Locke Keith: Policing Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Policing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14366] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Policing Bill. The bill updates a lot of police legislation and is a basis for police regulations. The provision for a code of conduct in this bill and the development of a code of conduct is very important particularly in the wake of the Margaret Bazley report which showed so many problems historically in the police force that a clear code of conduct was essential. Also the bill strengthens the internal accountability arrangements in the police—there is a very clear expression of them. Alongside that of course there is what we might call the “external” accountability which takes several forms. The first of those which has been referred to already is through the newly established Independent Police Conduct Authority which has started off quite well. I think it has more resources than the previous less-resourced Police Complaints Authority and under Justice Goddard it is coming out with decisions at a much quicker rate and hopefully that will continue. 
Another form of accountability of course is to the Government. That is often a vexed relationship and it is hard to put down specifically in legislation. I think this bill states just that the police are to obey lawful Government directives. It is tricky because on the one hand we do not want the Government’s sticky fingers in the day-to-day operation of the police and the politicisation of the police through that. So the autonomy of the police is for operational purposes very important. But on the other hand there can be a tendency sometimes for the Government to go the other way and not get involved not give directives and not be part of decisions where there is a significant shift in policing taking place potentially disrupting the good relations of the police with the community. 
I am thinking of the issue the police are currently mulling over—and have done a trial on—and that is whether to introduce the Taser stun gun. It is true that the police approached this issue seriously. They had the trial and did the reports and we appreciate that. There could be a bit more openness in the reporting on that trial. The point I have made on behalf of the Green Party is that when we are going into such a new domain with a weapon that can kill people that can be quite frightening to the general public and can disrupt good relations with the community. The Government should also be involved in that process as a representative of the community and I have continued to criticise the Government for having a hands-off attitude to that. 
It is good that the bill talks about the importance of good relations between the police and the community and other organisations. I like some of the wording in the explanatory note that says “Policing legislation should also reflect that the Police does not have a monopoly on policing. Successful policing relies on a range of partner organisations in the public and private sectors” and that has happened. The police and different Government agencies are working together better in terms of protecting the border. There is now a very close relationship with the Defence Force with the Department of Conservation with Immigration and with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. You name it they are all working together and the police are an important part of that. That is going very well. Clause 8 is very clear when it states: “(b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:” and “(c) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:”. All of that is very important and is another reason why I referred to the Taser weapon which would disrupt that. 
One of the provisions in the legislation reinforces the point that the police do not have the right to strike. That makes the Police Association very important for representing the rights of police officers to the administration. I have been disturbed over recent times—in the last year or two—that the Police Association is getting a bit combative in relation to the community. If anything happens—be it the Bain case be it a police shooting be it a pepper spraying the use of a Taser or whatever—where there is a bit of community criticism we can almost count on the Police Association at least through Greg O’Connor coming out with a statement that really bashes anyone who dares to raise questions or to criticise. Such people are considered as wishy-washy liberals who live in leafy suburbs etc. etc. That is not good enough if we are to have trust between the community and the police and have legitimate challenges. 
A good dialogue improves things for whatever side—whether some people in the community think the police have exceeded their mandate or the police think that some members of the public are getting a bit chippy and do not have proper foundations for their criticism it is good to have a dialogue and it should be carried on as respectful dialogue. 
As to the question of biometrics the Green Party is always a little bit worried when biometrics is introduced but in this case we realise that there is the importance of police DNA and that the biometrics applies to the police—that police DNA can be excluded from crime scenes and things like that. So there is more merit to introducing a certain amount of biometrics in relation to the police in this bill compared with some of the introductions that the Green Party is worried about outside of the bill. 
There are other provisions such as for people who have not been arrested to be detained to get their identifying details—a whole lot of identifying details. There is a certain merit to that too but we have to be just a bit careful that such provisions are not used too much as a reason to do the sorts of things that were spoken about before—with police exceeding their mandate. But it is just something to keep an eye on. 
The provisions about the police in overseas operations are a good addition because our police are playing an increasing role and in some ways New Zealand is specialising in this work. People think a lot about the Defence Force in peacekeeping but what we might call the police peacekeeping overseas in the Solomons etc. is equally—sometimes more—important. It is work on the ground directly with the local community as in the Solomons today and our police have been very successful at that work. Laws around that are tricky because sometimes there is a double jurisdiction. With the Defence Force there are State forces’ agreements between the New Zealand Defence Force and the local Government—the Solomons Government or the East Timor Government or whatever it happens to be. The legislation covering the police in that respect is equally important to work out—if police officers commit an offence overseas—when they are subject to the jurisdiction of the other country be it the Solomons or when they are subject to police regulations in New Zealand jurisdiction on the spot or when they get back to New Zealand. Working that out is quite tricky and it is good that the bill addresses that. 
All in all the Green Party supports this bill. We will be interested in the submissions at the select committee and in getting a good dialogue and seeing where things can be improved perhaps by looking at the relationship between the Government and the police a bit more closely and what their respective responsibilities are. I take the points from earlier in the debate that the community has a huge role to play in policing. That is why it is important to get it right—to get the relationship between the community and the police right. Thank you.