Policing Bill

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.