Worth Richard: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17913] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Part 4 is clearly very much a key part of this bill. If there is any truth in the immortal Gilbert and Sullivan line “A policeman’s lot is not a happy one” then certainly to be found in Part 4 is the start of a refreshingly new regime. I wish to make three points in connection with Part 4 but before doing so I would like to pick up the comments of the previous speaker. Chester Borrows has a wealth of experience as a former police officer who provided for so many years distinguished service to the nation. He made a comment that I suppose I have a margin of disagreement with. I think that the public today whether they are old or young still see in the police force an element of the paramilitary. That is so for a number of reasons and it is certainly to be seen in the concept of a military degree of discipline which is almost demanded for the very difficult and dangerous work that the police carry out. I think we do well to remember that that paramilitary aspect with a heightened emphasis on discipline is no bad thing. When we come to the next part Part 5 which has provisions relating to international policing we will see again it seems to me a dimension of that military responsibility. 
The matters I want to refer to just briefly though relate to three particular clauses clauses 55 57 and 58. First clause 55 provides that the Employment Relations Act applies in relation to the police except where there are specific exclusions. Second the proposition contained in clause 57 that “the Commissioner must operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer” is a wholly appropriate statement in the context of policing. Third there is what I regard as a rather unusual provision in the next clause—clause 58—that in making appointments “the Commissioner must give preference to the person who is best suited to the position.” That clause is headed “Appointments on merit” and I ask why it should ever be otherwise. It seems to me to be a rather strange statement to make in the context of primary legislation—that there should be anything other than appointments on merit. 
The second issue that I will refer to briefly occurs in clause 77 “Restriction on resignation by constable” which is a most unusual provision restricting resignation from the police. Clause 77 provides that the Governor-General may determine that special circumstances require that a person who has the status of a constable stays in the police. The Governor-General “may by warrant under the Governor-General’s hand declare that no constable may resign that person’s employment … except on conditions set out in the warrant.” 
The third point relates to clause 68 which contains provisions relating to strikes and lockouts involving constables. It is most unusual ever to see in a non-military context a statement such as the one in clause 68(1): “A strike by or lockout of any number of constables is unlawful.” 
National of course supports Part 4. It contains useful and appropriate provisions. I finish as I started by expressing the hope that it will improve the lot of those officers who give so determinedly of their time. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.