Policing Bill

When the Committee was last considering the bill, the Hon Annette King had 1 minute and 33 seconds left.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Part 2 Organisation and governance