Estimates Debate — Vote Police

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa. The report of the Law and Order Committee took me by surprise from the opening statements of the Minister of Police. Minister Tolley, talking about the aspect of visible policing, had this to say: “public confidence has never been higher. So public confidence and trust in the police is the best it’s been.” Unfortunately for Minister Tolley, someone in the department forgot to point out to her the recent research released on the New Zealand Police website, published just 2 months ago, in May 2013. The study in question, Building Diversity, was undertaken to explore factors that influence Māori to apply for and join the New Zealand Police. The researchers, Nan Wehipeihana, Elizabeth Fisher, Kellie Spee, and Kataraina Pīpī, put forth evidence that utterly challenges the basis of Minister Tolley’s hope for public confidence.

Let me share some of the comments in the study that reveal poor perceptions of the police within Māori communities and a lack of trust and confidence in the police, in policing, and, therefore, in having a job with the police. People who were going to be recruited and iwi liaison officers at the time both talked in particular around the Tūhoe operations. One recruit said this: “You’d want to have Māori Police officers on the ground right in there, but then I wonder if we could influence the way things were done. Not sure we could have a say or be heard. Think we might just get swept away beneath Police procedure?”. That was one recruit. An iwi liaison officer had this to say: “The perception of Police by our people was not helped by Operation 8—the Tuhoe incident. This cast a negative light on Police”. Another iwi liaison officer said this: “There’s a lack of trust and confidence in what is essentially a Pakeha organisation”. So it is no surprise that the Māori Party comes to this debate extremely keen to see how the ongoing issues of a lack of Māori confidence in police are dealt with in the context of this estimates bill.

Just to remind those who may well have forgotten, last month the Independent Police Conduct Authority report found that in some areas police acted “unlawfully, unjustifiably and unreasonably” during the raids of 2007. The Independent Police Conduct Authority judge, David Carruthers, said in the report that the detention of the occupants at five properties of 41 properties raided was “unlawful and unreasonable”. Police were also criticised for the unnecessary stopping and searching of vehicles and taking 66 photos of drivers and passengers, including children. It left some people feeling “degraded and intimidated”. Just a month ago I raised these issues in the House, speaking about the trauma of many people who were raided, which had still not actually been heard. I then went to the Māori Affairs Committee and asked its members to consider the opportunity to listen to the voices of those affected by Operation Eight, to commission an inquiry into the impact that Operation Eight had on Ruātoki and Tāneatua residents—no cigar, no cigar. Neither National nor Labour would agree.

So now here we have an opportunity to expose the New Zealand Police to the scrutiny of the public, to see how they are dealing with the longstanding issues of injustice and inequality. So what does the Law and Order Committee report tell us? Three things. Firstly, it describes the Australian Police recruiting New Zealand officers in 2012-13. Secondly, it reports with great excitement about the use of iPhones for collecting and communicating information. Thirdly, the committee asked questions of Deputy Commissioner of Police Mike Bush regarding his comments at a former police officer’s funeral. Just wait on a minute. This is all supposed to be breaking news in response to the issues of injustice and inequity, of unlawful and unreasonable actions by police in respect of Operation Eight, which is meant to restore the faith and confidence in police, and we are talking about cellphones.

In case there is any doubt about whether the police have a very real issue around public confidence and faith, then we need to look at the advice of the United Nations and, in particular, the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That committee, not just this year but back in 2005 as well, has condemned this country for the disproportionately high rates of incarceration and overrepresentation of members of the Māori and Pasifika communities at every stage of the criminal justice system. Just putting that into the context of the police, Māori now comprise more than 40 percent of all police apprehensions, despite being only 15 percent of the population. Is anybody actually worried about that? Well, it seems that iwi Māori are.

Six months ago a plan drawn up by Te Arawa, Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whātua, and Tainui, and strongly endorsed by iwi leaders around the country, was released to the world. For the education of the Committee, that plan was called Turning the Tide, and I want to share some of the thoughts—perhaps better phrased as the frustrations—of iwi in getting this strategy even off the ground in the first place. One of the members of the Māori Focus Forum is Dr Apirana Mahuika. He said that in 1996 he laid down a challenge to the police on behalf of iwi. He said: “E tū ki te kei o te waka kia pākia koe e ngā ngaru o te wā.”

Stand at the stern of the waka and feel the spray of the future biting at your face. What he was referring to in those words was that most Māori who are victims or who are directly involved in crime are under the age of 25 years. In the words, again, of Dr Mahuika: “With our population of young people growing, if we do nothing, then even more Maori will end up in hospitals, police cells, courts and prisons.” He closed by saying: “We can’t let that happen.” I share these words with our leaders in the Chamber today because this is very, very important. This is about shaping our future. It is about setting the directions for tomorrow. Should we not be interested in that? Surely.

What we know is that iwi around the country are serious about working with the police to make a long-term change. What we know also is that the United Nations committee urges New Zealand to intensify its efforts to address the overall representation of members of the Māori and Pasifika communities at every stage of the criminal justice system. The committee even suggested that this can be done best by addressing the existing structural discrimination. So what do the police appropriations estimates say on this critical issue? Well, it talks about iPhones.

I want to remind the Committee that Operation Eight showed the ingrained, system-based racial discrimination within the police force. Justice has not been served in the eyes of the Māori Party, nor, indeed, in the eyes of the frightened children and whānau, the hapū, and people of Ruātoki, Tūhoe, and Tāneatua. The police need to recognise and acknowledge their failings and to take steps to rebuild that broken relationship. The Māori Party wants to see a system where Māori do not have to fight for justice, where institutional racism is confronted and addressed.

For those members and, indeed, the public listening to this broadcast this afternoon I say that I recently read a book called The Prophet and the Policeman, which talks very much about Rua Kēnana, Te Kooti, and a person by the name of Cullen, a policeman who was the first New Zealand police commissioner in this country. It is a very good read, and would set the scene for, I suppose, understanding why it would be that the people of the Tūhoe nation and, indeed, Māori feel a little bit disgruntled that there is no admission and no moving forward by the police in respect of what happened in Operation Eight, to at least acknowledge that they did not get it right and that they could have done things better. Under those conditions, it is a good read about history, but it is almost like history repeating itself if you read it today. I hope members of the Committee will be able to take that opportunity. The book is called The Prophet and the Policeman. It is out of the Parliamentary Library. I would recommend it as a very good read. Kia ora tātou.

The Minister in the chair, Jonathan Coleman, was right in his earlier intervention when he noted that it was a strong focus of this Government to move resources out of the back room and on to the front line. It is true in terms of the New Zealand Defence Force, but it is also true in terms of the New Zealand Police.

The Prevention First strategy is working extremely well in New Zealand. Crime is down. One of the most important features of the Prevention First strategy is that policing is now different. Gone are the days when the police constable sat behind a desk in a small suburban or small rural watch-house waiting for business to come to them, using their own cellphones in latter years to take calls, if they did happen to be out in the squad car, and responding, normally, after an event had occurred—after a citizen had phoned because they were feeling a bit insecure in their home and then waiting, waiting, waiting for the police to take a note of it, or having to go into the police station and wait for some response after the event.

I want to give a couple of examples of how Prevention First is working for New Zealanders. One of them is the example of a lady who came to see me in my electorate office—an older lady. She was cooking her dinner at 6.30 in the evening. It is dark these days and there was a knock on her door. She looked through the curtain to see who was out there and she saw one man there—a large man. She asked him to identify himself. She was not happy with the response he gave, so she declined to open the door and told him to go away. She was very upset and worried about this and so she rang her neighbours, and, yes, this man had knocked on their doors as well. She was then advised to ring the police. She did that, she noted her concerns that she felt unsafe for herself and her neighbours, and she hung up the phone. She went into her sewing room, got one of those wooden rulers that older folk will remember, and started fitting it into her ranchslider to make her house more secure. She looked up and there was a constable looking in through the ranchslider at her. He had got the call from the station. He had come directly around to her place, and he had got himself in and said “Right, let’s have a look at your security in your home.” He did that, he visited the neighbours, she felt more secure, her neighbours felt more secure—that is Prevention First at work.

The second example I want to talk about is the use of technologies. There has been a major roll-out of iPads, tablets, and iPhones. So the constable from the Geraldine Police Station—another part of my area—no longer sits at his desk waiting for the phone to ring and for business to come to him. He puts his iPad under one arm, he puts his iPod in his top pocket, he starts walking down the streets of Geraldine, and he talks to people. People come up to him, pass the time of day, pass comment, and, you know, share their concerns with him. He is out there doing what a good policeman should do, and that is Prevention First. It is getting in front of the crime in New Zealand, which is why crime numbers are dropping significantly in New Zealand.

This change in policing that is having such a good effect on crime in New Zealand and making people feel safer in their homes—which, in my view, is very important—seems to have escaped some members of the Law and Order Committee who seem to still be of the view that neighbourhood police stations, which are visited by a member of the public once or even twice a day, or even less, should continue to be manned. Let us have a choice here. Should we have neighbourhood police stations, which are hardly ever used, with the police constable sitting in there waiting for the customer to come to them? Or should we have proactive members of the police out and about, armed with the technologies they need to do their work, so that they can not only respond immediately as people need them out in the community—they can be visible out in the community—but also do their work out in the community? To me, it is a complete nonsense to hang your hat on the number—

It is a pleasure to take a call today. I would like to talk about police leadership and then I would also like to talk about technology and how that has made our police force, as the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, said, a different police force, a more modern police service. But, firstly, in relation to the leadership, as a new member of Parliament sitting on the Law and Order Committee, when we had the Minister of Police in front of us, Police Commissioner Peter Marshall, and his two deputies, Viv Rickard and Mike Bush, I was extremely disappointed and, to be honest with you, shocked to see the treatment that was dished out to Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush by a Labour Party member, Trevor Mallard.

I would just like to read a little bit about Deputy Police Commissioner Bush and the service he has provided to New Zealand over a career that began in 1978: “Mike Bush has risen through the ranks after graduating from police college in 1978. He was in Thailand as NZ police liaison officer ... at the time of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. ... He’s brought down international drug rings, led a desperate race to find a kidnapped five-year-old and solved every murder case he’s ever been assigned. ... After 33 years in the force, there isn’t much Bush hasn’t seen—from a $100 million methamphetamine drug bust right through to solving grisly homicides. Beginning his career in Kaitaia, he went on to take charge of Interpol in Wellington and headed North Shore CIB and was later crime manager of the Bay of Plenty district. Before becoming district commander for Counties-Manukau in 2008, he was crime services manager for Waitemata district. He solved every murder he’s investigated—including the mystery of what happened to 49-year-old electrician Stavros Stavrianos, murdered in his Auckland flat in 1999. The case was solved even though all the detectives had to go on was a tiny piece of his skull, found in the plumbing of his Green Bay home. ... As an operation commander in 2008, he saw the safe return of Xin Xin Ma to her relieved family. The little girl was snatched outside her Albany home. Ninety-nine hours later, officers swooped on a property and found her hungry, dehydrated and tied up in a wardrobe. Bush was awarded a prestigious silver merit award for the rescue. But he’s bashful about his role, praising ‘the commitment of the whole team.’ ” He said that they had 45 staff. “ ‘You’ve never seen a more committed group of people to try and find a little girl and track down a lead.’ … It wasn’t the first time his calm, measured approach was called on. Between 2003 and 2007 he was New Zealand’s police liaison officer in Bangkok. Within hours of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami he was in Phuket—the first Kiwi cop on the scene. Amid devastation and chaos he took control, reassuring anxious families, reuniting them with their loved ones or helping identify the dead. Five New Zealanders were lost, and when the scale of the disaster became apparent, Bush led Disaster Victim Identification teams for nine nations. When it was over, he was honoured by the Queen for his role.”

💬 Tim Macindoe: Well deserved.

Absolutely. He is a man who has provided extraordinary service and has been willing to risk his own safety for this country. Yet on Wednesday 12 June, I sat on a select committee and watched a politician not only criticise and attack him but also threaten his job. I have to say that I was ashamed and disgusted by that behaviour. I am sure that Mr Mallard would like people to recognise the service that he has provided to this country, and I can tell you now that what Mr Bush was being accused of was making a eulogy, for the family, at a dead colleague’s funeral—someone who had served this country for many, many years. He was not being accused of punching or assaulting another member of Parliament. He was not being accused of scalping tickets. He was accused of making a eulogy. So I would like everyone just to reflect and think about that for a moment.

I would also like to talk about the use of technology. Technology is a huge part of what the police service is embracing and using—

Vote agreed to.

Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.

Vote Conservation