Policing Bill

This debate also includes schedule 2.

Part 4 deals with modernising the New Zealand police force and putting in place modern employment arrangements. Part 4 supports the commissioner’s ability to employ a workforce with a range of skills, powers, and protections needed to meet current and future policing demands.

In the main, provisions in this part introduce modern human resource management processes to align the police human resources arrangements with the mainstream employment environment and shift internal disciplinary arrangements to a newly created code of conduct environment, rather than carry over the old disciplinary inquiry system from the 1958 Act; and use language and provisions establishing police medical, physical, and psychological health standards and superannuation arrangements.

Two of the most important parts of this part deal with the code of conduct and the old disciplinary inquiry system that was in place for disciplining police officers. Two strong recommendations from the commission of inquiry were to establish a code of conduct for our police and to change the old industrial relation regime in which our police service has worked for so many years, to bring those in line with the mainstream employment environment that we have for the rest of the workers in New Zealand. These are very important changes. One of the complaints against the New Zealand Police has been the slowness in which it has been able to address disciplinary matters. Sometimes those matters have dragged on for years and have often left the public and the police frustrated by the mechanisms used under the old Act. This bill, as I said, modernises the workforce, modernises employment relation arrangements, and brings the New Zealand Police into the 21st century.

It is a pleasure to have a brief call in relation to Part 4 of the Policing Bill, which, as the Minister in charge of the bill, Annette King, quite rightly says, reflects the realities of modern policing. I have to say there was not much contention within the Law and Order Committee in relation to Part 4.

I would like to relate a story that really demonstrates modern policing in today’s world. The story occurred in Christchurch, and I think it is delightful because it reflects the diversity and the dynamics of the police force today. It concerns a young girl who was a truant from school. Her mother had to get up every morning and leave for work at 6 a.m. The young girl, therefore, had to get to school all by herself, but she did not do so. She did not have that discipline instilled in her as to the importance and benefits of going to school and getting an education. The mother was duly prosecuted for the truancy incidents. But following that, because the mother just had to go to work at that time in the morning and was trying her best, a young policeman in Christchurch took it upon himself to pick up the young truant in the mornings and take her to school.

I think that that reflects a wonderful attitude on the part of that policeperson. In Christchurch we have what is called the “bouquets and brickbats for the week” on the radio, and it was not a difficult decision to make to give a bouquet to the young policeman who had taken it upon himself to pick up the truant, the young girl, and take her to school. He would chat away to her on the way to school, and she suddenly started to think that she actually liked school—that she liked school, liked the discipline, and liked learning. The policeman was not going to do that on every day of her schooling life, but it was enough to break that pattern of behaviour and get her into the discipline of actually going to school. I think that is a wonderful tribute to the modern police force that we have.

Part 4 relates to the employment of police employees, and bearing in mind that the Police Act dates back to 1958, I think that the applicable employment legislation back in those days—and I stand to be corrected—was possibly the Industrial Relations Act, which of course has been superseded a couple of times so that we now have the Employment Relations Act. So this legislation does bring the Policing Bill and its provisions in line with the Employment Relations Act 2000, which of course, except as specifically excluded, does apply in relation to the employment of police. One of the exclusions in relation to the police force is contained in clause 68 of the bill, which make it unlawful for a constable to strike or be locked out, and, under subclause (2), “Where a strike occurs or is threatened, the Commissioner may apply to the Employment Court for an injunction to prevent the strike or for an order for the resumption of full work.” Obviously, one of the duties of the police concerns the security of New Zealand’s citizens, so it is important to maintain that balance so that citizens are protected notwithstanding any potential employment dispute.

There are also provisions for the suspension or removal of police employees, with or without pay, from their employment, on the conditions contained in this part. Similarly, under this bill it is up to the commissioner to prescribe certain health standards, to form the basis, if you like, for police to leave the police force, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, due to incapacity. If a police employee or police constable is not fit to perform competently the duties, or any other duties, that may be reasonably required of him or her from time to time, then that person can leave voluntarily, or can compulsorily be made to leave, the police force.

I rise to speak in respect of Part 4, which contains the provisions relating mainly to police as employees. We have to accept that over time the police service has moved to alter the way in which it has responded to sworn police officers as employees. At the time of the writing of the Police Act in 1958, and as the Act currently is, the police service was seen very much as a paramilitary organisation, very much run along the lines of the other services. So police officers were required to move at the drop of a hat to other stations to take up transfers as ordered and, as I said, the police service was run very much along the lines of a military organisation. But over time those rigid provisions have been rolled back, and now, more and more, police officers are treated as any other employees.

That does not sit particularly well, I think, with the public, because the public, and especially older members of the community who have long memories, tend to think that the New Zealand Police can operate as a military organisation within our communities. We have seen through recent years that the police service is no longer, for instance, able to move a police officer from one station to another to fill a gap. The service is no longer able to order police to undertake certain duties because there is a need in a given area, and that has altered the whole way in which police have been recruited and employed to meet the need.

One of the biggest changes, probably, in the New Zealand Police over the last 25 years has concerned the way in which, when most young graduates left the police college, they went to a bigger area and learnt the trade. A lot of us went to Auckland straight from police college, and learnt through the volume of crime how to deal with it, how to record it, and how to investigate it. Then, later, we filtered down to smaller communities around the country in provincial areas. Now we have the reverse situation, in that the hard-to-fill stations are small stations scattered around provincial areas, and people are recruited into those areas and do their learning in smaller stations. That is a much harder role, and I have to say that the tenure seems to be much shorter among those who are prepared to work under those conditions.

We have also seen restrictions in the way police officers can be treated in respect of their training, and in the way they are dealt with as recruits at the Royal New Zealand Police College. The expectations in respect of physical capabilities, and the ability, for instance, of a grumpy old police training instructor to bark at some recruit to get his back-end regions up to the top of the hill in the shortest possible time, are no longer able to be put quite as bluntly and tersely as they used to be. People are asked, or requested, to take part in various parts of police training, and I do not believe for a moment that that is exactly what the public expect. Nevertheless, that is the way that employment laws are implemented and tend to impact on the way police officers maintain their employment within the New Zealand Police in the modern era.

This legislation confers on police officers a number of new conditions. Part 4 also concerns the application of the Privacy Act, in the way it impacts in relation to assessment and suitability for employment. In other areas of employment and engagement in this country, there is the ability of people to be able to stand apart from certain parts of their backgrounds that may not engender themselves towards employment in the New Zealand Police, so the police are exempt from this in their inquiries into the background of suitable officers. We have to query—possibly—the applicability of other parts of the Privacy Act as they relate to the actions of police, especially, for instance, in respect of the news over the weekend about a police officer who did a number of inquiries on the National Intelligence Application system, and then, through breaches of the Privacy Act, made a number of approaches to and harassments of callers calling into the Police Communications Centres Service Centre. Yet the police’s ability to be able to deal with those, apart from through the conditions and terms of employment, have ceased, now that he has resigned.

So maybe there is scope to look further at offences under the Policing Act—as this legislation will be when it is passed—as they impact upon current officers and their ability to access private information and use it for their own ends. We have the ridiculous situation, as exposed on the weekend, where as soon as somebody resigns from a position within the police, no further action can be taken, because as the officer was an employee the real offender turns out to be the police service itself for failing to maintain the security of the private information. So there is scope for huge change under this legislation; nevertheless, National will be supporting it.

Part 4 is clearly very much a key part of this bill. If there is any truth in the immortal Gilbert and Sullivan line “A policeman’s lot is not a happy one”, then certainly to be found in Part 4 is the start of a refreshingly new regime. I wish to make three points in connection with Part 4, but before doing so, I would like to pick up the comments of the previous speaker. Chester Borrows has a wealth of experience as a former police officer who provided, for so many years, distinguished service to the nation. He made a comment that, I suppose, I have a margin of disagreement with. I think that the public today, whether they are old or young, still see in the police force an element of the paramilitary. That is so for a number of reasons, and it is certainly to be seen in the concept of a military degree of discipline, which is almost demanded for the very difficult and dangerous work that the police carry out. I think we do well to remember that that paramilitary aspect, with a heightened emphasis on discipline, is no bad thing. When we come to the next part, Part 5, which has provisions relating to international policing, we will see again, it seems to me, a dimension of that military responsibility.

The matters I want to refer to just briefly, though, relate to three particular clauses, clauses 55, 57, and 58. First, clause 55 provides that the Employment Relations Act applies in relation to the police, except where there are specific exclusions. Second, the proposition contained in clause 57 that “the Commissioner must operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer” is a wholly appropriate statement in the context of policing. Third, there is what I regard as a rather unusual provision in the next clause—clause 58—that in making appointments, “the Commissioner must give preference to the person who is best suited to the position.” That clause is headed “Appointments on merit”, and I ask why it should ever be otherwise. It seems to me to be a rather strange statement to make in the context of primary legislation—that there should be anything other than appointments on merit.

The second issue that I will refer to briefly occurs in clause 77, “Restriction on resignation by constable”, which is a most unusual provision restricting resignation from the police. Clause 77 provides that the Governor-General may determine that special circumstances require that a person who has the status of a constable stays in the police. The Governor-General “may, by warrant under the Governor-General’s hand, declare that no constable may resign that person’s employment … except on conditions set out in the warrant.”

The third point relates to clause 68, which contains provisions relating to strikes and lockouts involving constables. It is most unusual ever to see in a non-military context a statement such as the one in clause 68(1): “A strike by, or lockout of, any number of constables is unlawful.”

National, of course, supports Part 4. It contains useful and appropriate provisions. I finish as I started, by expressing the hope that it will improve the lot of those officers who give so determinedly of their time.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Biometric information, international policing, and other miscellaneous provisions