Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction
I wish to make a ministerial statement pursuant to Standing Order 348.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order 348(1) states: “A Minister may make a statement informing the House of some matter of significant public importance which requires to be brought to the House’s attention immediately.” We have seen the ministerial statement the Hon Annette King is proposing to make this afternoon, and we ask who actually decides what is something that needs to be brought to the immediate attention of the House. If it were a letter to you asking for something to be brought to the attention of the House and therefore for there to be a snap debate, you would make the decision about what was necessary as far as needing to bring a matter to the immediate attention of the House. You would also judge its significant public importance, and, further, you would ask whether there had been a recent decision that relates to the Government.
None of those tests would be met if this document were sent to you by way of a letter asking for a snap debate. The Commissioner of Police has been considering this matter for some 17 months. He has no immediate proposals to introduce any changes to the current situation. In fact, all he is saying is that he is going to seek the opinions of MPs. Presumably, he will write to every MP and ask what they think about the idea of using Tasers more generally in the future, and what they think about the constraints the commissioner has put upon their use. Then one would assume he will collate that information and test the opinions of MPs—a very rare thing—against his own judgment. Why there is a necessity for a ministerial statement today of all days is a serious question. It should not only be addressed, I think, by the House; it would be interesting to have your ruling on what, in terms of a ministerial statement, qualifies for the immediate attention of the House.
In fact the issue is quite clear. That is a judgment for the Minister involved, because Ministers determine whether they are going to make a ministerial statement. No leave is required; the Minister simply informs the House that he or she is going to make a ministerial statement. The only requirement is to try to let other parties know about the content of that statement, in advance. I must say it is somewhat amusing to see a front-bench member of the Opposition complaining that a Minister brings a matter to the House, which a Minister does not actually have to do, in order to allow the House to express a view upon that matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is for the Minister to decide when a ministerial statement should be made, and it certainly has been for the purpose of being able to inform the House. I call the Hon Annette King.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister jumped to her feet at the same time as I did to raise a point of order. I would like to ask your guidance, please, on your interpretation of Standing Order 111 in the particular case. You stopped me yesterday from—
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just perhaps stop the member now. I am very happy to consider his point of order, but I did call, in the interests of an orderly conduct of proceedings in this House, the Hon Annette King.
Commissioner of Police Howard Broad has informed me that he has made an in principle decision on the deployment of the Taser as an addition to the New Zealand Police graduated response model. For some years now, police have been concerned that a gap has existed in our tactical options between the use of batons, dogs, oleoresin capsicum spray, and lethal firearms. Although in most close-quarter situations the spray is highly effective in subduing a violent offender, its effective range is limited to 10 feet, and its effectiveness lessens when used to subdue a person who is under the influence of drugs, mentally disordered, or in a frenzied psychological state. Assaults on police officers by offenders with weapons have increased from 57 in 1998-99 to 88 in 2006-07.
A report in 2002 endorsed the concept of a graduated use of force model, and developing a database to monitor incidents and trends in behaviour. A subsequent project recommended the New Zealand Police consider introducing Tasers as an addition to the graduated response model. Tasers are used by more than 930 police agencies worldwide, and I am told that the recovery time of an individual affected by the use of a Taser is substantially less than for oleoresin capsicum spray, and that Tasers are highly effective in controlling aggressive and violent individuals under the influence of mind-altering substances or in a mental health crisis.
From September 2006 police undertook a full year-long operational trial of Tasers in three Auckland police districts and in Wellington. During the trial 128 incident reports were submitted, of which 19 actually involved discharging the Taser. Weapons were present in 66 percent of the incidents. The most common were cutting and stabbing instruments. Weapons were involved in 16 of the 19 incidents where Tasers were discharged. Tasers were effective in resolving 86 percent of incidents, 71 using just the presentation mode without additional tactics such as laser painting, arcing, or discharging. Injuries to individuals and officers were minor, despite the serious circumstances of the incidents. Individuals sustained expected minor injuries, with no extra medical follow-up required. Officers reported a small number of minor injuries that did not require medical attention.
Police have sought further advice since completing the evaluation. Additional information has come from jurisdictions like Britain and Canada. Canada’s experience is interesting. Tasers were introduced there without the ability for effective monitoring, and with a lack of clarity in terms of justification for use and a lack of capability to capture operational data. This contrasts with the measured approach here. Police say that the Tasers’ built-in recording mechanisms provide enhanced auditing opportunities, and the recent availability of cameras with a device provides even greater reassurance around deployments if complaints are made.
The commissioner now informs me that, taking into account all the information gathered, analysed, and presented as part of the trial evaluation, supplemented by personal discussions with colleagues in several overseas jurisdictions, he has made a decision in principle to deploy the Taser as part of New Zealand’s police tactical options framework. He is proposing that the Tasers currently in police ownership are returned to the four districts for reintroduction to front-line policing. The devices will be equipped with a laser cam video camera and will be available only to selected front-line staff who are thoroughly trained—a mixture of section staff and specialist tactical squad staff, such as Armed Offenders Squad members. Tasers will not be carried on the hip of patrolling staff. They will be in secure cabinets in police vehicles, and deployed only on approval by a supervisor of substantive NCO rank or above.
In the medium term he seeks to purchase sufficient units to equip all 12 districts to the same standard as the four trial districts. Commissioner Broad says he is conscious of the convention around the use of force being a decision for the Commissioner of Police but informed by public sentiment—in other words, a convention of policing by consent. That is why before making a final decision he would like members of Parliament to express their views. He intends to make his decision shortly after that. He also hopes members of Parliament agree with his approach as the most appropriate one for responding to issues of risk to the public and to the police, and for continuing the tradition of having a routinely unarmed police service, a value closely held by New Zealanders.
Was that not fascinating? Parliament suspends its business today, of all days, to hear that the Commissioner of Police has made a decision in principle, but that he is not sure. He has made a decision in principle, but he is not quite sure whether to go ahead with it. We have had ministerial statements in the past on 9/11. That was serious. We have had ministerial statements on the death of soldiers in East Timor. They were serious occasions. We have had other statements in the House, although very, very few, on matters of similar significance. We do not get ministerial statements on the closure of hospitals, on the closure of schools, or, for that matter, on the massive purchase of New Zealand rail. There were no ministerial statements about that, at all. But today we suspend the business of the House to be informed that the Commissioner of Police has made up his mind, but that he is not sure.
One has to ask whether this is a fair use of the Standing Orders provisions in this House. Further, it raises the question of what the necessity is of the House getting this information today as opposed to tomorrow or some time next week. What is it that is so important about this piece of information? I think it is to tell MPs to watch their in-trays, because there is a letter coming from the Commissioner of Police and he wants an urgent response from them so that he can make up his mind—having already made up his mind—and be certain about what he has done. Well, I think that actually invites scorn being poured on a Commissioner of Police who does not deserve it. This man has had this report sitting in front of him for 9 months, and he has had a total time of 17-months where there was a trial of the particular Tasers in use.
I doubt that there is anyone of any sort of sensitivity in this House who would turn down the commissioner’s decision, but even if they do it is still his decision and not a decision for this House. How many times has Annette King stood up in question time and said: “The decision about Tasers is not mine; it belongs to the Police Commissioner.”? She has said it over and over as she uses the protection of the Standing Orders to fail to give the public of this country any idea as to whether the Government supports Tasers. Then today, of all days, she comes into the House and says: “Well, the Police Commissioner has made a decision in favour, but we want to let you know that he’s not going to go ahead until he checks it up with every MP in the House.” Well, I wonder whether they want to shorten up this process so that the Taser is available for Winston later in the week. I am not sure, but I think the two are connected.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
GERRY BROWNLEE: I withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has withdrawn and apologised.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He has not heard my point of order yet.
Madam SPEAKER: Does the member have a different point of order or not?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I have not said it yet.
Madam SPEAKER: No. The member anticipated it by withdrawing and apologising. I suggest the member accepts that and is seated.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.
GERRY BROWNLEE: I should have recognised him as the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Minister in the Labour-led Government—a man of high integrity, and a man who will give all the answers that we need later today, I am sure.
All I can say in conclusion is that this is some sort of a ploy on the part of the Government to prolong today’s proceedings—exactly what for is anyone’s guess. But there is no need for the House to be informed of this in this style today. We have had 9 years of Government where there have been no more than five ministerial statements to the House, yet here today the Government is prepared to sacrifice the poor old Commissioner of Police and make him look like a complete turkey by being unable to make up his own mind.
This is a very important and serious issue. The National Party person who spoke, who is not the spokesperson on this issue—Mr Borrows is the spokesperson on this issue—did not tell us whether the National Party supports the use of Tasers. He gave us a harangue for 5 or 10 minutes, but the National Party clearly has no policy on this issue.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member asked whether the National Party supports this release. Let me make it very clear that we do support it, and it has nothing to do with whom the Taser might be trained on.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Given the events of the last few weeks, can we have confirmation from Mr Key that that is in fact the position of the National Party?
Madam SPEAKER: I can see that it is members’ day. Those were not points of order, but I will ask Dail Jones—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Noting that comment from Dr Cullen, perhaps it would be helpful, when the Minister takes her reply, for her to indicate whether the Labour Party supports this particular initiative, because its website at the moment has no policy on it whatsoever.
Madam SPEAKER: I just point out to members that in this particular debate each member gets 5 minutes to express his or her view, and it is not done through subsequent points of order. I also ask members to have the courtesy to allow those members who are on their feet and speaking to be heard.
DAIL JONES: I hit a nerve there, because Mr Brownlee realised he had rambled on for 5 minutes and had not told the House what his party’s policy was. He had to interrupt my speech to make the point. The other aspect of Mr Brownlee’s speech, of course, was that it showed he does not really like the police force, does he? He came to the House and attacked the Commissioner of Police and, by definition, the entire police force. That is the new National Party policy on the police for us.
New Zealand First regards this matter as being very serious and very important. It is very serious and very important because New Zealand has a tradition of not arming its police force, and here we are taking a slight step in that direction. Therefore it is of vital importance that this issue be considered by the House. I appreciate very much the Commissioner of Police adopting this approach, so that we can express our view as political parties.
New Zealand First is a strong supporter of issuing Tasers to front-line police, and it believes this should have happened a long time ago. It is a pity the National Party could not make a statement like that in the 5 minutes it has just had. We support Tasers because they are a tool that enables police on the beat to do their job safely and effectively for the whole of the people of New Zealand. They are an excellent mid-range response to incidents involving violence, which is something that is currently lacking in the police tool kit. Currently, officers have the option of using either a baton or lethal force when responding to incidents involving violence. There is too great a jump between those response actions. Tasers provide a level of force that fits between the two options, and they will both save offenders’ lives and, most important as well, protect officers. They will also help to protect members of the community, especially the many people in domestic violence cases where, if prompt action is taken, the lives and bodies of all parties can be saved.
The result of the year-long Taser trial was concluded in September last year, and it spoke for itself. The conclusion was reached that officers were judicious in their use of a Taser, with Tasers being presented 120 times during the trial, and discharged on only 20 of those occasions. It is a pity Gerry Brownlee did not concentrate on important information of that kind, having been given so much notice of this debate already.
It is also worth noting that there is a good argument that Tasers actually save lives in many jurisdictions, as Tasers have replaced the use of firearms in many circumstances. That is particularly relevant, for example, in the United States.
We welcome the announcement; we note the Commissioner of Police’s first step in this direction. The Commissioner of Police wants to know our view, and New Zealand First says to him: “You’ve got it. New Zealand First supports the Taser; go for it!”.
This is a very sad day for policing in New Zealand. Our country has prided itself on a much lower level of violence in policing than other jurisdictions, such as the United States. Let us be blunt about it: some New Zealanders will die unnecessarily as a result of this decision, as have over 300 people in the United States, the home of the Taser. So far this month we have seen five Americans die after being Tasered. Those who will die from this 50,000-volt weapon will be Kiwis with heart conditions and those whose circulatory system is weak through drug use or mental disorder. Deaths are most likely to occur among mentally disordered people, because in our year-long trial the Taser has generally been used against such people.
The use of the Taser will not help police relations with Māori and Pacific Island communities, because the trial statistics show that people from these communities have been the main targets. The introduction of the Taser will be bad for race relations.
We know that the Taser is very likely to be overused, despite the controls the Minister has mentioned, as it has been overused elsewhere in the world. In our Taser trial the police sometimes went beyond their mandate, which was to deploy the weapon only when there was an imminent danger of injury. In practice, Tasers were also pulled out and pointed at people simply when the police were having difficulty restraining and putting handcuffs on an offender. This has happened frequently overseas. Members may remember the horrific television footage last year of Robert Dziekanski—a man who was confused rather than violent—being Tasered to death at Vancouver Airport. Members may also remember the TV shots of a young American student being Tasered after interjecting at one of Senator John Kerry’s meetings.
This sort of thing has happened here, as recorded in the official police reports. One example states that, on 20 March 2007, a mentally disturbed women in Waitakere City, who was not armed with any weapons, took refuge in a bathroom. The two police officers present broke in and Tasered her two times. Such mission creep in the use of Tasers is unlikely to be ever fully controlled, because individual officers quickly find out that the 50,000-volt weapon is so frightening to people that they will generally comply when it is pointed at them or fired at them. It can easily become an everyday policing tool as it is currently in the United States.
We have already seen mission creep in the use of pepper spray, including the use of it in the confined space of a Whakatāne police cell. The Greens have yet to be convinced that the police administration has got on top of pepper spray misuse by some police officers. We do not think that this is the time to equip such officers with a much more dangerous weapon—a 50,000-volt Taser stun gun. We can predict the outcry when the Taser is first fired at a protester. There is already concern at the misuse of pepper spray on protesters. Last month, Judge McGuire awarded compensation to an anti-GE protester who was pepper sprayed in Rotorua.
Introducing a greater level of violence in policing actually weakens its effectiveness. Traditionally the New Zealand Police has been more effective than its American counterparts because its officers do not carry guns and because they are less violent in their approach to crime situations. Ordinary members of the public will be more fearful of police patrols that are armed with Tasers, and this will get in the way of better cooperation between the police and communities—cooperation which is critical in both crime prevention and the apprehension of offenders.
There is also the serious question that Taser use is legally torture. This was clearly stated last November by the United Nations Committee Against Torture, when it stated: “The use of the Taser X26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture”, and was therefore contrary to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which New Zealand is a signatory to and must obey. The fact that America and some other countries use the Taser does not make legal what is clearly illegal under international law—and that is the use of Tasers.
For all these reasons the Greens are very opposed to these painful—and sometimes lethal—stun guns being introduced into our police armoury.
I call Judy Turner.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My reading of Standing Order 349 is that this debate is limited to leaders of parties with six or more members.
Madam SPEAKER: The convention has been that we normally allow members to speak if they represent a party. I call Judy Turner—I am sorry; I call the Hon Tariana Turia.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was thinking that the convention applied to only those parties with six or more members; that is why I did not stand to seek the call. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
There are four elements to our issue. The Māori Party is opposed to Tasers. The Greens have outlined all the reasons why we are opposed to them, but we believe that particular groups are more likely to be shot by a Taser gun, and shot when it is unwarranted or inappropriate. These groups include youth, men, Māori, Pasifika peoples, people in a mental health crisis, and political protestors. The international evidence has highlighted the probability of ethnic targeting, and we know that in Houston the police data showed that in almost 1,000 Taser deployments, 63 percent of those Tasered were black, despite the fact that black people make up only 25 percent of the population. The Taser literature details countless rallies, campaigns, and lobbies that have emerged alleging racial profiling—that the dark skin colour of victims is the cause of a lethal judgment against them. Stephen Johnson, a 22-year-old black college student Tasered in 2005, summed up his position when he said the police “are using tasers as a way to keep black people subordinate”. We would be very concerned if that happened here in Aotearoa, given that 56 percent of Tasered subjects have been Māori or Pasifika.
There has been no robust case made for introducing a lethal weapon in front-line policing, nor has there been any comprehensive research on the long-term health effects of Taser use. When developing the business case for Taser guns, the New Zealand Police looked only to the recommendations of the Project Lincoln report, which was limited by its focus on investigating only lethal weapon options. We note that today’s announcement comes hot on the heels of a low-key media release from the police just 3 months ago, when the police decided to use the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle as their preferred option in dealing with armed situations. For those not familiar with this rifle, up until 3 months ago it was deployed only by the armed offenders squad.
There has been no public consultation on the Taser gun trial to canvass the associated risks, or how the public might be protected from misuse of the Taser.
The Māori Party is firmly of the view that police use of lethal weapons is a ministerial policy matter. Again, during the course of mediation of our complaint to the Human Rights Commission, the police stated that the Minister of Police could have made a different decision.
We come back, then, to the call from the Campaign Against the Taser lobby group, the Human Rights Foundation, the Peace Foundation, lawyer Marie Dyhrberg, the Council of Trade Unions, and the Howard League, amongst others. That group called for the police to halt the Taser proposals and to concentrate on traditional methods, and for a rigorous, independent, and impartial inquiry to be carried out, as recommended by Amnesty International.
We are concerned that, all too soon, this weapon will be seen not as an alternative but as an addition. We are concerned that resorting to the Taser will erode the already fragile trust between the citizenship and the law, and that the old-fashioned police skills of wit, reason, and negotiation will be lost in a whole new category of police-public interaction. We are concerned that Tasers pose a disproportionate risk to many of the most vulnerable: the pregnant, the young, those with mental health or drug problems, or those with heart conditions. We are concerned that “mistakes” will be made, and that there will always be the possibility of misuse, and the potential for abuse—for the Taser to become a tool of torture. We know only too well that having trialled these new powers, it is extremely unlikely that the authorities will ever surrender them.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 349. That Standing Order sets out the limitations in respect of who may speak on a ministerial statement. I ask, with respect, why that Standing Order is being overturned here today.
Standing Order 77(2) states: “A determination of the Business Committee applies notwithstanding any other Standing Order to the contrary.” On Tuesday, 24 November 2005, the Business Committee determined that, in fact, leaders of parties with fewer than six members would be able to speak on ministerial statements.
United Future says that we support the police graduated response model. We have weighed up very seriously the inclusion within that model of the use of Tasers, and we will support the police commissioner’s decision. We will support it because we believe that a series of procedures have been gone through, including a trial and the seeking of further advice from other jurisdictions where Tasers are used. Also, there is the inclusion of built-in recording mechanisms and cameras. These weapons will be available only to front-line staff who have been thoroughly trained, and they will not be allowed to be carried on the hip but will be locked in vehicles and deployed only on approval by a supervisor or high-ranking officer. United Future suggests that it is the last area that will need the most ongoing monitoring in order to ensure that the deployment of Tasers is consistent with what is intended at this point and with what has been experienced in this country to date.
We take note of the cautions spoken of by other parties. However, United Future expresses our trust that the New Zealand Police will have adequate procedures in place to sensibly manage the use of Tasers, and says we are happy to support the commissioner’s position.
It is a pleasure to speak in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member knows that that was uncalled for. Everyone has a right to speak, and I think that has been seen by the fact that on the issue that has been raised we have extended the right to speak to parties that have fewer than six members in this House. So I ask the member just to make his statement, please.
RODNEY HIDE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT party supports the use of Tasers by the police. Yes, there are risks, but I believe that those risks are far outweighed by the dangers posed by violent offenders in New Zealand, and by the risks of going to the next level of response, which is a firearm of a higher calibre. In fact, it is a shame that this Government has taken so long to make Tasers available to the police.
But the ACT party does not support the ministerial statement being made ahead of question time, by a Government desperate to hold on to power. It is teetering on the brink, and is desperate to do anything to protect the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister is clutching this Minister of Foreign Affairs to her Government, in order to hold on to power, however tenuously, without regard to principle, to any standard of good Parliament or good government, or to any principle of integrity—and Helen Clark knows that. She knows that she has a Minister of Foreign Affairs who had been caught out lying. She knows—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He has started again. He went for hardly 2 minutes, and he started to infringe the Standing Orders. Would you ask him to withdraw and apologise and, if he will not, this day would you be more firm on him.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I will just ask the member to address what is before the House at the moment, which is the ministerial statement on Tasers. Would the member please continue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He may not say what he just said. I am asking you to get him to withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but I have said to the member that I did not think that what has been said so far requires a withdrawal and an apology. But I did say we should address the matter before the House. I have ruled on that matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He is not going—and you are not going to allow him—to say that a member has been caught out lying. That is what he said. That is against every Speaker’s ruling and every Standing Order I know, and I now ask you—I do not know whether you heard the comment; we all did down here—to get him to withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I did not hear him say “lie”; I admit that. I did not hear the member say another member was lying. If that is the case, then I am sorry, Mr Hide, but, as you know, any member who makes that comment is asked to withdraw and apologise. Then could we please proceed.
RODNEY HIDE: I withdraw and apologise. On the matter of the ministerial statement on Tasers, the fact that we are having that now, in the last few days of this Parliament, before a general election when we are going to see a massive swing and a change of Government, means we have a Minister who has been caught out and is in trouble, and we have a Government that is desperate to delay any questions—to prevent questions, to prevent scrutiny—so much so that it introduces a ministerial statement on a report it has been awaiting for months. That is something unheard of—something unheard of. And we have the Prime Minister delaying question time, because she knows that scrutiny has to be avoided at question time of her decision to keep Winston Peters in Cabinet, by having a ministerial statement on Tasers.
The Prime Minister has put her tenuous grip on power ahead of principle and integrity, and has turned New Zealand into a banana republic. We have a situation in our Parliament whereby MPs cannot ask questions, and we are having our Parliament distorted—
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That clearly is a reference to the events in the House yesterday. As you have very carefully pointed out numerous times yesterday and today, Mr Hide was not prevented from asking a question; he was prevented from breaking the Standing Orders of the House. After his repeated attempts to do that, you finally—finally, at the end of a very long rope—decided that he had to leave the House. It is a bit rich now, on an issue of law and order in front of the House, for the member to be complaining that delay is occurring, when he is delaying the House with his speech, when it has nothing to do with the matter in front of the House, and when he is questioning your ruling in the past.
RODNEY HIDE: Speaking to the point of order—
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is the point of order that has been raised. [Interruption] No, the member will please be seated; we will not have a repetition of what happened yesterday. I have ruled on that matter and members know that. I would ask the member to please just address what was in the ministerial statement.
RODNEY HIDE: What was in the ministerial statement was a load of old cobblers, actually. It is a desperate attempt by the Minister and this Government to avoid scrutiny of Helen Clark’s decision to keep Winston Peters on as Minister of Foreign Affairs—that is what is in the ministerial statement.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect, the subject of this debate is a ministerial statement, on the topic raised by the Minister. There are some restrictions to this debate and, particularly when it comes from the only member of this House who could eat a banana sideways, it is all a bit rich.
Madam SPEAKER: I would just ask the member to conclude his statement. He has only a few more seconds to go.
RODNEY HIDE: I just wish we had—and I am looking forward to the time when we have—a Prime Minister who puts the country first, who actually stands up for some principle, who sets some standards for Ministers, and who does not allow Ministers to just tell any old pork pie they like and think they can get through.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member may wish to use my ancestral tongue, if he chooses to do so, but I understand it. The reference to a pork pie is, of course, a reference to a lie. That is out of order in the House, and he is the last person who would want to be raising that kind of point of order.
I just want to make two or three brief comments. I say to Mr Brownlee that one of the reasons why, overwhelmingly, people vote in general elections rather than in local body elections, for example, is that this Parliament has the power of life and death over the population. That is a very serious responsibility. When the police put to Parliament through their Minister the opportunity to participate in a decision about what may be a life-threatening enforcement, I would expect anyone in this Parliament to take it seriously, rather than take the buffoon-like approach we had from Mr Brownlee.
Mr Hide, in promoting the issues he thinks are important to Parliament, and in telling us that we should not waste our time on important matters of policing and the weapons used by the police, and that we should let Mr Hide take up the time that he has with this Parliament over and over again on issues that some of us may not be quite as interested in, is simply being ludicrous. The issues of arming the police in whatever way they are armed go to the heart of the power of this Parliament. They are extraordinarily important, and the decisions that we make around them are critical to the future well-being of many of the people who live in this country.
The Progressive party will look at the tests and trials that the police have made, we will look at the evidence, and we will let the facts get in the way of any prejudice we might have.
First, what a disgrace it is that Mr Key would allow Gerry Brownlee to treat this issue in such a bombastic and blowhard way without once addressing the issue. What a disgrace. What sort of leadership is that from Mr Key that he would not treat an issue like this seriously? They said it was a diversion—
Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I presume the point of order is that nobody can hear.
Hon Mark Burton: The Opposition is making it impossible.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I would remind members that the purpose of this place is that people are able to discuss their views and that people are able to hear those views.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have not even said a word yet and the bombastic and blowhard members on the front benches are already barracking.
Madam SPEAKER: We will try once more so the Minister can give a reply and so all members in the Chamber have an opportunity to hear it.
Hon ANNETTE KING: They called today’s statement a diversion. Well, if anyone needs a diversion to stop the spotlight on them it is National members, because they do not want the spotlight on their secret agenda and they do not want to have to keep apologising for their front bench. What we do not know is whether or not National supports the police—but I know they do not actually support the police. Every opportunity they get they attack the police. This was the first opportunity in living memory that the police have come to this House and asked for guidance before the police commissioner makes his final decision. I would have thought this House would have welcomed that.
I tell the members of most of the minor parties that I thank them for their contribution. Whether they are in favour of it or opposed to it they put their cases clearly, and they stated their positions. That is what the police commissioner wanted. Those members are a credit to their parties. I cannot say that to the National Party.
The Government does not believe that the police should be routinely armed with firearms, nor does the public of New Zealand. But we are concerned with the safety of police officers. We are concerned with the increased assaults on them, particularly with weapons. We are concerned with the increased use of mind-altering drugs, alcohol, and so on. Our police face very dangerous situations every day. Our police have been trained to shoot with the most lethal weapon of all, the gun, to incapacitate, and the outcome of that, unfortunately, in most cases is death. They do need another, less lethal option that protects the police, the public, and individuals concerned.
The Government is therefore supportive of Commissioner Broad’s in principle decision on Tasers, and particularly the way in which their deployment is proposed, with a high level of transparency and accountability.