Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17873] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in respect of Part 2 of the Policing Bill and wish to comment on a number of clauses that the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Annette King has already touched on. They are clauses that give distinct powers to the New Zealand Police and also recognise the unique relationship that the New Zealand Police has with Government and other agencies in the service of the public of New Zealand. 
Clause 7 of the bill describes the New Zealand Police and illustrates some of its history. Clause 7(2) states: “The New Zealand Police is the same organisation as that—(a) established as the Police Force under the Police Force Act 1886;”. The clause acknowledges some of the history of where the New Zealand Police came from as part of the old armed constabulary. I had a conversation with my colleague Hone Harawira yesterday in respect of that and in respect of the attendance on Parihaka of the armed constabulary way back in the 1880s—1881 as I understand it. It is interesting to note how this bill goes on to reinforce the separation of the New Zealand Police from the Crown—as the Commissioner of Police in his decision making and the New Zealand Police itself as an arm of Government. 
I had what I think was the privilege to be at Parihaka when the police made their first return visit which was in the 1990s and I could not help but think of the shame it was that the police commander organising that visit did not seem to have any sense of the moment—that is that the New Zealand Police had returned to Parihaka for the first time as an organisation from the time Parihaka was sacked during the arrest of the prophet Te Whiti o Rongomai. It seemed to be a day where some policy was outlined but no cognisance of the historic moment was taken. Of course over subsequent years there have been times when it appears superficially on the outset that the police were acting directly as an arm of Government and other times thankfully—mainly due to force of personality of the person in the role—the commissioner has extended his arm and stood at arm’s length from Government decisions. But thinking back on times like for instance the Springbok Tour or other incidents of unrest—various strikes and other public incidents such as Bastion Point the 30th anniversary of which was celebrated recently—we look back on those times with I guess rose-coloured spectacles or ones that are tinged with a far greater knowledge of history. These views can at times be quite accusatory of decisions made by the police or by the Government. However we cannot look back except in a historical context. 
The principles set out in clause 8 of the bill which have previously been outlined by the Minister include principled effective and efficient policing. But they also include the principle under subclause (d): “policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:” and the principle under subclause (e): “policing services are provided independently and impartially:”. It is important to point out those particular principles and the fact that they have been preserved. 
Clause 9 talks about the functions of the police and those include: “(b) keeping the peace: (ba) maintaining public safety: (c) law enforcement: (ca) crime prevention: (d) community support and reassurance:”. I think it is also timely to note that if a division has been created over say the last 25 or 30 years between the police and public expectation the question has to be asked: who moved? Back in the times when maybe some of us—young sprightly ones like myself—were growing up there was an expectation of safety and certainty around the police not only from the point of view of the public and parents raising their kids but also in the expectation of support that the police enjoyed from the public. But incidents have come from time to time or at phases in our history that have created a division between the public and the police. For instance the protests at the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s around Viet Nam and further on to the introduction of cannabis and how people viewed the use of it as being recreational and not something that should create criminals out of people—others of us saw it strictly as a law and order question—created a division between the public and the police. Then there was the Springbok Tour of 1981 where the country was actually divided down the middle and right in the middle as the meat in the sandwich were the police. I recall the police at that time being completely divided too as to who was in favour of the tour and who was against it but nevertheless there was a job that needed to be done. 
Through the 1980s there was the corporatisation of New Zealand and then huge unemployment. With that unemployment came the petty thieving and again people running up against the law. So there was a separation between the police and the public and a change in the expectations of the public in respect of when the police would be involved with the public saying: “Well we’re not going to be part of this community policing any more. We’re going to leave that entirely over to the police.” It became harder and harder for the organisation to actually be involved in the day-to-day raising of kids the day-to-day looking after of problems that were happening within the community and with the centralisation of the police we no longer had what people colloquially called “the bobby on the beat”—the policeman who would give a stern word or a clip around the ear and send somebody home. 
We look back and we say we can long for those days but the police have moved on—that is reflected within this bill—and society has moved on too. But I guess what I would like to see within neighbourhoods around New Zealand is a return to taking ownership as far as what is tolerable and what is intolerable in respect of behaviour and the nature of crime. The function of the police is crime prevention but it is also community support and reassurance and I would like to think of a time when the community is actually going to take some responsibility for the level of crime it is going to own and the level of behaviour it is going to tolerate. 
Clause 20 is about the police code of conduct and to a large degree the code replaces the police regulations. The regulations were a list of dos and don’ts. Many of us former police officers will recall them as I am sure will Superintendent McCardle who is present today as an adviser. I recall that as a punishment we had to write out various regulations. They covered such things as the times we were allowed to sit down while on the beat that we were not allowed to have a beer while on the beat and the speed we had to walk at while on the beat. But a particularly comical regulation enacted in 1976 by the then commissioner decreed that police officers were not allowed to live in de facto relationships despite the fact that many hundreds of them were. Another regulation which I think abides until this day was that a member of the police had to seek permission to marry. Quite frequently the marriage ceremony was well over by the time the permission was granted and if the person whom the officer wanted to take down the aisle was not acceptable to the police but nevertheless through lust love or infatuation the wedding proceeded it was only a $100 fine in any event. Maybe a good wife was worth paying $100 for! 
The code of conduct is something that will prescribe the behaviour of police. It is another measure to have come out of the Bazley report—a relatively dark period in police history. However there is contention around that code of conduct and what behaviour it should prescribe bearing in mind it has left out some things that a lot of us believe should be in there. We will have to wait and see. The report was due out a couple of months ago and no doubt we will see it in the next short while. 
National supports Part 2 and we look forward to seeing the movement of the legislation to recognise the issues the police have already addressed. One the beasts that it creates under clause 24 is an authorised officer. Those officers are not constables but have had powers delegated to them by the commissioner to take account of the fact that it is not necessary to have sworn officers to do every aspect of policing that traditionally we have come to expect a sworn officer to do. Whether or not it is around jailing duties scenes of crime duties or other orders collecting fines or watch-house duties the provision accepts the fact we are living in a modern age. It recognises that various duties need to be accounted for and that those matters can be handled by people well associated with the role of policing and well experienced in the role of policing without needing the delegation of powers to a sworn officer. Thank you.