Mark Ron: Policing Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Policing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14364] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Policing Bill. Firstly I extend my compliments to the Minister of Police the Hon Annette King. As far as New Zealand First is concerned the way this bill has been put together and the way in which the review was conducted and managed cross-party should serve as an example to all Ministers in the Labour Government. I would be lying if I said there were not other Ministers who in their time have shown a distinct inability to act in such a way. That has been something of a shame because in areas such as policing the impact on the nation as a whole is hugely important. This is not the type of legislation we want to come back to in the term of a new Government to amend simply because the governing party of the day was so ideologically driven or intractable as to be unable to accept the recommendations of outside parties or opposing parties. I mean it sincerely when I congratulate the Hon Annette King her staff and the Commissioner of Police on the way this bill has been brought to the House and on the processes it went through. 
It is fair to say that the police have taken a bit of a hammering over the last 8 years. Both New Zealand First and I have played our part in that where we felt it was appropriate. Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the police were fair and occurred through activities and conduct of their own making and doing. That is regrettable. In the main we have seen adjustments made but not always. I have to say that some of the criticisms have been entirely unfair and have been made by people who have no understanding whatsoever other than in their narrow confined area of interest of the greater security needs of communities of the nation as a whole and in fact of the rights of wider New Zealand to expect and demand the sort of police service they do. 
New Zealand has changed a lot since 1958 as has been said in this debate thus far. There are matters dealt with under the Police Act 1958 that are entirely inappropriate now and procedures and protocols that no longer fit. New Zealand now is more widely exposed to media scrutiny and criticism and to political scrutiny. MMP in itself has brought a whole new focus upon all Government departments. As law and order is so often one of the big issues come election years politicians have—rightly—put the police under a lot more scrutiny that ever was the case before. That is not to mention lawyers members of the judiciary civil libertarian campaigners and human rights activists who all have their expectations and demands and many of them legitimately so. 
New Zealanders have high expectations of the police and demand their accountability. New Zealand expects and demands protection from the police. New Zealand expects and demands response from the police. New Zealand expects and demands top priority from the police. New Zealand is right to have such high expectations. That is why New Zealand First has been so driven in its support and championing of a greater separation of the complaints process from the police in respect of the independence of the now newly established Independent Police Conduct Authority. We have applauded those changes but we would go still further. We would ensure the absolute unequivocal independence of that office by giving it statutory independence through making it an Officer of Parliament and we have consistently said so. That is something we will hopefully have an opportunity to address in Government. 
New Zealand believes that the public’s high expectations of the police need to be met with the equivalent resources structure powers and command and control mechanisms that this bill seeks. It also needs to be recognised that the lot of a police officer is not necessarily a happy one. If I cast my mind back over the observations I have made of many of my extended family members who have served this nation in the uniform of the New Zealand Police I can say that it is sad but true that after police officers have been exposed to the criminal fraternity the large number of domestics they attend and the tragedies they witness on our roads every day of every week of every year they become hardened and cynical. Police officers lose patience with and tolerance of the criminal fraternity who continue to appear in front of them time and time again pleading their ignorance when they are as guilty as all hell will be so again and are often proven to be. 
It is understandable that police officers—men and women—are human beings who look at the tragedies they have to deal with week in and week out and they look at their family and ask themselves: “Why are we back dealing with this character again and who the hell is he to have the nerve to now go complaining to this person and paint us as being a bunch of brutal non-caring unthinking violent and oppressive people who just happen also to be police officers?”. It saddens me that those criticisms are levelled at them but I understand how often these police officers can become a little jaded and worn by the very work they do. We need to recognise that. We need to stop paying the little bit of lip-service that we do on occasion and recognise that these police officers seek to do one thing—that is serve our nation. They serve the people the community and their families by making sure the communities are a safer place for them to live in. 
Therefore it is sad that on occasion we have seen officers subjected to what is described in these documents and in the Bills Digest as being something of a Victorian process when it comes to their being held accountable for indiscretions a lack of discipline or a failure by themselves to comply with the law or with the police general instructions. They are put through the hoops. I have seen police officers hung out to dry complete with their families and have their name splashed from one end of the country to the other in newspapers for 12 or 24 months only to be proven innocent. They do not receive one apology or one red cent of compensation for the trauma they have been put through by people who have lied their way through the entire police complaints process and have even lied their way through the courts. 
I have highlighted in this Chamber on numerous occasions the case of Constable Kerry Joyce down in Christchurch who was part of the early-bird team that policed the square in Christchurch. All the MPs in Christchurch know is not a safe place although the former mayor Garry Moore got most offended when someone said that Christchurch is not a safe place. The work that officers like Kerry Joyce and Colin Campbell did in the early-bird patrols made for a brief point in time the square in Christchurch a safe place. 
When Kerry Joyce was accused of kicking a person in the mouth and breaking his dentures and was then hung out to dry by some rather vigorous prosecution which took place by an officer from the professional standards division of the police many of us looked at the case and said that it was a load of rubbish and he would be proven innocent—and he was. The problem is that the process had Kerry Joyce suspended for almost 2 years and it dragged his name and his family name through the muck publicly. I have yet to see the police say sorry or reimburse him. Thank God we have a Police Association that stood by him and assisted with the legal costs. It is good to see that this bill seeks to deal with these issues and to modernise them. 
In my closing minutes I note the welcome changes in the clauses to section 53 of the Act that now make it an offence for anyone—either a man or a woman—to refuse to assist police. The section in the Act states that only a man can be prosecuted for refusing to assist police. The clauses also up the penalty from $500 for that refusal to $2000. 
I note also clause 97 which seeks to deal with the politicisation of the police force by allowing serving officers in uniform to be elected to local government. I simply say to the House that New Zealand First will be looking closely at this because we say that local government now has a greater impact on people than central government in many many respects. If it is inappropriate for a police officer to stand for Parliament and be an MP whilst a serving uniformed officer then it is equally inappropriate for him or her to be in local government. Some of the stories published about things that have occurred down in the Waimakariri area have been well canvassed through the media. I will be looking forward to input from all parties that have a view as to whether a police officer in uniform should be a local government politician at the same time.