Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17878] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on Part 2 of the Policing Bill. I think the unanimity that was clear at the end of the Law and Order Committee’s deliberations on this bill pretty much indicates that there was not a great deal of difference in opinion and many of the speeches I am hearing now might be described as a bit of a walk down memory lane or an opportunity to highlight some deficiencies in policing in particular areas. I am familiar with the issue raised by John Hayes from the Wairarapa because I live in Carterton and I have had discussions with Gary McPhee on a number of occasions but also because he appeared before the select committee on another matter being a petition from the people of Carterton asking for extra staff for that office. 
With regard to Part 2 I guess that there is a lot that we could talk about. I was just going back through the advice paper given to the select committee—paper No. 4. If members want to understand some of the deliberations and the issues we discussed then it would be worth their while to grab hold of that paper from the National Party members who were on the committee and read through it. 
Some of the issues that have been discussed thus far were dealt with in the committee and the advice gave us cause to question officials more clearly and persistently. One of those issues that the Minister has just dealt with and that John Hayes raised in particular was an issue that we did discuss—the order of priority for policing. I guess what was clear is that it was never intended to be taken as the order of priority. They were simply the functions as listed. But the committee itself noted their observation and did have some input and that is why we see the paragraphs numbered as differently as they are. It does not make a lot of sense when we read this clause. The paragraphs are numbered (b) (ba) (c) (ca) (d) (e) (f) so we ask the question straight off “Where’s (a)?”. The answer is that it is just the way that the legislation has been presented to the House and it will be changed in the final print of the bill. We have had that explained. At the end of the day that was the order in which the committee wanted to see those functions listed. 
However I note John Hayes’ point. There is a good argument as to why (g) should be (f) and (f) should be (g). If we look at where the primary responsibilities should lie in terms of focus today we see there is a very strong argument on the member’s part that emergency management might well sit higher on the priority list than participation in policing activities outside New Zealand. However I am pretty sure that my leader the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have a differing view. As the member himself knows having had such a long and illustrious career in foreign affairs some people’s perspectives on policing and the allocation of police resources given the big picture might be slightly different on that particular point. 
I turn to the principles. When we go back through the advice and go back over the analysis of the submissions that were made it is interesting to note who made those submissions. The Manukau City Council had a bit to say about the current principles and the issues of transparency accountability and decision making. The Sensible Sentencing Trust asked and lobbied strongly for victims to be key and paramount and that the principles of policing be written around the victim. That is understandable because that is their reason for being. They are the people who have dedicated their lives to supporting others. We acknowledge the submission from the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups— 
Sandra Goudie 
: We don’t want victims. That’s the point. 
RON MARK 
: I say to Sandra Goudie that that is a very strong point. New Zealand First would not disagree with the member. We do not want to see any more victims. We want to see a stronger police force whose functions and principles are designed to ensure that we have an effective police force. I guess at the end of the day New Zealand First would always say that no matter how fine our principles how fine our functions and how finely tuned the organisation is which are all matters that are dealt with in Part 2 we do not achieve anything unless we have enough police on the ground. 
I come back to Mr Hayes’ point about Carterton. When I am going home to Carterton late on a Thursday night having left the House I am pleased to see police patrol cars still moving through Carterton and through the Wairarapa at 1 and 2 o’clock in the morning. I am very pleased to see that. But maybe we would address some of those problems of not having police stations open 24/7 by doubling the size of our police force which is a view a perspective and a policy that New Zealand First has long stated and stands by and will continue to pursue regardless of who is in Government. Many of the issues covered in Part 2 will as Mr Hayes quite rightly points out be met to their fullest extent only when there is a serious increase in policing numbers. It is good that we have been able to address some of that with the provision of an extra 1250 police officers and by lifting the Government’s focus to be on police ratios equivalent to those of Australia by 2010 but obviously that is a political battle that we will have to continue to fight. 
There are other issues in Part 2 and we might want to discuss them further on. I will take a pause and see what other points there are that people want to discuss but the responsibility and independence of the commissioner is something that I do want to comment on. Strong submissions were made by people who came before the committee pointing out that clause 16 was very important and pointing out the absolute fundamental need for the commissioner to be not only independent but to be totally believed and seen to be independent. If there is a message that I have for this Committee it is that we all do it every one of us—we try to stand up for our constituents we try to stand up for victims we try to stand against crime and we come to this House and demand that the Minister take action here there and everywhere. But we know inside ourselves that the moment a Minister starts to direct a police commissioner to do this and do that and not do this and not do that we have crossed the line and we are on a slippery slope towards Zimbabwe. 
New Zealand has a tremendous reputation internationally as a result of the professionalism of the men and women in our police force—the way in which they carry out their duties—and much of that is dependent upon the leadership that is demonstrated at the commissioner’s level and the resistance that he consistently shows towards being politically guided pushed and motivated. We have heard criticisms and I know from the Police Association that they are politically managed and politically manipulated. I have to say that the day we see evidence of that will be a very very sad day. It is important that clause 16 stands as it is and it is important that we in this Chamber all realise and accept and support the notion of the absolute complete independence of the police and the commissioner from the political process in all spheres.