Katene Rahui: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12042. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 At first glance this bill the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill seemed to be one that all things being equal should have been quite straightforward. The bill amends the Policing Act 2008 the purpose being to remove the current restriction in the 2008 Act that does not allow police employees to stand in local body elections. If successful the bill will enable all police employees to stand in local body elections without being placed on leave and if they are elected they will not have to resign from their jobs as police employees. 
When the Maori Party initially read this bill we thought that it was fair enough that the police should be treated like any other employees and should qualify for the opportunity to stand in local body elections. But then two central concepts came into view: the current context and public perception. Today is hardly the best day to be considering the issue of public confidence in the New Zealand Police. Let me count the ways. 
The first count is DNA samples. Firstly in the heat of the debate generated by my colleague Hone Harawira’s claims about the undue pressure brought to bear upon Maori youths to submit DNA samples to the police criminal lawyer Graeme Newell also spoke up about these concerns which he shares. Mr Harawira has supported a number of youths and their families to take the appropriate action by referring their complaints to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The basis of the complaints is that those rangatahi who are under the age of 17 have been persuaded by the police to submit DNA samples on the pretence that it might help to identify their relatives or would be stored on the off chance that they would be killed and would need to be identified. Mr Newell then came forward saying that he knew of a case where a police officer had offered a boy a cigarette in return for a DNA sample. 
The second count is police pursuits. The second issue to take the headlines in the last 24 hours was a meeting that the Minister of Police Judith Collins had with the Commissioner of Police Howard Broad to discuss police recommendations for vehicle pursuits after two separate reviews. The urgency of investigating the proper procedures around police pursuits came tragically into view through the death of Troy MacKay a Christchurch man who died on Sunday when his car hit a tree after he was pursued by the police. New Zealand now has the unfortunate record of having lost seven lives—people whose lives have gone through the course of their being pursued by the police. 
Of course one can never ignore the need for the police to intervene when it is evident that offending is taking place whether that be on the road or in leaving a criminal scene. But when we are talking about a Government agency we must be painstakingly clear that the protocols and policies that form the operational procedures are adhered to rule by rule. 
We understand that two separate reviews have been undertaken into the situation. One is being undertaken by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the other is an independent review conducted by the New Zealand Police. The reports have invited further questions about whether it is appropriate for the police to initiate high-speed chases for minor offences such as speeding and property theft or for the suspicion of criminal activity. We need to have that debate as we consider the right balance between the preservation of justice and the preservation of life. The nation has lost seven young men in as many months of whom the youngest was 22 and the eldest was 38. Let not their lives be in vain. 
The third count is sexual misconduct. The final piece of evidence stacking the odds was yesterday’s release by the Controller and Auditor-General of its second monitoring report on the recommendations made by the 2007 Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. The letter from Phillippa Smith the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General spelt out clearly why the police force must work hard to implement the cultural changes it suggests are critical after an inquiry was held into allegations of sexual misconduct by the police. The inquiry we recall was established after several allegations of sexual misconduct against police officers were made. The Auditor-General’s report recommended that there be an extensive cultural change in the force. Ms Smith stated: “The benefits of change include the public having confidence in the integrity and conduct of the Police. Public confidence is essential for effective policing.” But another worrying line in the release from the Auditor-General’s office was the revelation that progress would stall unless a more concerted effort was put into making the recommendations work. 
One of the key recommendations from the report is that the police must as an organisation value and use external views on police culture and behaviour. This could be done for example by obtaining more feedback on police officers’ behaviour and service delivery through community engagement and by learning more from complaints information. 
I believe that all those three areas of current controversy—DNA samples police pursuits and sexual misconduct—cannot be ignored when we come to this bill. But there is the broader context too of the longstanding history of police responsiveness to Maori. I acknowledge the absolute commitment that I know the police are making to improve their performance in this regard. We recognise the valuable role that almost 50 iwi Pacific and ethnic liaison officers in the police force play in helping to create purposeful relationship-building with iwi and Maori social service providers. We also acknowledge the quality of the police projects involving partnership with iwi and community agencies that are intended to specifically address Maori offending and victimisation. 
Although the gap between the perception and the reality has been reduced we cannot forget that trust and confidence in the police is lower among Maori than it is among the general population. Countless reports have demonstrated that Maori feel alienated from the police and from criminal justice agencies. The research frequently concludes that a key reason for this lack of responsiveness is that often there is a perception that individuals within the police force lack knowledge of and sensitivity to Maori values culture history and beliefs. I stress that we often talk about perception but as all politicians know only too well perception is everything. When we come to this policing bill we must be mindful of the impact of perception. 
The Maori Party has thought long and hard about this issue and we have greatly appreciated the way in which the Minister of Police has responded to all of our queries about the effect of this bill. We fully understand that any police employees who decide to stand for local authority elections and those who are subsequently elected will still need to abide by any internal policies that the police may have in place. We also accept that such employees must abide by the code of conduct which sets out that where employees participate in political matters in a personal capacity they must not bring themselves into conflict with their primary role as police employees. That is all well and good on paper but when it comes down to the wire we return to the impact of the current context and of public perception. Quite frankly when we talk to our constituency no matter how wonderful the local community cop may be the perception of the police in general is adversely affected by longstanding views about the reputation of the police. Those views are not helped in any way by the events that I mentioned earlier on. 
Finally we were prepared as a party to support this bill’s referral to a select committee but because of the decision to take this bill through urgency we will have to oppose the bill at every reading. We remain convinced that the issues of perception inherent in this bill must be put to the test of public opinion through the select committee process. Thank you.