Worth Richard: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Policing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18106] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am grateful to Mr Harawira for yielding the call. In the 6 minutes that remain of parliamentary time tonight I will deal with this legislation in a reasonably robust way. I have had limited involvement with the Policing Bill but of course it is a bill that National supports. 
I will pick up the challenge that Mr Mark threw down in connection with a constitutional aspect of this legislation that the Law and Order Committee seized upon and thankfully gave effect to. That was the particular provision in clause 27 that enabled amendment of the substantive law by delegated legislation. That was an issue that came to the Regulations Review Committee. I see that Mr Roy is here. He played a very full part with others in the discussion centring on clause 27. That clause is headed “Power to amend Schedule 1 by Order in Council”. The wording of schedule 1 ranges very widely. The schedule sets out the classes of policing roles. Those roles include police jailer and escort police guard and police specialist crime investigator. When this legislation was introduced the Government was proposing that it might be possible to amend by delegated legislation any of those powers specified in relation to any particular policing role and even to add to or omit a specified policing role. 
This is the grist that drives the Regulations Review Committee’s mill. So it was that the committee was confronted with what are called “Henry VIII” clauses. In the limited time available I can speak only very briefly on this topic but I will say this. It is constitutional anathema to have delegated legislation—subordinate legislation legislation of the executive—overriding primary legislation. 
I thought it was great the way that the Law and Order Committee spoke about this clause. It stated: “This type of clause is often referred to as a Henry VIII clause because it allows delegated legislation to amend an Act of Parliament. We do not consider this type of clause to be desirable.” So I hope that the education programme that Mr Roy and others have embarked upon in their leadership roles in the Regulations Review Committee will prove to be a contagion that spreads throughout Parliament. That is the first thing I wish to say. 
The second thing is to express a note of disappointment because in this bill provision is made for the publication of codes of conduct. The provision is in clause 20 relating to standards of behaviour for police officers. But the code of conduct is not a schedule of the bill and in my view it should have been. Just to show that the draftsmen were not averse to having codes in the schedule one code is included. It is basically a code of good faith in employment discussions. Clause 4(1) of the new schedule 1C in schedule 3 states: “In all aspects of their employment relationship the parties must—(a) engage constructively; … (b) participate fully and effectively.” Subclause (2) states: “(a) behave … with courtesy …”. That is not the sort of material that one would generally find in codes of good faith forming part of an Act. I think that it would have been a much better outcome if the code of conduct touching behaviour instead of this code of good faith for employment relationships had found its place in the body of what will be a statute. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Cross the floor then. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As Mr Darren Hughes calls out I am reminded of two Gilbert and Sullivan lines. The first is from the  
Pirates of Penzance 
: “When constabulary duty’s to be done A policeman’s lot is not a happy one.” I hope that the enactment of this legislation will bring joy to the hearts of many police officers hard-working as they are in the fulfilment of their duties. I actually think something more than simply legislative change is required to ameliorate the lot of a number of police officers but I know that members on both sides of the House truly admire the work that the police do often in conditions of high tension and great adversity. 
Mr Chester Borrows who has had a long history in policing spoke about the early days of his career and I have had the opportunity to read the comments he made. So I am reminded of the second line: “let the punishment fit the crime”. He gave a number of instances where that had been done in those days of more robust policing. 
I think that as we look at this legislation we see that there are many aspects that could call for comment so let me just conclude on a final one. That is the requirement in respect of biometric information. 
Debate interrupted.