Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18097] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise as the first speaker from the National Party in this debate to endorse the Policing Bill to the House and to underline National’s agreement to support it. The bill recognises the need to reform legislation governing the provision of policing services in New Zealand as they have remained since the implementation of the previous Act in 1958. Over the 50 years since that legislation was introduced to the House a number of piecemeal amendments have been made to take account of the changes to policing activity over those 50 years. It has been the right time to bring together in one bill a number of strategies abilities and powers that will allow the police to work with a clean piece of legislation that takes account of the way policing is done these days. 
The bill recognises that the police operate not in a vacuum but in a grouping of partner enterprises that move to do policing in New Zealand as it is done in 2008. Some of these partners are public entities and non-governmental organisations some of them are companies that are doing policing for reward and some of them are police volunteers who give of their time in police stations and out on the street at all hours of the day and night. 
The Policing Bill as it is at the moment has underpinning it a number of principles and those principles are described within the bill in the following way: “(a) principled effective and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law: (b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence: (c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus: (d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights: (e) policing services are provided independently and impartially: (f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally ethically and with integrity.” 
It is a shame that there are those who would call into question the ethics and the professionalism of an organisation such as the New Zealand Police. It is a shame that there have been isolated cases within the police as there are with every other organisation or business that exists where the odd person who through his or her activities detracts from the overall confidence in the whole of the organisation. It is also frustrating that there are people who would seek to denigrate the ethics and professionalism of the New Zealand Police as a group. In the last couple of days we have seen some incidents that relate to that. For instance a couple of organisations have made public comment in respect of the decision of the police commissioner to implement the use of Tasers within the New Zealand Police. These groups and political parties never seem to support the police as a group in anything that they do. In fact it is very difficult to recall a single instance when the Green Party has supported any activity that the police have ever conducted and I am sure that has more to do with the individual histories of Green members and their supporters than it has to do with anything tangible that they can relate to. 
The decision to distribute Tasers as a policing tool is one that has come not as a flash in the pan but after a long period of trial and a long period of assessment. Although the National Party has some suspicions about the way the issue was discussed in the House yesterday—and the authenticity of calling for feedback from members of Parliament and then announcing the implementation on the following day—the comments that have been made around the ability to abuse Tasers and the application of arguments about the way in which they have been employed in other countries to New Zealand are quite farcical. 
The fact is that we have moved on as a country whether we like it or not. We have moved on in some ways that are good progressive and helpful but we have also moved on in ways that are bad that detract from our society and that are unhelpful—especially in the way that people offend against the law in this country. I cite for instance the proliferation of the use of methamphetamine and the ability of police to deal with people who are wound up on this despicable drug and in the hands of those who are promoting it. It is very difficult to deal with somebody who is high on methamphetamine. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somebody who is shot with a Taser and receives an electric shock falls to the ground and is then able to be dealt with—cuffed and stuffed put in a police van and taken off to a police station—is treated significantly more violently than if there were four five or six policemen trying to jump on that person who is out of his or her tree and manhandle him or her in such a way. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that that person’s pre-existing heart condition—or any other condition—would respond in a much more serious way if he or she had been Tasered. If we look at those who have been arrested in similar circumstances and who had a heart condition we find they had the same sorts of problems in terms of their heart. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is unnecessary for the police to have a less-than-lethal weapon to use in those situations to cope with a modern drug and its effects or to say the police can deal with the issue in some other way. That fact seems to have escaped the attention of members of the Green Party and those detractors of the use of Tasers because they have not offered other options. 
I want to pick up on comments by the Minister about the issues of cops as politicians which she said was the only controversial part of the bill. The National Party thinks the way that issue came up was most unusual or pretty dodgy. We have to remember that those giving evidence at the Law and Order Committee on that provision did so on 23 April this year. There was no adverse comment by Labour members of the committee on the evidence as it was presented right through until 2 July when the Minister of Police appeared before the committee and gave repeated assurances—after questioning from more than one National member—that the Labour Party caucus was in favour of police officers being able to stand in local authority elections. What happened next and the path taken is quite amazing. Obviously there was a decision made in caucus and the Minister said that the Labour Party caucus had changed its mind. If that is the case it must have changed its mind a couple of weeks ago. Word filtered through that there had been a change of heart and that we needed to be on the lookout for a new Supplementary Order Paper being tabled. That was not tabled until after 3 o’clock on the day the bill was going to be discussed in the Committee. We have to ask ourselves why on earth that accommodation was made. National members were monitoring the Bills Office looking for a Supplementary Order Paper but it did not come through with any opportunity for members of the House or those who had an interest in the bill—such as the Police Association and members of the public watching from the outside—to be able to deal with that issue at that late stage. Having been given the assurance by the Minister that this significant vote in respect of her portfolio was going to be dealt with in a particular way by her own party caucus it was not only surprising but in our mind very very suspicious to find that the decision had been completely overturned. We wonder just why that accommodation has been made to another political party that some would say had a vested interest in seeing the bill changed in that particular way. 
We come to the third reading of this bill which the National Party very strongly supports. The bill contains a number of wide-ranging provisions that will enhance the ability of the New Zealand Police to provide a level of service that will meet public expectations. National endorses the bill to the House and looks forward to its passing today.