises them, I say to Mr Hughes that this speech can be found in Hansard, Volume 632, at page 4454.

In that speech, which dealt with Mr Woolerton’s rather substandard bill on deletion of the principles of the Treaty, I identified four types of legislation that contain Treaty provisions: firstly, general legislation; secondly, private Acts; thirdly, settlement legislation; and, finally, two important Treaty statutes that deserve special mention. I argued that I failed to see how it was appropriate to remove Treaty provisions from certain types of legislation, but include a Treaty provision when dealing with general legislation like the Crown Minerals Act, the Crown Pastoral Land Act, or the Crown Research Institutes Act.

I adopt a similar approach to the insertion of a Treaty clause in this particular bill, because it is of general applicability. The responsibilities of the police are to every New Zealander, regardless of race, creed, colour, or political party. They have those general obligations, rather than specific obligations.

So, with the greatest of respect to Mr Harawira, it seems to me that although it may be appropriate to have a Treaty clause in Treaty settlement legislation—because the breaches of the principles of the Treaty are the very reason why there needs to be a hearing in the Waitangi Tribunal and a Treaty settlement—I have difficulty with the inclusion of Treaty clauses in legislation that is to have general applicability. So National will not be supporting this proposed amendment. We understand why the member has put the amendment forward, but we do not think it is consistent with the general principles of statutory interpretation for this type of legislation.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hone Harawira to clause 8 be agreed to:

to add the following paragraph:

(g)in interpreting and administering this Act to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : Part 3 is about support for effective policing. It sets out proposals to support front-line policing through access to clear powers and protections. Principally, it covers areas of current policing practice and existing law that can be carried forward into the new Policing Act, in some cases with updated language and minor change.

A small number of police-related provisions and other statutes are also transferred into the new Policing Act by this bill, notably a small number of front-line police powers, which will have better visibility in the Policing Act for those who have to use them day by day. In particular, clauses 32 to 33 modernise the way in which the police are able to obtain particulars of identification of persons they take into custody or whom they intend to summons for an offence.

There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name with a small technical change on this particular part. I do not think it requires a lot of explanation from me, but, obviously, effective policing, bringing forward those particular powers and protections into this Act, bringing forward provisions from other statutes, and making the Act clearer and easier to use for those who have to use it on an everyday basis is important.

It is also important, I think, to ensure we modernise the language. One of the interesting things about the old Act, as one sees if one reads it, is that it was certainly written for 1958. Not many of us would actually remember what 1958 was like, but the language of the old Act reflects those times. This part of the bill is about bringing the old Act forward, making those minor changes, and bringing the legislation up to contemporary times.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : National will be supporting Part 3 of the Policing Bill as well. As the Minister has said, it runs through a number of powers and abilities that the police have in respect of dealing with people in custody, dealing with people on the street, and obtaining and identifying particulars of persons whom they may wish to issue a summons to in order to expedite their dealings with them and bring them before the court.

It also relates to searches of people in custody and the identifying particulars that they are able to take from those who get arrested to be taken before the court. It allows for the security of biometric information in relation to them, as well. It also helps the police in dealing, for instance, with intoxicated people, who unfortunately the police have to deal with from time to time, with the power of arrest but without having to go on and prefer charges on them. The bill is moving to allow the police to deal with people in a humane way.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.