Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17736] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to indicate the National Party’s support for the passing of the Policing Bill. I have to say that the process of putting the bill together—consideration across parties and the select committee process—was very much a non-partisan effort. Many of us from various parties felt that we had the opportunity to have a great deal of input into the way the bill proceeded. 
The Policing Bill underlines a number of aspects of the Police Act 1958 and as Dr Cullen said it has been a long time coming. The principles which form part of that Act and have stayed pretty much the same over the past 50 years include as stated in clause 8: “principled effective and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”. Although we would all agree with that other impacting legislation has over the years changed the way in which policing is done. If we look back for instance at changes to what we now call the Summary Offences Act—which was the Police Act 1927 as Mr Deputy Speaker would have learnt when he was at the Police College as did those of us of a similar vintage—we see that some of its provisions seem completely Draconian and archaic compared to what we are dealing with today. 
Paula Bennett 
: It was a long time ago. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: It was a long time ago. 
There was for instance impact from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It changed the face of policing in respect of acceptable practice in dealing with accused persons what warnings had to be given and what rights had to be extended. The game changed significantly. If we look forward through until today we see a police service that is different from the one we had just 15 or 20 years ago in terms of civilianisation which is probably a politically incorrect and old-fashioned term. Now we see the difference between sworn and non-sworn staff and non-sworn staff carry out some duties that are parallel to those carried out by their sworn compatriots. 
As stated in clause 8 another principle on which the Police Act is based is that: “effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:”. The New Zealand Police or any other police service around the world could not operate in the ratio of numbers that it does within this country without the support and confidence of the public of New Zealand. The police forces around the world that do not operate with such confidence have to be far more paramilitary and oppressive. 
Another principle states “policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus:”. If we compare for instance our national police service with Britain’s we see that there are 43 police forces in Britain. There are 37000 of them within the United States. People in New Zealand have the comfort of knowing that the law that applies to them in one area generally applies to them in another. Another principle is: “policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:” and that reflects the legislation affecting human rights that has been passed since the Police Act 1958 was passed. 
The next principle is that “policing services are provided independently and impartially:”. We now have an Independent Police Conduct Authority. That authority does act independently but it also with another leg acts with police assistance to ensure that people who are confronted by the police have their rights respected and their complaints dealt with independently and impartially and it ensures that if they have been dealt with and prosecuted by the police they have been dealt with in an impartial manner. Lastly clause 8 states: “in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally ethically and with integrity.” and every employee is therefore subject to the Employment Relations Act and also to the provisions of this bill as they replace the Police Act 1958. 
It was interesting to go through the select committee process and see the issues that were raised by the submitters. Largely submitters were positive in respect of the bill and wanted only a little tweak here and there. Those who were concerned with human rights or for instance with the way biometric data would be preserved and used in investigations made their submissions known but most of the committee accepts that we live in a new age and that for instance DNA is just a new fingerprint and has the ability to exclude as well as include suspects in any investigation. 
During the select committee process two issues stuck out. One was the delegated powers of the Commissioner of Police in terms of being able to delegate duties to those who are not sworn police and are also working within the policing area. The Police Association raised this as an issue and initially that was to be dealt with by regulation. As a result of the process that will be done by empowering legislation within a fairly tight time frame. Members of the committee felt that that was fair enough bearing in mind the precedent that it set. 
The other issue that became relatively contentious was the ability of police to stand for and be elected to territorial local authorities. It was raised by one or two submitters and I guess they came from two camps. One had a particular area—and in some cases a particular councillor—in mind and the others were legal purists who talked about a separation of powers and said that those who write the law should not be those who enforce it. But other submitters made the point that police who serve on councils tend to bring to the table far more than just the fact that they happen to be sworn police officers. Police serve on a number of councils around New Zealand and where they put themselves up for candidacy they tend to get an overwhelming response from members of the public and tend to poll highly which indicates the confidence that members of the police service enjoy from their local community. 
National members did not agree with the position of the bill as it was to come back to the House as it would not allow for members of the police to stand in elections for local councils. We indicated at that stage that we would put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the bill. I am pleased to say that during the select committee process in respect of estimates and when speaking to the Minister the Minister indicated that the Labour caucus was in favour of the status quo as it was in the Police Act 1958 and that members of the police should be able to stand for and be elected to territorial local authorities. 
This is different of course from their ability to stand for central government which members of the police are prevented from doing. If a member of the police wishes to stand as a candidate for central government he or she must go on leave without pay from writ day and then await the outcome of the election. If the candidate is successful he or she must resign; if unsuccessful police duties may be taken up again. 
I believe that the New Zealand Police Association lobbied strongly for retaining the right of local police to be able to stand for local councils and serve in that way and National was pleased to put forward Supplementary Order Paper 213 in an attempt to preserve the status quo as it is in the Police Act 1958. Given the support of the Labour caucus we expect to see that transition in the course of the Policing Bill going through the Committee stage and the third reading. 
It is good to see before the House a bill that will have such a significant effect on the enforcement of law and order in this country—probably for the next 50 years—and that recognises the changing face of policing and the stresses and strains on our men and women in blue who serve us so well. National is pleased to support the Policing Bill.