Locke Keith: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Policing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17743] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting the Policing Bill. We thank the Law and Order Committee for the work it has done on the bill. 
I think the points Ron Mark made on the independence of the police are very important. Many occasions in this Parliament particularly those involving MPs make it clear that the separation of powers is required if the police are to look objectively at cases. I think that the relationship between the police and the Government is laid out reasonably well in the bill at least on one side—that is the responsibilities of the police. 
One of the points covered by clause 16 is to give effect to any lawful ministerial directions. Unfortunately the provision does not spell that out as fully and adequately as the previous police amendment bill did which has been subsumed into this legislation. That is what I understand from the discussions that took place around that amendment bill. One thing that can be worrying is a situation where a ministerial direction to the police is not fully known to Parliament and through Parliament to the general public. I think it is important that any ministerial directions be tabled in the House as was intended with the previous bill so that there is a clear understanding that the police are not being pushed around for political purposes by an incumbent Government. 
I think the line between what the Government should get involved in and what the police are in full control of has been highlighted in the controversy around Tasers. The Government and I think the police have defined it as an operational matter that comes within the independent orbit of what the police themselves should be responsible for. But it can also be argued that given the impact of having essentially a higher level of armament of the police force with the addition of 50000-volt stun guns it is something that is not just within the immediate operation of the police and there should be more community involvement just as if there were a decision to arm all the police generally—in the way that American and other police are armed—then surely it would be something that the general community through its representatives in Parliament and the Government should deal with. That decision should not be handled purely by the police. 
That relates to one of the points in the principles—and it is not a bad set of principles—outlined in clause 8. Clause 8(b) states: “effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:”. Clause 8(d) states: “policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:”. Both of those points apply to the Taser decision. One of the concerns the Green Party has raised about the possible introduction of the Taser weapon is that it might undermine the ability of the police to enjoy a wide measure of public support and confidence and that it might—to relate it to clause 8 again—lead to the undermining of policing services being provided in a manner that respects human rights. We have already seen some transgressions—mainly with pepper sprays and in some respects in the year-long Taser trial—that could run contrary to those principles under clause 8. So that is very much an open question. I think it is possible that the bill should be amended a bit further in order to clarify that relationship between the Minister or the Government as a whole and the police. 
Another question that has been under some discussion is the increasing use of civilian staff. In the public debate on this bill there has been some concern about jailors guards and transport enforcement people being civilians and sometimes crime investigators having powers of arrest. They are all operating outside the sworn officer force. I think the Police Association has raised some concerns and I am not sure whether they have been fully addressed in this final version of the bill. 
Another question that concerns the Green Party and one that was raised in some of the submissions is the powers of search held by the police. There do not seem to be sufficient qualifications that there have to be reasonable grounds for a search in the provision in the bill for searching people outside of police premises and police cars. There is new wording that tries to rectify that; I am not sure whether it fully meets the circumstances. People might be searched when they are in all sorts of odd places where it is harder to insist on there being a reasonable requirement for searching. If someone is arrested it should not be the case that it is just open slather and the police automatically have the right to search that person. 
Another provision in the bill that is actually quite good is the provision for officers serving overseas because it is true that one of our major contributions—it may become our most important contribution—to international peacekeeping as it is sometimes called is done through the work of our police officers. They have done a fantastic job in places like the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. It is good that that role is now being integrated into the police system through the Policing Bill. I think as well we need to budget for that overseas work much more clearly because if the police think they are losing some funding and resources to those overseas operations it can create conflict for them. If we plan more consciously for it as an ongoing component of police work it should be funded accordingly. 
With those few comments I say that the Green Party will be supporting this bill. Thank you.