Mark Ron: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17741] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 First I heartily congratulate the policing review team and the Minister of Police on the manner in which this police review was conducted and the legislation formulated and brought to the House. 
Only a small number of submissions were received; they were from some 34 groups in all of which only 22 were heard by the Law and Order Committee. That is probably a fair indication of the degree of acceptance in the wider community that the review had been thorough the issues well canvassed and discussed and the bill pretty much on track. I pass on the congratulations of New Zealand First to the policing review team the Minister and the advisers who assisted the select committee in its work. But I specifically congratulate the Minister on the process. A lot of legislation comes to the House some of which we could assume is not contentious at all if people took time out and consulted more broadly and were prepared to accept differing views. If that happened we might actually find that a lot of other business would progress through this House with far less angst and a higher degree of consensus if the process that happened with this bill was duplicated in other portfolios. 
I congratulate also the select committee. It has been a pleasure working with the team and the reason we arrived at this point with virtually unanimous support in the House reflects the way this entire bill was handled. 
There is not really a lot more to be said. I think most of the speakers have covered some of the ground. We can reflect that the bill deals with some language change. People will have to get used to it. Members who have been law and order spokesmen for quite some time will have to get used to not using the terms “sworn” and “non-sworn officers”. There will be no such definition. We will be talking about “constables” “authorised officers” and “supervisors” but essentially everyone in the New Zealand Police will be police employees. That is a very clear change in definition and the reasons have been clearly outlined. 
The other strength of the bill is that it recognises that police do not police in a vacuum these days. They have long come to accept that their effectiveness in the community in preventing and resolving crime depends on the type of relationships they have. In fact it relies on the police having strong relationships and a high degree of respect for those other citizens in our communities who work to preserve protect and make safe the citizens in their communities. The standout examples for New Zealand First are security companies which are increasingly being used by New Zealanders whether corporates or private citizens to enhance their security. Maori wardens have long been a specific focus of New Zealand First hence the rather large allocation in the Budget first time up of funding from the Treasurer to Maori wardens to ensure they are established in areas where they have died out that they are trained that they are effective that they understand the statute that governs them and that they have a clear fundamentally strong and working relationship with the police. 
I think the Budget and the initiatives that have been undertaken and supported by the Commissioner of Police and the police in general in respect of Maori wardens have actually leapfrogged ahead of this bill. But this bill will cement in statute that relationship as it will with those Neighbourhood Watch and Neighbourhood Support groups that we see out in our communities every day of the week every night of the week as they patrol our communities. Maori wardens and the relationship they have with the police given and respecting that they have their own statute are a lot stronger and a lot more effective now due to the new relationship and the new initiative where the police themselves have taken the responsibility of providing training at the Royal New Zealand Police College and the underpinning of that relationship through this Policing Bill will only give strength to that initiative. 
We have already seen a 29 percent decrease in crime in the central business district of Rotorua. We are seeing strong reductions in crime—in particular street crime—in other areas where there is a high density of Maori population. As this bill comes into effect and as we continue to advance the decreases in street crime particularly where it relates to Maori youth will continue. I have only one other hope one other wish one other dream for Maori and their relationship with the New Zealand Police and it is this: I look forward to the day when every Maori family in this country has a police officer sitting at their breakfast table—he or she being a member of their family and a member of the New Zealand Police. When we see that level of integration we will see a fundamental change and shift in the way in which Maori themselves behave in our communities. I shudder to use the word “behave” but it is unavoidable. Who knows even Hone Harawira might be a cop one day! 
The independence of the Police Commissioner is paramount. It is interesting that we sometimes stand in this House and make demands for the Minister of Police to act. Of late in the last 12 months a number of MPs from the Maori Party the National Party and even from my own party on occasion have demanded that the Minister intervene in an issue and tell the police what they should be doing. The fact is we all know that is wrong and we all know that what makes the difference between a New Zealand democracy and a Zimbabwean one is that our Commissioner of Police stands independent and alone. We all know that the three tenets that underpin our democracy—the separation of powers between the judiciary the Parliament and the police—are fundamental to a strong healthy democracy. This bill reinforces that principle. 
The question of community input into policing priorities is a much-vexed question and often leads to calls for police commissioners to be elected or for police area commanders or district commanders to be held accountable by the mayors of those respective communities. I do not think that argument will go away and the amount of vitriol we hear the level of discussion on occasions will pretty much be dependent on how communities see the police in their area in terms of their effectiveness and the effect of prioritisation as the community feels it should be. We live in hope that as we go forward there will be a greater degree of discussion between police commanders their communities and the community of mayors within each of those areas or police districts. 
There will be changes to police general instructions as a result of the bill. One of the things that I like is that we have introduced and we are more specific about offences such as failure to help a police employee. In the bill we have spelt out very clearly that a person who fails to give help when asked commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $2000. I am particularly pleased about that. There is the offence of killing or injuring a police dog. A number of police dogs have been killed or severely injured in recent years as a result of the increasing levels of violence in our communities and the propensity of certain offenders to resort to violence. The punishment includes 24 months in jail or a fine of $15000 or both and is a pretty fair depiction of the community’s revulsion at such practice. 
New Zealand First supports this bill and will continue to do so as it progresses through the House. Thank you very much.