Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I move, That the Policing Bill be now read a third time. As we have heard in earlier debates this week the bill contains the most significant legislative proposals on policing to come before this House in half a century, and I thank the members of this House for the very constructive way that they have debated this bill in bringing it to this stage today. Fundamentally, it is about renewing the New Zealand Police mandate to protect life and property, to maintain law and order, to prevent and detect crime, to minimise crashes, and to prosecute offenders.

As a Government we have invested heavily in giving the New Zealand Police the resources needed to act on this mandate, and we now have a record number of police officers, with many more on the way. Many of them operate out of refurbished stations and are backed by new protective equipment. We have also encouraged a focus on tackling the root causes of crime by intervening early and effectively to stop the cycle of offending from getting started. Police have a critical role to play at the entry point of the criminal justice system and they are increasingly looked to for their ability to positively influence people, especially young people, away from a life of crime. We must ensure that our Acts and our laws actively support effective policing. This bill brings together aspects of existing legislation that it is appropriate to consolidate, introduces some much-needed reforms, and—where sensible—builds in flexibility for the future.

I would like to briefly reflect on the process we used to develop this bill. I use the word “we” quite deliberately to indicate that this has been a journey shared by many New Zealanders from all walks of life as well as parliamentary colleagues across the political spectrum. There has been input from a broad array of agencies, non-government groups, academics, and commentators, from international bodies through to local community law centres, and—critically—from the police service organisations, and directly from front-line staff. All these voices have been heard as part of a wide-ranging conversation about policing. On the back of this highly successful public engagement exercise we have, in this Policing Bill, a powerful force for change.

Today the Commissioner of Police has under his charge over 11,000 employees—the largest single body of police personnel in our nation’s history. As the Policing Bill makes clear, these men and women stand shoulder to shoulder with the policing efforts of our local volunteers, our wardens, private security workers, and a wide array of local and central government agencies. The New Zealand Police is made up of ordinary men and women who take on a personal and professional responsibility to perform extraordinary tasks without fear or favour, malice or ill will. Up and down the country police do remarkable and difficult work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, often in situations where they have to put their own safety on the line.

At a time so soon after the tragic death of Sergeant Derek Wootton, killed in the line of duty, it is appropriate to recall the sacrifices individual members of the police make for our protection. Although police are too often criticised, few of us could do their job. Without dwelling on the negatives, most of us will know it includes attending some of the most horrific scenes, sometimes staying with bodies, and having to break sad news to next of kin; any single occurrence being enough for most people to cope with at one time. We expect a lot of our police and all too rarely we give thanks and praise for their service. That is why it gives me great pride to present the Policing Bill back for its third reading, because it contains measures that value our police and that will support them to do their best.

Of all the issues in this bill there is only one that raised any controversy during the Committee of the whole House—the question of police officers as politicians. The Police Association has expressed its disappointment in the decision of Parliament, but on the weight of the evidence provided to members of Parliament, the majority of Parliament voted to exclude police officers from serving both as a police officer and as a local body politician at the same time. They are still able to serve on community boards as community board councillors, and the five existing officers who are already councillors have been given the ability to continue in that role for as long as they are re-elected to the position.

That was the only issue of major debate. There was overall agreement from across the political divide on the way forward, and it means a lot when it comes to bringing legislation into this House to have that strong support from Parliament. The Policing Bill is a modern form of legislation that lays a solid platform for the New Zealand Police to contribute even more effectively to having Safer Communities Together. I warmly commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to it receiving unanimous support.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise, as the first speaker from the National Party in this debate, to endorse the Policing Bill to the House and to underline National’s agreement to support it. The bill recognises the need to reform legislation governing the provision of policing services in New Zealand as they have remained since the implementation of the previous Act in 1958. Over the 50 years since that legislation was introduced to the House a number of piecemeal amendments have been made to take account of the changes to policing activity over those 50 years. It has been the right time to bring together in one bill a number of strategies, abilities, and powers that will allow the police to work with a clean piece of legislation that takes account of the way policing is done these days.

The bill recognises that the police operate not in a vacuum but in a grouping of partner enterprises that move to do policing in New Zealand as it is done in 2008. Some of these partners are public entities and non-governmental organisations, some of them are companies that are doing policing for reward, and some of them are police volunteers who give of their time in police stations and out on the street at all hours of the day and night.

The Policing Bill as it is at the moment has underpinning it a number of principles, and those principles are described within the bill in the following way: “(a) principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law: (b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence: (c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus: (d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights: (e) policing services are provided independently and impartially: (f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.”

It is a shame that there are those who would call into question the ethics and the professionalism of an organisation such as the New Zealand Police. It is a shame that there have been isolated cases within the police, as there are with every other organisation or business that exists, where the odd person who, through his or her activities, detracts from the overall confidence in the whole of the organisation. It is also frustrating that there are people who would seek to denigrate the ethics and professionalism of the New Zealand Police as a group. In the last couple of days we have seen some incidents that relate to that. For instance, a couple of organisations have made public comment in respect of the decision of the police commissioner to implement the use of Tasers within the New Zealand Police. These groups and political parties never seem to support the police as a group in anything that they do. In fact, it is very difficult to recall a single instance when the Green Party has supported any activity that the police have ever conducted, and I am sure that has more to do with the individual histories of Green members and their supporters than it has to do with anything tangible that they can relate to.

The decision to distribute Tasers as a policing tool is one that has come not as a flash in the pan but after a long period of trial and a long period of assessment. Although the National Party has some suspicions about the way the issue was discussed in the House yesterday—and the authenticity of calling for feedback from members of Parliament, and then announcing the implementation on the following day—the comments that have been made around the ability to abuse Tasers, and the application of arguments about the way in which they have been employed in other countries to New Zealand, are quite farcical.

The fact is that we have moved on as a country, whether we like it or not. We have moved on in some ways that are good, progressive, and helpful, but we have also moved on in ways that are bad, that detract from our society, and that are unhelpful—especially in the way that people offend against the law in this country. I cite, for instance, the proliferation of the use of methamphetamine, and the ability of police to deal with people who are wound up on this despicable drug and in the hands of those who are promoting it. It is very difficult to deal with somebody who is high on methamphetamine. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somebody who is shot with a Taser and receives an electric shock, falls to the ground, and is then able to be dealt with—cuffed and stuffed, put in a police van, and taken off to a police station—is treated significantly more violently than if there were four, five, or six policemen trying to jump on that person, who is out of his or her tree, and manhandle him or her in such a way. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that that person’s pre-existing heart condition—or any other condition—would respond in a much more serious way if he or she had been Tasered. If we look at those who have been arrested in similar circumstances and who had a heart condition, we find they had the same sorts of problems in terms of their heart. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is unnecessary for the police to have a less-than-lethal weapon to use in those situations to cope with a modern drug and its effects, or to say the police can deal with the issue in some other way. That fact seems to have escaped the attention of members of the Green Party and those detractors of the use of Tasers, because they have not offered other options.

I want to pick up on comments by the Minister about the issues of cops as politicians, which she said was the only controversial part of the bill. The National Party thinks the way that issue came up was most unusual or pretty dodgy. We have to remember that those giving evidence at the Law and Order Committee on that provision did so on 23 April this year. There was no adverse comment by Labour members of the committee on the evidence as it was presented right through until 2 July, when the Minister of Police appeared before the committee and gave repeated assurances—after questioning from more than one National member—that the Labour Party caucus was in favour of police officers being able to stand in local authority elections. What happened next, and the path taken, is quite amazing. Obviously there was a decision made in caucus, and the Minister said that the Labour Party caucus had changed its mind. If that is the case, it must have changed its mind a couple of weeks ago. Word filtered through that there had been a change of heart and that we needed to be on the lookout for a new Supplementary Order Paper being tabled. That was not tabled until after 3 o’clock on the day the bill was going to be discussed in the Committee. We have to ask ourselves why on earth that accommodation was made. National members were monitoring the Bills Office, looking for a Supplementary Order Paper, but it did not come through with any opportunity for members of the House, or those who had an interest in the bill—such as the Police Association and members of the public watching from the outside—to be able to deal with that issue at that late stage. Having been given the assurance by the Minister that this significant vote in respect of her portfolio was going to be dealt with in a particular way by her own party caucus, it was not only surprising but in our mind very, very suspicious to find that the decision had been completely overturned. We wonder just why that accommodation has been made to another political party that some would say had a vested interest in seeing the bill changed in that particular way.

We come to the third reading of this bill, which the National Party very strongly supports. The bill contains a number of wide-ranging provisions that will enhance the ability of the New Zealand Police to provide a level of service that will meet public expectations. National endorses the bill to the House and looks forward to its passing today.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : I want to acknowledge the historic context of this major legislation, the Policing Bill. It is, and will be seen as, a major achievement by this Parliament, this Government, and this Minister. It is very important to acknowledge the historic context of this bill, which brings the administration of policing for all the community into the 21st century.

The previous speaker, Mr Borrows, the member for Whanganui, has been a very constructive member of the Law and Order Committee, which I used to chair. To date he has made a very constructive contribution to consideration of the bill, but I have been a little disappointed to hear some of his comments—obviously, he was under direction from Central Casting, or the National research unit, or the whips. Clearly, he has been instructed to raise issues around the use of the Taser. I was very sad personally that we heard from Gerry Brownlee yesterday and not Chester Borrows, National’s spokesperson on police. He has far more background in policing than Gerry Brownlee. But Gerry Brownlee does have some experience around common law and community order issues! My good friend Ron Mark from the Christchurch area is well aware of that. But yesterday Chester Borrows was silenced and was not able to speak on the use of Tasers. I acknowledge Ron Mark, the current chairperson of the Law and Order Committee, where indeed the Minister told Mr Borrows at the select committee on, I think, 2 July that the Commissioner of Police would like to hear Parliament’s view with reference to the Taser issue. I want to move on, though, because this is just a short call, and, frankly, I am looking forward to getting this historic legislation through and I am looking forward to the contribution that the chair of the select committee will be making.

This bill was and is about renewing the mandate of the New Zealand Police to protect life and property, maintain law and order, prevent and detect crime, minimise crashes, and prosecute offenders. Again I acknowledge, in terms of the confidence and supply agreement we have with New Zealand First, that we have absolutely ploughed extra resources into the New Zealand Police. We now have record numbers of police officers and more on the way. Many are operating out of refurbished stations and backed by new protective equipment. Indeed, we have focused on tackling the root causes of crime by intervening early and effectively to help stop the cycle of offending from getting started. Obviously, the police have a very critical role in terms of the entry points to the criminal justice system, and they are increasingly looked to for their ability to positively influence people, particularly young people, away from a life of crime. This is a historic day because this bill is the platform for the modern New Zealand Police in a 21st century society.

The reality is that the member for Hamilton East, David Bennett, has praised our Minister of Police on a number of occasions. I know that to be true. I know that he is delighted with the service of the police in the Hamilton area, under the district commander, Allan Boreham, who is giving very, very positive leadership. I know David Bennett finds it quite frustrating to be in Opposition, because I know that there are media releases he would like to give that say “This is a very good Minister.”

I now conclude my contribution by saying that this is a historic day and this is a historic bill. I pay personal tribute to the years of work, particularly by this Minister of Police. I want to thank her, I want to thank the Commissioner of Police, and I want to thank the Law and Order Committee and acknowledge the positive contribution of the chair of the Law and Order Committee. But, most important, I want to join others in paying tribute to the men and women of the New Zealand Police, who every day do not know what that particular day holds, and who serve our country so well. Today we honour them, and I believe that this bill will be an appropriate reflection of the environment in which they will continue to serve their country in the years to come.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I am certainly pleased to rise today and speak in support of the Policing Bill at its third reading. It is interesting that we should have the third reading debate today, on the very day that the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, has finalised the decision on Taser use—its introduction as a tactical weapon option.

I think one of the outstanding features of this Policing Bill is actually seen in relation to consultation. The legislation shows how proper consultation, with a bit of collaboration and cooperation, can actually work and produce a bill that is by and large uncontentious and well received by all. Before the bill even reached the House it was subject to a rigorous and extremely well-managed consultation round. We can give examples in the House of other bills that have not had the same fate, but I think we all know which ones they are. Certainly in the case of the Policing Bill New Zealanders were given multiple opportunities to have their say about the future, and the future look, of the New Zealand Police. Just to reiterate the extent of that consultation to raise awareness of this Police Act review, I tell members that, as I understand it, more than 80 meetings were held around the country and more than 1,200 people attended those meetings. I have said this before, but in light of what has gone on over the past weeks it is important to say again to members of the public watching or listening that it has been a pleasure to work on this bill, which has enjoyed—by and large, as I said—the full cooperation and backing of all parties in Parliament.

For the most part the bill has been non-contentious, and it has passed relatively swiftly through the House. That swift passage is due in part, I think, to the work of the Law and Order Committee—which was very fine work, I have to say, and very ably led by our chair—and also of Hamish McCardle and the Police Act review team, who consulted with those hundreds of interested parties and worked on this bill for the past couple of years.

The bill has successfully managed to retain the original principles of the Police Act 1958, an Act that came into force when our police spokesperson was 1 year old—I would quite like to add that to the debate.

Pita Paraone: How old?

KATE WILKINSON: One year old in 1958. The bill will also, hopefully, improve police accountability. We have heard much about the original principles in previous speeches. However, I think it is important to mention those principles again, as they have stood the test of time and they continue to underpin our police force. Those principles, as defined in clause 8, are that “(a) principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law: (b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence: (c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus: (d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights: (e) policing services are provided independently and impartially:”, and finally that “(f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.” Those principles are as relevant today as they were in 1958.

Before I move on to my main concern in relation to this bill I want to join with others and give the police force in New Zealand the credit I wholeheartedly think it deserves. Yes, the police have faced some setbacks in recent years. Yes, they have received negative media coverage over the unfortunate actions of a minority, who have potentially tainted their public image. But, equally, I believe that they deserve our support, our respect, and our confidence. Policemen and policewomen up and down the country do a tremendous job every day in keeping our communities as safe as possible. Unfortunately this is something that can easily be forgotten when the heat is turned on, and it is also something that can easily be taken for granted. With the passing of this bill we are enabling the police to do their jobs better by providing them with the necessary tool kit to allow them to deal with 21st century situations.

My main concern—and I must say I was disappointed with the Minister’s recent flip-flop over it—is clause 97, the “cops as councillors” clause as it is colloquially known. It concerns police who can also serve as elected councillors on local authorities. It was just over a month ago, in response to my question at the select committee, that the Minister assured us that cops could be councillors. In fact, the question was quite clear. The question was “So, cops can be councillors?”, and the Minister responded “Indeed.” I have to say that that change of stance is slightly disappointing, in the sense that the Police Association and others have not had the opportunity to be consulted on this turn-round.

There are still some unanswered questions in relation to clause 97, and the first is: where is the actual evidence of problems occurring where an existing police officer is serving on a local authority or community board? Although I have asked that question, it has unfortunately remained unanswered. Is there any evidence that existing police who are serving as councillors are not able to fulfil both duties well? Is there any evidence that any potential conflict of interest has not been dealt with sufficiently? Those questions have remained unanswered, and instead we have had the last-minute Supplementary Order Paper, an amendment that allows only existing councillors who are also police to remain as councillors. It does not allow for new councillors to be elected if they are members of the police force.

The second question is: what happened since that meeting of the Law and Order Committee in July to change the mind of the Minister of Police? We can speculate that maybe some backroom deal was brokered in return for support over other bills. Who knows? But certainly that suspicion has been aroused. The question of why authorised officers and police are explicitly banned from being able to be elected members of local government has been argued on the basis of the age-old principle of the separation of powers, and on the basis that the lawmakers should not be the law enforcers. That is a constitutional principle that we really should be careful about departing from. However, law also has to be based somewhat on common sense—[Interruption]—and the Minister knows about the law of common sense. In some situations there is a question about why the public cannot be trusted to elect the councillors it thinks are the best people to do the job. This last-minute amendment by the Minister has actually been described as a betrayal of the trust of all police officers, who believed right up until the last minute that they would continue to be able to fulfil their duties as police officers as well as to stand at local body elections. National is certainly disappointed that the amendment moved by my colleague Mr Borrows was voted down.

Having said that, I do commend this bill for all the good it does through confirming and strengthening police governance, accountability, and organisational arrangements in a way that reflects 21st century New Zealand, by making the organisation of the New Zealand Police as a whole more accountable and transparent, and at the same time by improving police efficiency. I am delighted to continue to support the passage of the Policing Bill through this House at its third reading.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I rise to take a New Zealand First call and, again, to continue our support for this Policing Bill through its third and final stage. As the chairman of the Law and Order Committee, I also wish to take this opportunity to say it is a privilege to serve on the Law and Order Committee. It is in some ways a little disappointing that we have only three parties of all the parties in the House represented on that committee. It is made up of three Labour members and three National members, with the New Zealand First member being the seventh member.

Sometimes with legislation that is as important as this bill going across the committee’s table it gives me cause for concern that some of the other parties—particularly some whose members can be so vocal on law and order issues on occasions, like the ACT party—do not have a representative on that committee, and choose not to attend at least some of the hearings of that select committee. I have noted on numerous occasions—

Pita Paraone: They’re too busy dancing, or with the Territorials!

RON MARK: They are probably dancing, and probably looking very fine in yellow too, I say to Pita. I note that members of other parties in the House have come before the Law and Order Committee and have sat on the committee as ad hoc members. Nandor Tanczos was frequently at the Law and Order Committee to hear submissions on bills that the Green Party clearly had an interest in. Over the years we became quite attuned and used to seeing members like Nandor appear and participate. Likewise, Sue Bradford attended the select committee when the committee was dealing with matters she had a strong interest in. I would have thought that in some ways this Policing Bill, being such significant legislation, might have attracted the interest of some of the other parties, but that is the way it goes.

I said before that it is a privilege to serve on this committee alongside these people, and I truly mean that. It has been a very constructive committee, although we might have our political, philosophical, and ideological differences, views, and opinions, and it would be nice if that constructiveness was reported by the media, which seem to revel in telling all and sundry, through the television screen and over the radio airwaves, what a pathetic bunch of puerile people MPs are and in saying that they can never agree on anything. It would be nice, actually, if for once the media were to get off their high damn horse, to come and sit through an entire session of a committee such as the Law and Order Committee, and to see how well members across the party divide work together when it is necessary. In this case, the result has been a truly good result, and the report back and the legislation show that.

We grappled with a number of issues that challenged us—for example, the reference to a “Henry VIII” clause, which I had never heard of in my entire life. I am not a lawyer, and at the first mention of a “Henry VIII” clause, I wondered who would have their heads cut off under this legislation. But it certainly had nothing to do with that. However, we had clause 27 amended to ensure that the confirmation of an Order in Council by an Act of Parliament was required. It caused a lot of debate. I think, if I am correct, that we asked for a referral to the Regulations Review Committee. People can see that our select committee worked with another select committee, and with members of other parties through that committee, just to assure ourselves that our view of this “Henry VIII” clause was the right view and that we were dealing with it in the right way. I have a strong sneaking suspicion that Dr Richard Worth might also have supplied commentary to assist us. We worked through that little tangle and we came out in the end. We have a result.

Policing is not just about standing up in this House and condemning what other MPs or other parties are doing or not doing, and making promises on the election trail as to what one’s party will do for the police. Politically, one’s support for the police and the value of that support can be assessed only where the rubber is hitting the road. This legislation, which has been discussed for years as being necessary, is essential. It is essential that the review be initiated and completed, and that the Act be drafted. I am just astounded, really, by how quickly after taking the office of the Minister of Police the Minister and the new Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, got this legislation together with such a thorough and purposeful consultative process. Again, the Minister, Police Commissioner Broad, and the police review team need to be congratulated on that work. I also congratulate the rest of the members in this House on helping the Government to get this bill through Parliament.

But now comes the next part. For a modern police force to be effective it must be resourced. This legislation is one part of the resourcing. The next part is money—money to pay the men and women in blue, to equip them, to ensure that they are on the road in the right places, in the right numbers, and at the right times to be able to tend the right aid and the right assistance to citizens in need at that time of need. The only measure as to whether we are delivering on that is feedback from the public, and how different that feedback is already. The public is seeing the impact of an extra 1,250 police arriving on their doorstep, with the increase of staff numbers at various police stations and police districts around the country. We are already starting to see the result.

The Policing Bill deals with the interoperability of the police with other agencies, notably Māori wardens. New Zealand First members have always been strong supporters of Māori wardens, and have specifically pushed the Government to put funding in there. We can look at the result already. The commissioner took this provision on board months and months ago, and now we see that the police are formally helping the Māori wardens by training them, aiding them, equipping them, and preparing them, and by getting them out on to the street under their own steam, their own command, and their own auspices under the statutory rules that govern them.

We are seeing the result of that already. There has been a 29 percent reduction in crime in the central business district in Rotorua. I was told today of other areas around Manurewa that have already seen a massive reduction in Māori-related crime as a direct result of this improved operation between the police and the Māori wardens. That is to be commended, and it will only get better.

To those who want to run out of here in a few weeks’ time and start making promises, I say that the only thing that actually matters is what they do and what they have done. They will be assessed on what they will do by what they have actually done. This Government and New Zealand First have done a tremendous amount—in fact, a historic amount—for the police. This legislation is part of that.

I will conclude by mentioning clause 97. A lot of rhetoric has been expended on the airwaves, on the television, and through the media over the last couple of days, and some of it borders on being vitriolic. No police officer who is a councillor today will not be a councillor tomorrow, and every councillor who is a police officer—who stood in the last election and was successful—may stand in the next one, and if successful, may stand in the next one. This change replaces only what existed under section 31 of the 1958 Police Act. It was put there by our forebears, our forefathers, for very sensible, conventional, and constitutional reasons. We all know that, and we know it to be the right and proper thing.

So let us not have any more vitriol directed personally at the Minister or at me, because some of the people who have been expressing such harsh words might want to come back and talk to us in a few weeks’ time. They might like to find the door open, might they not?

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party supports the Policing Bill. It systematises the legal foundation of our police services quite well. It is important that we get it right, because of the very important role that the police play in our society to make sure that the law is upheld, and it is important that the police are operationally independent. I think we see them as being operationally independent from the Government and from the Parliament. We have seen examples, even in this current Parliament and the previous Parliament, where the MPs themselves sometimes misbehave and sometimes even break the law. It is important that there be no pressure put on the police not to uphold the law properly in respect of MPs just as they would uphold the law properly in respect of every other citizen. It is important that they are bound by a professional code of ethics and operate independently. Because they are a disciplined force, it is important—and the last speaker mentioned this—that there is a clear separation of powers between those who enforce the law, the police; those who are in judgment on those who break the law, the judiciary; and those who make the law, those of us here in Parliament. For that reason the Green Party has gone along with the provision that police officers cannot be full-time members of city councils. City councillors make the law in the form of by-laws, so we should not have police officers—who enforce those by-laws and the general laws—on the city councils. However, I indicated in my previous speech that I have sympathy for the few police officers who are on city councils at present and who do a good job. I personally know Alf Filipaina, who is on the Manukau City Council, and he is a very good constable who has done quite well as a city councillor, as well.

The police have to be operationally independent but there is no strict rule book by which to work out what is an operational matter and what is a policy matter. There has been debate on whether the use of Tasers should be an operational decision or whether it should be a policy decision for the Government and Parliament. One way of making clear that something imposed on the police by Parliament or the Government is happening, and is not happening behind the scenes, is to make public the policy position that is being issued in the form of an instruction to the police. Previous legislation, the Police Amendment Bill, which did not go through and has been superseded by this bill, was moving to a situation where the policy directives from the Government would be deposited in this Parliament so that they were clear and above board. That provision is not included in this bill but it might have been a good direction.

In my opinion and in the opinion of the Green Party the decision to bring in Tasers is clearly something that should not be purely an operational decision. It is quite clear from the question I raised in Parliament today that, because Tasers have been declared by the United Nations Committee Against Torture to be instruments of torture, to bring in Tasers would be contrary to international law. That is what the UN committee has decided and communicated to different jurisdictions when it has issued its reports. If we look at international law, we see that it is Governments that are responsible and not police forces. In so far as the question of Tasers enters the area of international law, surely it is a Government responsibility to determine whether Tasers are brought into operation or not; it is not something for just the police force to determine. Any international rulings will be against the Government, not the police. There are a lot of other arguments as to why this should be an issue for Parliament and Government and not simply the police.

When the issue of Tasers is debated, sometimes the arguments against the Green position that Tasers should not be brought in—such as those from Chester Borrows today—are somewhat puerile. For a start, Chester Borrows says that the Greens are against the police and never support them. The Greens have been supporting just about everything the police do, through the whole period of our existence, and we proclaim very often—and I proclaim very often—that we have one of the best police forces in the world. I state that again today. So to say that the Greens are against the police is just silly.

The other argument is that the Greens do not understand that the police are in dangerous situations, and that they need this weapon because they are in those dangerous situations. One of the problems with that argument just in its simple form is that it can be used as an argument for bringing in any weapons, at all. The police considered a whole lot of weapons before they brought in the Taser—they had a whole investigation called Project Lincoln. But we could argue that any such weapons would be justified on the level of argument that they could, in certain circumstances, be useful in dealing with dangerous situations. The thing that disturbs me is the logic being used to bring in the Taser, and that is that there are certain situations where Tasers would be useful—and the Greens have always admitted that—because we go from that argument to the argument that any weapon should therefore be brought in. We could use that same argument to routinely arm the police, as is the situation in the United States. Clearly, there are certain situations where if all police officers had a gun at their hip they might be able to save a life or even their own lives. But is that an argument for routinely arming the police? No, it is not, because there are certain down sides. We see those down sides in the United States, where the routine arming of police and their readiness to use their arms—sometimes at the drop of a hat—have caused more deaths, both of people in the community and of police officers themselves. It has caused great angst in the community and has led to a whole psychology in America that people can pull out their guns quite quickly. Often the victims of that are police officers themselves. New Zealand, to the contrary, has had more of the British style of policing where the police are not regularly armed.

That is the problem with Tasers. Their use is upping the level of violence in policing, and it will lead to a lot of angst, a lot of problems, and a lot of disruption of police-community relations, as it has in America. Members just need to Google “Taser” tonight to see that in the last week or two, just about every day, there is an argument somewhere—particularly in North American jurisdictions—over the misuse of Tasers. Governments around the world, such as the Canadian Government, are currently involved in reviews of Taser use, because of the problems Taser use causes, and how it disrupts police-community relations, without necessarily making the police or community any safer. We have even seen a whole lot of arguments around the misuse of pepper sprays, as in the Whakatāne police cells and elsewhere, or at the Fight for Life protest, or in Rotorua, where one of the protesters got compensation for the misuse of pepper spray by the police.

To bring in a 50,000-volt weapon in that context, where there is already debate over pepper sprays, and where there is already debate around the world over Tasers, is not a step forward. The Green Party is quite against it, and believes that it is such a pity that the commissioner has made a decision to bring in the Taser. Its introduction is a few months off and, hopefully, as a result of the election—and I know that this is what Greg O’Connor is worried about—the Greens might be able to veto the introduction of Tasers, and that would be a very good thing.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : I am grateful to Mr Harawira for yielding the call. In the 6 minutes that remain of parliamentary time tonight I will deal with this legislation in a reasonably robust way. I have had limited involvement with the Policing Bill, but of course it is a bill that National supports.

I will pick up the challenge that Mr Mark threw down in connection with a constitutional aspect of this legislation that the Law and Order Committee seized upon and, thankfully, gave effect to. That was the particular provision in clause 27 that enabled amendment of the substantive law by delegated legislation. That was an issue that came to the Regulations Review Committee. I see that Mr Roy is here. He played a very full part, with others, in the discussion centring on clause 27. That clause is headed “Power to amend Schedule 1 by Order in Council”. The wording of schedule 1 ranges very widely. The schedule sets out the classes of policing roles. Those roles include police jailer and escort, police guard, and police specialist crime investigator. When this legislation was introduced, the Government was proposing that it might be possible to amend by delegated legislation any of those powers specified in relation to any particular policing role, and even to add to or omit a specified policing role.

This is the grist that drives the Regulations Review Committee’s mill. So it was that the committee was confronted with what are called “Henry VIII” clauses. In the limited time available, I can speak only very briefly on this topic, but I will say this. It is constitutional anathema to have delegated legislation—subordinate legislation, legislation of the executive—overriding primary legislation.

I thought it was great the way that the Law and Order Committee spoke about this clause. It stated: “This type of clause is often referred to as a Henry VIII clause because it allows delegated legislation to amend an Act of Parliament. We do not consider this type of clause to be desirable.” So I hope that the education programme that Mr Roy and others have embarked upon in their leadership roles in the Regulations Review Committee will prove to be a contagion that spreads throughout Parliament. That is the first thing I wish to say.

The second thing is to express a note of disappointment, because in this bill provision is made for the publication of codes of conduct. The provision is in clause 20, relating to standards of behaviour for police officers. But the code of conduct is not a schedule of the bill, and, in my view, it should have been. Just to show that the draftsmen were not averse to having codes in the schedule, one code is included. It is basically a code of good faith in employment discussions. Clause 4(1) of the new schedule 1C in schedule 3 states: “In all aspects of their employment relationship, the parties must—(a) engage constructively; … (b) participate fully and effectively.” Subclause (2) states: “(a) behave … with courtesy …”. That is not the sort of material that one would generally find in codes of good faith forming part of an Act. I think that it would have been a much better outcome if the code of conduct touching behaviour, instead of this code of good faith for employment relationships, had found its place in the body of what will be a statute,.

Hon Darren Hughes: Cross the floor, then.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: As Mr Darren Hughes calls out, I am reminded of two Gilbert and Sullivan lines. The first is from the Pirates of Penzance: “When constabulary duty’s to be done, A policeman’s lot is not a happy one.” I hope that the enactment of this legislation will bring joy to the hearts of many police officers, hard-working as they are in the fulfilment of their duties. I actually think something more than simply legislative change is required to ameliorate the lot of a number of police officers, but I know that members on both sides of the House truly admire the work that the police do, often in conditions of high tension and great adversity.

Mr Chester Borrows, who has had a long history in policing, spoke about the early days of his career, and I have had the opportunity to read the comments he made. So I am reminded of the second line: “let the punishment fit the crime”. He gave a number of instances where that had been done in those days of more robust policing.

I think that as we look at this legislation we see that there are many aspects that could call for comment, so let me just conclude on a final one. That is the requirement in respect of biometric information.

• Debate interrupted.