Chester Borrows MP - Speech

Unmasking Violence Conference

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:13:29 +1200

E nga mana
E ng Reo
E nga Iwi o te motu

Karanga mai
Mihi Mai
Aku rangitira mai

Tena Kotou, tena kotou, tena tatou katoa

Good morning everyone and thank you for being here in Hawera this morning and for the duration of this conference.

I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to speak today. I was originally meant to participate on the panel tomorrow but the Business of the House precluded me from doing so.

Thank you to Pam for arranging this important conference and for factoring me in to the plans for today so that I may have the chance to have some discussion with you regarding the issues surrounding domestic violence.

A few years ago Ella and I lived in a police house in Stokes Valley. It was jammed into a row of similar aged houses and we felt like we could reach out and touch the neighbour’s house from ours. Our kitchens faced each other and there were only two narrow paths and a six foot high fence between the houses.

This wasn’t so much of a problem except that they used to argue terribly. There was booze involved and the noise would be horrific on occasions.

One night I heard the tea hit the wall and the language and decibels went through the roof. Then I heard the telling words, “right, I’ve had enough…” and there was the sound of rattling around in the knife drawer. I jumped the fence and went in through the back door.

The male was so surprised to see me walk straight into his house he stood there dumbfounded and when I demanded to know where his wife was he had a sheepish look on his face and a dopey grin, and motioned to the front door. As I walked through the house I went past the bedroom doors of the children and they were sitting on their beds crying and then I found the woman on the front step and she was crying.

I said, “Where are you hurt?”
She said, “What?”
I said, “Has he hurt you, I heard him grab a knife or something?”
She said, “Oh no – he’d never hit me?”

We had a bit of a sit down and funnily enough, just the fact that I’d jumped the fence, and they knew I would again – where nobody ever had before – meant that those incidents stopped as if somebody turned off the tap.

It didn’t matter that nobody was being physically assaulted - the threats, the emotional harm, the conditioning of the children, and the verbal battering meant that this household was about as violent as you could get without lifting a finger.

Another story comes to mind.

I was sitting at home one Saturday night writing a sermon. I was due to preach at our local church when there was banging on the back door and before I could answer it a young 11 year old boy rushed in through the door and said, “Mr Borrows, Mr Borrows – I’ve been sexually abused.”

I knew the young boy from the neighbourhood and so I said to him, “Tell me what sexual abuse is … we’ll call him Nicky.”

He said to me, “I thought you’d know Mr Borrows.”

I felt a bit silly and he looked at me like I let him down badly – I said “I do Nicky, but I need you to tell me what it means.”

He said, “It’s when your father roots you up the arse.”

There was absolutely no doubt, that this young boy knew what sexual abuse was, and he’d come to someone for help.

We quickly interviewed the boy, and spoke to the father who admitted the abuse of his son. Of course initially the family didn’t want to believe what had been going on, but with the father’s confession, they couldn’t deny it.

The point being that the boy wanted the abuse to stop – and he told somebody who could make it stop. For years we wouldn’t get involved in these incidents. Educators and social workers, and health workers wouldn’t believe children, or even in the light of damning evidence of assaults and sexual abuse, they believed it wasn’t their role to intervene – somehow believing it was more important to preserve the relationship they had with the victim rather than prevent the ongoing violence.

Well, the violence has to stop.

For a significant number of victims of violence, the most dangerous place they can be is in their own home. In 2007/2008, family violence accounted for approximately 39% of homicides, 42% of kidnappings and abductions, 44% of grievous assaults, and 64% of serious assaults. One woman dies at the hands of her partner or former partner every 26 days in New Zealand. One in three NZ women experience physical and/or sexual abuse throughout their lifetime at the hands of a partner.

What we also know is that we murder more frequently per head of population that every other western country outside the USA. We kill each other at more than twice the rate of those in the UK with all their racial tension, terrorism, underworld crime, Class A drug use, social precursors and high alcohol intake – and although we might all have our theories – nobody seems to know why.

One of the most frustrating things for people outside a battering relationship is trying to understand why a woman doesn't just leave. The most important thing to keep in mind is that extreme emotional abuse is always present in domestic violence situations. On average, an abused woman will leave her partner 6-8 times, but often many more. The reasons they return or stay in the relationship vary from case to case, and can include anything from fear, financial dependence, social isolation, a lack of support from family or friends, or saddest of all, the notion that violence is in some way acceptable or deserved - the violence escalates slowly over time until living with constant abuse numbs the victim so that she is unable to recognize that she is involved in a set pattern of abuse.

In homes where domestic violence occurs, children are at high risk for suffering physical abuse themselves. Regardless of whether children are physically abused, the emotional effects of witnessing domestic violence are very similar to the psychological trauma of being a victim of child abuse. We teach our boys it’s their right and role to beat their partners and we teach our girls it’s their role to put up with it.

Younger children do not understand the meaning of the abuse they observe and tend to believe that they “must have done something wrong.” Self-blame can precipitate feelings of guilt, worry, and anxiety. Adolescents are at risk of academic failure, school drop-out, delinquency, substance abuse, and difficulties in their own relationships. And so even in a family home where the children themselves are not the physical victims of violence, the effects that witnessing violence between the parents will have on them is long-lasting and damaging, and violence will quite possibly pass down from generation to generation.

So having taken a look at the bleak picture violence in the home presents us with, what can we do to address the issues and how can we improve on the work that has already been done?

The Leitner Report highlighted several areas where there was clearly scope for improvement, for example, tension between Maori and New Zealand Police in some parts of New Zealand hinders Maori from calling police. The police value the relationship with Maori and are focused on addressing the position of Maori both as offenders and victims. Maori women are over-represented in family violence statistics, a source of concern for all agencies involved in the issue. New Zealand police have engaged with Iwi Service Providers to work on key initiatives which vary across the country. We know that Maori and in particular Maori women are reporting violent crime in greater numbers than ever before. Since 1996, the New Zealand police have invested considerably in connecting with Maori Communities, seeking opportunities to work together on crime issues where Maori have been over represented. Partnerships with Maori are consolidated across the 12 Policing Districts, providing police with a conduit for taking advice on issues affecting Maori Communities.

Police acknowledge that working with Maori sometimes requires a personalised style of policing, which allows a free flow of information based on integrity, honesty and trust. There are times where police carry out their lawful duty which may not always gain the consent of sectors of our communities, however despite the challenges that confront police, there is always a genuine willingness to resolve issues through alternative means that is satisfactory to everyone.

After 24 years as a police officer my feelings are very strongly in favour of doing all we can to prevent violence and prosecute offenders while at the same time empowering victims to be strong enough to assert their right not to be the victims of violence.

The Leitner Report also identified police training as an issue. Police have lifted our response in the area of family violence and protection orders specifically in the last 2 years especially in the area of staff training and the appointment of additional full-time family violence co-ordinators. The increase in the number of reported incidences of family violence is a positive trend and reflects the increasing intolerance of New Zealand society towards domestic violence. Police have also developed a specialist module and qualification for family violence coordinators and investigators. But we still have a problem with the perceptions of family violence being treated in different ways between police districts. Until recently, and I don’t have current figures – 70% of family violence reports into the Counties-Manukau Policing district was recorded – that is coded and documented as something other than family violence. At the same time in the Wairarapa district 95% of family violence incidents reported to the police were recorded as that with family violence codes.

So is this about perceptions, resource management, training, a perceived acceptability of family violence, community tolerance, laziness … who knows. But until we treat family violence as a crime every time – we are perpetuating the myth that on some level it is acceptable.

A police prosecution policy on Family Violence has been developed as part of the Government Taskforce for Action on Violence Within Families established in 2005. This includes policy on protection orders, and guidelines for police prosecutors. An example is the diversion policy for family violence incidents that can only be made available on the authority of a Commissioned Officer.

We recognise there is continued work required in this area to ensure that family violence is responded to appropriately and to ensure we provide reassurance for women and children who are confronted with violence in their homes. In the last 2 years there has been a significant increase in staff training around domestic violence and there have been full-time family violence co-ordinators appointed.

The Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Amendment Bill 2008 introduced by the National Government and currently at the Select Committee stage is predicated on the belief that there is still more that can be done to protect victims of family violence, and help prevent them from becoming just another statistic. For example, on-the-spot protection orders will provide police with an immediate response to dangerous domestic situations, and ensure that potential victims are protected in situations where prosecutions will not or cannot follow. It also allows for Courts to impose a Protection Order at Sentencing when charges do follow family violence incidents. We think empowering the police to take immediate action will ensure potential victims are protected until courts are able to fully deal with the matter. In turn, it is incumbent upon the police to treat breaches of protection orders with the severity they deserve. Each year, there are approximately 2,500 protection orders issued, with police responding to 4,500 breaches. We note that the report also says that in many cases we get it right, responding quickly and decisively and as a result women felt safer. Probably the most worrying trend has been the increase in family violence offence reports, and an increase in arrests – but a decrease in the number of Protection Orders sought by victims – and the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill seeks to address this issue first and foremost.

Previous concerns such as response to 111 Emergency Calls due to centralised call service centre with dispatchers who may not know locations or pronunciations of rural places and women not receiving assistance in a timely manner due to distance from main centres, have been addressed to an extent. Domestic violence is categorised as a Priority 1 call for service regardless of where the call is received from. The Communications centre staff are trained to locate and verify an address to assist in rapid response to rural districts. All information about location is dispatched to local police responding, who have the local geographic knowledge required. New Zealand police employ a culturally diverse range of staff linguistically skilled in languages including Maori and other international languages.

The Sexual Violence Taskforce was established to investigate and report to Government on what actions it should be taking to address adult sexual violence. An important part of this work has been a consideration of how to prevent adult sexual violence, including what sort of campaigns (if any) might be effective. The Taskforce is due to report to the Government in July 2009 with its recommendations.

Whilst we have clearly made progress and awareness of the issue of domestic violence has been raised, there is still much work to be done. The recent Fordham Law School’s Leitner Centre for International Law and Justice report (released on April 14th) concluded that levels of domestic violence against women in New Zealand have remained high in spite of the nation’s commitment under international law to prevent and punish such acts.

The group went to several towns in New Zealand to meet with lawyers, judges, legislators, members of government and ordinary citizens, among others. The Report’s findings were presented on TVNZ and I am hopeful that as this issue is prevalent in the media again we can make further progress.

We recently held a Drivers of Crime Forum at Parliament to talk to those on the ground about what the drivers of crime are and how we can combat these drivers. We continue to consult with attendees.

The position is that we have in the first few months in government moved in quite punitive ways to address shortfalls in the ability to address crime especially crimes against the person.

We have also moved to enhance the ability of Police to fully investigate such crimes so we have seen increases in the maximum penalties for crimes against children:

enhanced ability to deal with organised criminals and especially gangs;

introduced laws to increase the ability to cease DNA from those arrested recognising that DNA is just the modern fingerprint;

we’ve promoted better access to justice for victims by initiating a victims fund and Victims Centres;

we’ve introduced legislation which will raise the tariff sentences for the worst repeat violent offenders;

and the ability to issue “on-the-spot-protection orders” as previously outlined.

So as the Minister of Justice, Hon Simon Power has said, it is now time to change the debate. To look at the drivers of crime and how we intervene early enough so that those young people who are in to crime almost as an inevitability – are detoured into more productive and life enhancing practises.

What we know is that we can identify the at risk foetus. We know that the mother of a child who grows up to offend and go to jail was pregnant at an early age – often mid-teens and usually pregnant three times before she is twenty and usually to multiple partners; that she has no positive role models and is disengaged from her family; left school with no qualifications; smokes tobacco; is dependant of alcohol and some other substance; works in low paying jobs on the minimum wage or doesn’t work at all; and we know that if we can identify dad he is from the same demographic.

… And if we can know all of this and fail to address it in preventative rather than merely punitive terms – we are not addressing the problem at all.

The challenge is before us all. I thank you that you have recognised the challenge and yet have not deferred from it but have come here to this conference to address some of the most difficult realities of life in modern day New Zealand.

I wish you well for your conference.

Tena kotu, tena koutou, tena kotau, katoa.

Question for Oral Answer Police College—Graduates

nospam@example.com (staff) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:09:22 +1300

10. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement that “Over the past 18 months, since I became Police Minister, I have regularly received verbal assurances and updates from the police administration that the standard of police graduating from the college is being maintained”; if so, why?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : Yes. I have regularly received updates because I want to see continuing high standards for graduates.
Chester Borrows: How can she be so well informed when she did not receive the report by police college instructor and psychologist Iain Saunders criticising the low mental ability of some recruits until Monday 25 June, which was after the story broke in Saturday’s newspaper and months after it was submitted?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Because as a Minister I do not rely on one report from police headquarters; I receive a report regularly. In fact, I receive a report on recruitment into the New Zealand Police every week.
Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware of the comments by Chester Borrows that there should be some leeway when considering applicants with offences?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have seen comments by Chester Borrows that there is a place for a case by case approach to people who have committed offences. I wonder whether the following case would be one of the ones we should take a case by case approach to, as it is one that Chester Borrows criticised. It was a case of an applicant who had committed an assault offence. An investigation showed that the applicant was 20 at the time. He was 31 when recruited. The applicant had confronted an offender who had burgled his house three times. He hit the offender while waiting for the police to arrive, after the offender had laughed at him when he asked for his personal belongings back.
Chester Borrows: What reasons has the Minister been given for not immediately seeing a report that describes a recruit as having to form letters inside bubble shapes, like a 5-year-old; that describes an intelligence standard that allows recruits only in the 23rd percentile to progress; and emphatically states that the public and the future of the police are at significant risk—all of which was known to the office of the Commissioner of Police?
Hon ANNETTE KING: When I was informed of this report I asked for it. I then found that we had a number of reports that were conflicting, and as members of this House know, I sought an independent assessment of the training standards. It will be available at the end of September.
Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question specifically asked what reason she had been given for not immediately seeing the report. She did not give any reasons and did not address that specific question.
Madam SPEAKER: I think she did, but I think the Minister wishes to add to her answer.
Hon ANNETTE KING: All I am going to say is that the report itself was an internal report done for debate. I did not necessarily need to see it. What I need to know is that standards are being maintained. I receive a report every week from headquarters. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of those who are reporting to me.
Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware of any other information that places the circumstances of offences committed by serving police officers in context?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, and I think this was a very unfortunate issue that was raised by Chester Borrows for a headline. He never looked behind the issue, but he did make the point that maybe we should look at these things on a case by case basis. If he asked for that information he would know that many of those offences—in fact, most of them—happened when people when were young, that they were much older when recruited, and that the offences were at the minor end. I can give another example, which involves an offence of theft. The applicant was a university student at the time of the offence, and was 30 when recruited. The applicant took an ornamental pot plant from outside a house while walking home from a night drinking in town.
Chester Borrows: Has the Minister now got a response to comments from Senior Sergeant Saunders that “Some of our staff are in a very vulnerable position and some of the public are probably being placed at risk or offered very poor service.”, and that “The police … are at risk of claims of negligent hiring because we know these things.”, or does she still protest that these are operational matters and have nothing to do with her as Minister?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I take all those issues seriously. That is why I sought an independent assessment, which will be available to all members of the House and to the public of New Zealand, so they can look at those issues. But I would hope that the member, who is a former police officer, would stop beating up on the police. They have, frankly, had a gutsful of it. There are many good men and women out there who work hard for the public of New Zealand, and they put up with that tripe day after day.
Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware of any further information that places the circumstances of offences committed by police recruits in context?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I have many examples, but I think the House deserves one more. There was an example of wilful damage. The applicant was 16 at the time of the offence and 41 when recruited. The applicant had broken off a car aerial.

Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill - In Committee

nospam@example.com (staff) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:05:57 +1300

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I take this opportunity to stand and speak in support of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill and indicate to the Committee that the National Party is supporting this bill. I have also seen the Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled yesterday; I have had a chance to look at it today. I can indicate that the National Party will support the Supplementary Order Paper as written, as well.
The fact is that the confidence of the public has been swayed in the ability of the Police Complaints Authority, as it is now, to be able to deal effectively with the complaints that come before it and the investigations that it carries out from time to time. This is largely not due to the actions of the Police Complaints Authority but unfortunately is in respect of some isolated incidents that have been brought upon the police by its own members. Over the last few years, for instance, we have seen a number of investigations and complaints made by complainants such as Louise Nicholas around officers, and we can reel off the names—Rickards, Schollum, Shipton, and Dewar. Of course in recent times we have been successful in prosecuting Detective Inspector John Dewar, as he was at the time.
The fact is that the public have always been wary of a police complaints system that has the police investigating their own. The fact that that is replicated across society in many other avenues and in many other departments does not detract, I suppose, from that lack of confidence, because of course there is a huge inequity of power when an organisation such as the police has an ultimate power in respect of its citizens.
I note that the Supplementary Order Paper as it has been tabled seeks to rename the bill the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. That seems to take account of the fact that subsequent to the Bazley report, police conduct in various forms—not necessarily coming out of complaints, but the way that the police conduct themselves on a day-to-day basis—should come under scrutiny at more regular intervals. As the Bazley report has suggested, there should be annual audits and then a 10-year audit of the way that the police force conducts itself. The report also, of course, recommends that there be a code of conduct for the police.
It is only right and fitting, then, that the new authority be called the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The word “independent” denotes that it will stand apart from the police. Although to a certain level there will be minor or less serious incidents and complaints investigated by serving police—in other words, as I said before, the police investigating their own—the new authority as it will be, with five authorities being five warrant-holding individuals, will have the ability to spread its net wider and investigate more fully those more serious complaints, allegations, or merely situations, as they arise.
The sorts of things that the Police Complaints Authority at the moment investigates are deaths in police cells, incidents of police car chases—and we see that the authority is investigating those at the moment—as well as incidents that involve police shootings or police actions that are so serious there should be some sort of independent scrutiny made of police conduct or the way in which the police carry out their investigations without a complaint having been made. I believe that that is a good thing; so does the National Party.
New parts of the bill before the Committee look to the Police Complaints Authority being able to release information into the public arena and also release information back to complainants or defendants on an interest of justice imperative. I think that is a good thing, too. In the past, the information held by the Police Complaints Authority has been confidential, and at times that has acted against the interests of justice. It has not allowed the Police Complaints Authority to release information that may well have acted in the best interests of justice to show that a person being treated as a defendant or under investigation by the police is innocent of the charges made or has defences open to him or her. I believe that releasing information in the public interest can add significantly to the way that the public view the Police Complaints Authority and the way in which the police have handled themselves during the course of investigations. The public expect to have a greater scrutiny of the police, especially over such incidents as I related earlier.
The fact is that the New Zealand Police is an organisation that the public of New Zealand must have a high level of confidence in at all times. Although public confidence gets attacked from time to time because of incidents that occur, we must remember that those incidents occur on an individual and non-systemic basis most of the time. As detailed in the Bazley report, there are a number of ways in which the police dealt with matters over time that detracted from public confidence, but the fact is that the police are the first and last call in many situations. It is not that long ago when, for instance, if we rang Child, Youth and Family Services or the Department of Social Welfare, we heard a message on the answerphone: “If you can’t get hold of us, then ring the police.”, and the police stepped in and did those things. The police force was the organisation that we called for. The police were the ones, too, who most came under scrutiny, because they were present most often and they were always dealing with difficult situations.
The way that the Steven Wallace matter was handled and the publicity that was gained around that—particularly comments made by the Prime Minister in respect of the possibility of prejudice operating within the police against M?ori—detracted from the public level of confidence in the Police Complaints Authority.
I am pleased to see that there will be a significant level of independence within the new Independent Police Conduct Authority. I believe that the structure is one that will add to public confidence in the authority’s ability to make this information available, to bear more public scrutiny, and to get into the media the real facts of a case rather than allowing people to speculate as to what those facts may be. In this news-hungry world, where we always want to deal to those who are in authority, that will be a good thing. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading

nospam@example.com (staff) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:03:26 +1300

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to speak to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. Again, as we have moved through the Committee stage and so come to the third reading, I can confirm that National supports this legislation because it is necessary. The fact is that this bill will give more independence to what was the Police Complaints Authority and is now quite rightly called the Independent Police Conduct Authority. With more independence will come the ability for the public to scrutinise what is happening within the authority, and, of course, probably more important—or at least as important—the ability of the authority to scrutinise the actions of the police.
I find it a shame that a person cannot support more scrutiny of the police, and of the way they do their work, without then being told he or she is anti-police or is stirring the pot by, for instance, recommending that there needs to be a little more transparency. I guess I come at this not only as one who has been “the investigated” through the Police Complaints Authority, but as one who, in another life, has been “the investigator” on behalf of the authority. Public perception has always been that having the police investigate themselves is less than satisfactory. Although it happens in other areas of our society, the fact is that there is a huge imbalance of power between the average member of the public and members of the police who are carrying out an inquiry, an investigation, or a prosecution.
Historically, that perception has come through—the lack of fairness and the need to counter that imbalance in order to maintain a “rule of law” type of fairness within this very strong body that is the New Zealand Police. It has also come out of recent proceedings within our courts, and the ongoing investigation. Obviously, I am speaking about the complaints made by Louise Nicholas and what flowed on from those.
The bill will allow greater speed and handling of complaints, as well. What we have found on the Law and Order Committee, with the Police Complaints Authority reporting to us, has been a huge carry-over, year to year, of matters that have not been finalised because they are largely waiting for the police to get around to fully investigating the complaints before them, and because of the lack of an ability, for instance, for the Police Complaints Authority to be able to crack the whip and demand a response, because it is requiring another Government agency to carry out its work for it. As we know, the police have been under-resourced and have had to work on other investigations that take them away from this most important business.
Initially, the Police Complaints Authority could not tell us how much it was carrying over from one year to another, and only in recent times has it been able to tell us the exact figure. It worked out to be about 40 percent. Having the scrutineer to be kept at bay or to be beholden to the organisation it is supposed to be scrutinising is not the way for a public scrutineer to be treated. So granting more independence is a good thing, and we look forward to learning more about what is before the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and the reception it will get from the police, and the respect and the confidence that it gains from the public.
I want to touch on part of the discussion raised by the M?ori Party at the Committee stage. We had some sympathy for two amendments that those members put forward. One seemed to have some significant validity, but it came up at the last minute and it was difficult to be able to gain support for it. The first thing the M?ori Party wanted to do was to have a separate M?ori branch, if you like, of the Independent Police Conduct Authority to investigate complaints made by M?ori. The second amendment was to install an appellate body for M?ori that they could complain to, which would then make suggestions back down to the authority about how matters would be resolved. The M?ori Party attempted to do some fixing up in regard to this, and a number of National members had some sympathy for that. It was really a lack of time, and the way in which the matter was raised, that prevented us from supporting the matter at that time.
I do believe that the fact that five authorities will be created under this legislation allows Parliament to make appointments that may at least go some way to addressing the M?ori Party’s concerns. The point needs to be made too that strong accusations of institutional racism were made by our colleagues in the M?ori Party, and there is some basis for those points. I feel the need to say that we can accept where these accusations come from; M?ori are overrepresented in prison numbers and vastly overrepresented in numbers of people arrested, and I have to say from some experience that M?ori turn out to be the offenders because, frequently, they are the targets.
Sometimes, I guess, it is a little bit like someone who always fishes in the fishing holes. There are two groups of young guys walking down the street; one has a majority of P?keh?, one has a majority of M?ori. The policemen are in a police car driving down the road, and maybe there are just two groups, and the cops are doing their job, and they think they will stop and have a yarn to those guys. They wonder whom they will have a yarn to, and they look up and see, say, Billy Smith. They might say: “That is Bobby Smith’s boy, and I know him from the footy club”—or they know him from the RSA, or from here or there—“and that is fine. Who is on the other side of the street? Well, that is some little M?ori chap, and I know his old man because I locked him up.” So they stop and talk to those guys, who get a bit upset, and call the police a few names, and the police decide to go through their pockets to find what is in them. Maybe it is an illegal substance, a screwdriver, or whatever. There is an argument or an accusation, and there are arrests for disorderly behaviour, or for whatever is in the pockets, but they never find out what is in the pockets of the little white kids walking down the street.
I do not believe that that is a conscious form of racism, but it is a form of bias that exists. The police in that example never knew what was in the pockets of the little white guys—and whether or not we accept it, or people find it is comfortable to think about it happening in that way, that is the way it happens. Whatever the police find in the pockets, only goes to reinforce what they have in their heads.
We in the National Party made the point at the time that the M?ori Party made its amendment known to us that we believe we should live in a country where there is one law for all. People in this House do not like the phrase “one law for all”, but I would like to reinforce this point. When the National Party talks about one law for all, it is talking about an aspiration. We want to live in a country where there is one law for all, so we do not see a need for a specific branch of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. We want to live in a country where people are equal before the law. We do not pretend for one moment that that situation currently exists in this country. I know that I hear M?ori, particularly, saying when we talk about one law for all: “Bring it on.”, because they long for a day when there is one law for all and when everyone will be treated in exactly the same way. But in relation to law and order matters, M?ori, because they are overrepresented in negative statistics within this country, are limited in their ability to take on this arm of the State. They are limited, for instance, in terms of finance. They are limited to legal aid solicitors and all the constraints that the Legal Services Agency puts on their ability to defend themselves, as opposed to the ability of P?keh? and other races who do have other options.
I accept that I have wandered a little from this third reading debate, but I do want to make the point that I believe strongly that the Independent Police Conduct Authority is a step up for all of us, and I believe that M?ori will be far better served, and will have less reason to doubt the scrutiny that the police come under, as a result of the implementation of this legislation. I am proud to support this bill, and I am also proud that my party so strongly supports it.

Question for Oral Answer - Police - Assistant Commissioner’s Employment Status

nospam@example.com (staff) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:56:00 +1200

Question for Oral Answer

Tuesday 18 September 2007

Police—Assistant Commissioner’s Employment Status

12. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: What progress, if any, has been made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards since his suspension in 2004?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I have no responsibility, as the Minister of Police, for the employment of individual police officers; this is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. However, I am advised that good progress is being made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards within the current police employment relations framework. As the member knows, the current framework, which is many decades old, has its failings. These are being—[Interruption] Can the member hear?
Gerry Brownlee: Well, he would like an answer instead of the patter he is getting.
Hon ANNETTE KING: They have a very sour member over there today. He is very sour.
Madam SPEAKER: Again, we will be hearing questions and answers in silence unless members restrain themselves.
Hon ANNETTE KING: As the member knows, the current framework, which is many decades old, has its failings. These are being addressed by the introduction of revised regulations and a code of conduct that I announced recently, and that will be in place by the beginning of next year.
Chester Borrows: Are cars issued to high-ranking officers used primarily for police business; if so, why would a new car be issued once the officer’s primary purpose had been extinguished and he would not travel a single kilometre on police business?
Hon ANNETTE KING: My understanding is that senior officers, within their standard contract, have the provision of a car. It makes up part of their total remuneration. I happen to have a copy of the contract. This contract for senior officers has been in place for a long period of time. In fact, members will be interested to know that this particular contract has been in place since the early 1990s and has been based on a standard State sector senior management contract of arrangements that were prevalent at the time.
Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm that senior officers who are issued with cars are able to use taxpayers’ dollars to pay for the petrol in these cars, for personal use?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I cannot confirm that. It would depend on the contractual arrangements that officers have. All I can say to the member is that Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards has a contract that enables him to have a car. He receives it in exchange for a proportion of his salary. It is part of a standard contractual arrangement, the basis of which has been in place since the early 1990s.
Chester Borrows: Will any future employment settlement reached with Mr Rickards require Cabinet or ministerial sign-off?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I cannot speculate on what will happen to Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards. I agree with the president of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, who said last night—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am interrupting because I think this is relevant. The Minister clearly did not hear the question. The question was whether there would be any sign-off from either the Minister or Cabinet, which is nothing to do with an agreement and nothing to do with a settlement or anything else. The question was whether the amount would be signed off by the Minister or Cabinet; it is pretty simple.
Hon ANNETTE KING: The answer is equally simple. I cannot speculate on the outcome of a tribunal hearing that is yet to be had on Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards. I do not know the outcome—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Members wanted an answer; please have the courtesy of hearing it in silence!
Hon ANNETTE KING: —and regardless of what members of this House might think, that member of the police is still a member of the police and he is entitled to have the full processes followed. I would imagine that members opposite would be the first to complain if it was one of their mates and the processes were not followed.
Ron Mark: Can the Minister tell the House why, after such a long period of time, no dates have been set for an internal tribunal hearing, and why no charges have been proffered against Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards?
Hon ANNETTE KING: It is my understanding that a tribunal date, if not already set, is about to be set. I do not know where the member is getting his information from, but I can only go on what I am advised. I have advised the House today that a conclusion of this issue is close.
Chester Borrows: Does the Minister stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the decision by the police administration to promote Mr Rickards four times after it became aware of allegations against him, and that it was a case of the police “looking after their own”?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I can confirm for the member that it was the Prime Minister who said that she had doubts when Mr Rickards’ name was brought to her as a potential Deputy Police Commissioner, because allegations were swirling around him at that time.
Hon Tau Henare: Swirling?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Swirling around him. Letters and comments had been made publicly around this particular police officer. It was the Prime Minister, in fact, who said she did not believe that Mr Rickards was a person suitable to be a Deputy Police Commissioner. He was subsequently appointed Assistant Police Commissioner by a process that is not the responsibility of the Minister of Police or the Prime Minister.
Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the Minister’s answer she referred to a copy of the contract. I wonder whether she would table that before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. If the member wished that issue raised he should have done so at the time. [Interruption] I do not make the Standing Orders; the members make the Standing Orders.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let me read you the Standing Order. It is Standing Order 368, which states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may, on a point of order, require the Minister to lay the document on the Table. The Minister must then lay the document on the Table unless it is of a confidential nature.” I do not see any mention of a time exclusion on when the point of order should be taken.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think there is. There is a small word “whenever” at the start of that particular sentence. So the point of order must be taken whenever it happens, not some moments later.
Hon ANNETTE KING: In my answer to the member I did not quote directly from the contract.
Madam SPEAKER: That is the point, really. Listen very carefully: the Minister did not quote from the document. She certainly made reference to the document, that is true, but she did not quote from the document. That is what the Standing Order relates to.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned by the way in which you have dealt with this matter, because the document, whether it was read from or quoted from, was referred to on a number of occasions throughout the exchange. You have insisted that when people table documents or have other things to say, they do so at the end of a question period. I think that Mr Borrows acted appropriately, and I ask you to reconsider whether we have to go down the road of the tight definition of Dr Cullen’s view that the moment a Minister quotes from a document—or appears to—the House should break into a point of order to test whether a document has in fact been quoted from.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member but I will follow the Standing Orders. They are quite clear on this matter. If members wish to change them it is up to them to do so. I have noticed that on other occasions whenever the matter was raised, members were only too happy to leap to their feet to raise points of order. On this occasion the Standing Orders were not followed; I have to follow the Standing Orders.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the pro forma individual contract document that I have with me, which is pursuant to section 76 of the Police Act.
Document not tabled.