Worth Richard: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17923] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I know that Chester Borrows will come back in a few moments after I have completed the comments I will make to talk about this Supplementary Order Paper and its significance. 
I would like to talk about three other matters that are contained in Part 5 “Biometric information international policing and other miscellaneous provisions”. It is an interesting circumstance that there is a definition of biometric information in the context of police employees being required to provide bodily samples and biometric information. Biometric information is defined as a DNA profile of a person or fingerprints or palm-prints taken from the person. I guess the philosophical proposition behind that requirement is that it is important that those who are taken into the police force are upright and without significant criminal convictions. I would have thought that should be the case for any employee who is taken into any position of trust. This particular provision in clause 79 is perhaps a signal to employees and employers as to a core element in the employment relationship. I do not doubt it is currently the case that those who seek to enter the police are subject to such a requirement. I simply say that such a requirement has a wider universality extending significantly beyond the police force. 
The second issue that I would like to deal with which is contained in Part 5 is the aspect of international policing. I can understand an argument to the effect that it is part of the range of activities of interest to police officers that they may be asked to undertake an international policing engagement. But I would express the hope in the context of a critical shortage of police officers and rising crime rates—in particular in the area of violent crime—that the number of officers seconded for United Nations and other international policing duties is severely circumscribed. 
The third matter I would like to deal with which I find actually somewhat unusual is that when we were dealing with Part 2 there was comment made in reference to clause 20 about the New Zealand Police code of conduct—a code of conduct that was designed to set out “the standards of behaviour expected from Police employees.” It is not a schedule to the legislation—it should be. I say it should be because those who drafted this legislation and the Government that has advanced it have for some reason decided that there is merit in putting a code as schedule 3 to this bill. But the code is not a code of conduct stating standards of behaviour. Instead it is a code of good faith for employment relationships. I offer the view to the Committee that it is substantially aspirational pap and not appropriately included in a bill of this type. It contains phrases—and I am referring to clause 4 of the third schedule “General requirements”—such as: “(1) In all aspects of their employment relationship the parties must—(a) engage constructively; and (b) participate fully and effectively. (2) In their employment relationship the parties must—(a) behave openly and with courtesy and respect towards each other; and (b) create and maintain open effective and clear lines of communication”. It goes on to say that they should “make time to meet as and when required” and that they “must use their best endeavours to resolve in a constructive manner any differences between them.” When it becomes an outcome that provisions like that must be inserted in primary legislation then I think the executive would do well to pause because schedules should contain substantive material and not aspirational material that is implicit in any employment relationship. That said National supports Part 5 of this legislation and is keen to see it progressed.