Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill be now read a first time. The bill amends the Police Complaints Authority Act in order to enhance the independence of the Police Complaints Authority. The bill arises from the review of the Police Complaints Authority conducted by the Hon Sir Rodney Gallen, at my request. Sir Rodney released his report, entitled , in October 2000. A perception of and a concern about a lack of independence of the Police Complaints Authority were at the heart of the review.

I want to emphasise that the decision to review and amend the Act does not reflect overall dissatisfaction with the Police Complaints Authority’s track record. During its 14 years in existence the Police Complaints Authority has done a lot to promote public confidence in police accountability. The overwhelming majority of complaints to the authority have been shown to have been dealt with thoroughly and fairly. The reforms are intended to address the public concern that police investigation of complaints of a serious nature against themselves, such as a police shooting, is neither independent nor appropriate. It is critical that when serious complaints are made against the police, there is no doubt as to the impartiality of the investigations and findings of the Police Complaints Authority.

The major decision arising out of Sir Rodney’s review is to provide the Police Complaints Authority with an enhanced investigative capacity of its own, independent of the police. While the authority already has a statutory authority to conduct its own investigations, it lacks the resources to do so. The Independent Police Complaints Authority will be resourced to allow it to investigate itself the most serious complaints against the police, rather than reviewing police investigations of their own members. An investigative team of up to six is being established, consisting of a team leader, investigators, and a support person. Last year’s Budget provided $307,000 in new money to help establish that team, with a further $385,000 in additional funding to be provided from the 2003-04 year onwards.

Sir Rodney noted in his report that the name of the Police Complaints Authority has given rise to misunderstandings about its independence. The fact that investigations of complaints against the police are currently carried out by the police has reinforced that misunderstanding. Renaming the authority the Independent Police Complaints Authority will emphasise its independence, while clearly stating the role of the new authority.

Currently, the Police Complaints Authority is a single person appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The bill provides for the membership of the Independent Police Complaints Authority to increase to three persons. The chair will be a current or retired judge and will be supported by two other members. Expansion of the authority’s membership will allow representation from the wider community, and will thus assist in engendering confidence about its independence. As is the case with the Police Complaints Authority at present, all three members of the Independent Police Complaints Authority will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House.

The bill is divided into three parts. Part 1 changes the name of the Police Complaints Authority Act to the Independent Police Complaints Authority Act. It also specifies that the bill is to come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.

Part 2 sets out amendments to the Police Complaints Authority Act. In addition to the two changes referred to above, this part inserts provisions to provide for a number of matters relating to administration and to the appointment of members of the authority. Those provisions are consistent with the Government’s Crown entity reforms. There are also amendments relating to the procedure of the authority—for example, powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act are conferred on the authority for the purposes of holding a hearing. In addition, provision is made for the disclosure of exculpatory information held by the Independent Police Complaints Authority in limited circumstances, to ensure that a person charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment receives a fair trial.

Part 2 also sets out transitional provisions to facilitate a smooth interface between the old Police Complaints Authority and the new Independent Police Complaints Authority. In particular, it provides that when the bill comes into force the existing Police Complaints Authority will become the chairperson of the new Independent Police Complaints Authority. All other employees and officers of the existing authority will be transferred to the Independent Police Complaints Authority.

Part 3 sets out consequential amendments and repeals required as a result of this bill. All of those amendments are minor and non-controversial.

In conclusion, the objective of this bill is to enhance the independence of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. It is vital that there is full public confidence in the integrity of the investigations of the Police Complaints Authority. This legislation will assist in achieving that. I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration.

RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) : As the spokesperson on justice for the National Party, I tell members that National welcomes this bill and will speed its passage. It is obviously critical to the maintenance of an effective legal system that the police are competent, are accountable for their actions, and enjoy public confidence. That could be put in a line by saying that the fount of justice must not be sullied. I join with the comments made by the Minister in welcoming this bill. In respect of the bill, I seek to make just three points.

The first point is that it was a major decision arising out of the review to which the Minister has referred that the Police Complaints Authority should have an enhanced investigative capacity of its own, independent of the police. For a few moments I just want to explore the case in support of that proposition. It is clear to me and to members of the National Party that it is time now for the authority to have such a capacity. Similar conclusions have been arrived at in England and in Australia, and the literature makes it clear that such a conclusion has eventually been arrived at in just about every other jurisdiction where an authority of this kind has been set up. While it may seem to favour the concern of the complainant for independence, there are also advantages for the police in the adopting of an independent investigative procedure. The police would no longer be subject to the same criticisms, but, more importantly, they would be less likely to be affected by doubtful complaints brought by persons who are the subject of criminal proceedings, for ulterior motives. They would also be relieved of that very uncomfortable obligation of investigating their colleagues.

In New South Wales the audit report on the investigation of police complaints noted the importance of the recognition of links and patterns that identified serious shortcomings. I believe that the authority, being independent and involved solely in matters of this kind, is in the best possible position to identify such links or patterns, and that is a strong argument for the authority to be involved in direct investigation itself. In addition, there is a protection for so-called whistle-blowers. If members of the police were aware of undesirable practices occurring, it would be difficult to deal with those through the ordinary police channels of authority. It would be much simpler to ensure that the necessary material was available to the authority, which would be in a position to take any necessary action.

There is also the question of police morale. It is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and a constant critic of the police, that will have an effect on morale. But if, on the other hand, the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police—and they have that confidence at present—there should be no effect on morale. I would hope, rather, those members of the police, who include the vast majority of persons in the service, can feel confident that if there are undesirable activities occurring, they will be dealt with and the standards of the service maintained.

Concerns have been expressed in the past, on behalf of both complainants and the police, of delays in completing investigations. I think it has been acknowledged that such delays would generally seem to have been the responsibility of the investigating police officers, rather than the authority. No doubt in some cases, at least, delays have occurred because the authority investigation was seen as having less immediate urgency than other work on which an officer was engaged. I argue that it would clearly be advantageous to both the police and complainants if that kind of delay could be avoided, and, on the whole, it seems more likely to be avoided if the authority has, in appropriate cases, an investigative capacity. This will clearly be a significant issue for the Law and Order Committee, to whom this bill is to be referred. That is the first issue that I would like to deal with.

The second point is to invite Government members to consider an extension of this bill. I believe this new Police Complaints Authority could be expanded. In offering that view to members I wish to acknowledge the work that the Hon. Tony Ryall, as a former Minister of Justice, has done in that area. I support the innovative views that he has offered to me, which I now offer to Parliament. He says—wisely, in my view—that the Independent Police Complaints Authority could be expanded to deal with prison inmates’ complaints. The same arguments about the police investigating themselves apply equally to Department of Corrections staff investigating complaints against prison officers. Obviously, there would be financial savings and other efficiencies in such an amalgamation. As we begin the debate this afternoon on this bill to establish the Independent Police Complaints Authority, I believe we should be looking at the possibilities of extending the jurisdiction of that authority.

The situation with the Department of Corrections is broadly this. Currently, inmates’ complaints of mistreatment, breaches of rights, and illegality are dealt with by a five-person inspectorate in the Department of Corrections and a three-person team in the Office of the Ombudsmen. Last year, the inspectorate—and I am talking about issues of complaint in the Department of Corrections—dealt with 2,000 formal complaints, and the Office of the Ombudsmen apparently dealt with a similar number. Very few complaints are upheld. Mr Ryall believes, and I support his view, that the investigative skills and processes of investigating police and inmates’ complaints are quite consistent. I hope that issue will be looked at by the Government and, certainly, by the Law and Order Committee, to which submissions on the bill would be addressed.

The third issue I would like to deal with concerns some of the machinery aspects in the bill. I do not know whether it is appropriate that this authority be entitled the “Independent Police Complaints Authority”. The Police Complaints Authority has always been independent—the police would accept that, and so would the public. This change may just be another instance of the political correctness that so characterises every foot fault of this present Government. But it seems important, for those politically correct reasons, for this politically correct Government to change the name of the Police Complaints Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. National has no quarrel with the proposal to increase the authority’s membership to three persons, but we do have a concern, given the revamped jurisdiction and the additional powers that are to be given to the authority, that the authority is properly resourced. It would be a tragedy if the Government, for ideological reasons, made a decision to starve this particular authority of sufficient resources to do its work, and transferred the funding that should be available to it to other more questionable enterprises, of which there are many.

Finally, I refer to the specific clauses dealing with particular issues. I note that there are three parts to the bill, and that the legislation deals not only with issues of substance relating to the Independent Police Complaints Authority but also with a number of machinery issues. So questions of salaries and allowances, staffing, personnel policy, and superannuation or retiring allowances are dealt with.

It would not be fair to say that this change is long overdue. But it is right to pay tribute to the Hon Sir Rodney Gallen, who, in his review of the Police Complaints Authority, has identified many of the issues that have been carried forward into this legislation. National supports the bill; we will speed its passage. We would like the Government to consider the proposal to expand the Independent Police Complaints Authority’s role in the way that I have described.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) : United Future welcomes the initiative shown by the Government in requesting a review of the Police Complaints Authority. We commend the swift move to review the authority, and we are also encouraged that the recommendations of the review have produced this amendment bill. Rather than getting into the minutiae of the detail of the bill, we recognise that much of the written material will, of course, change during the course of the select committee process on the bill, so there is little advantage in going through it line by line, like that previous speaker.

The review of the Police Complaints Authority was conducted by a former judge, the Hon Sir Rodney Gallen. He was right to point out that in order to ensure that the Police Complaints Authority operates effectively to investigate and resolve complaints and incidents concerning the police, it should be given greater independence. The problem is—and this is part and parcel of the point that this legislation is trying to address—that instances like the Waitara shooting on 30 April 2000 certainly added some urgency to reviewing the Police Complaints Authority after the police investigation found the officer had acted in self-defence. Then a civil case was initiated against Constable Abbott, thereafter taking him out of his work for 2 years, although that case was essentially baseless. I think this legislation might address some of the problems like that, hopefully.

The United Future party believes that the Police Complaints Authority needs to have respect in the community, and part of that can be achieved by giving the authority a greater sense of independence. It needs to be seen to act independently of the police, and the public needs to be assured that any decisions that are made, are made independently and without bias. It is important that all enforcement agencies are accountable, that the rhetoric of “who polices the police” is simply that—rhetoric—and that police procedures are transparent and accountable through agencies such as the Independent Police Complaints Authority.

The bill makes major changes to the authority. It will have an enhanced independent investigative capacity and a new structure. Its title is to change—not that that really matters very much. The authority will ensure that no person in New Zealand is above the law, and will give the public confidence that an investigation is both thorough and professional. There are, however, cautionary flags that we would like to wave at this stage. In the review, Sir Rodney Gallen proposed that a layperson and a Māori representative should be the other two members of the authority, apart from its chair. This bill proposes that appointments to the authority will be in consultation with the Ministers of Māori Affairs, Women’s Affairs, and Pacific Island Affairs. We believe that the best persons should be appointed to the positions, irrespective of where they come from, and taking into account their understanding of cultural issues—as we all must—and societal issues. We do not support appointments based on tokenism. United Future recognises the tension associated with investigating the police. It is part and parcel of that cultural aspect. We support the authority being independent, and believe that the investigating team members need to have knowledge of police procedure, and that their appointments should not be just be token gestures to minority groups.

In this bill the Independent Police Complaints Authority will remain a Crown entity. There will be no Ombudsman involved. We would like to discuss further the merits of the authority being a Crown entity—as opposed to having the status of an Officer of Parliament—funded under Vote Justice in order to remain independent of the police. If it remains a Crown entity, United Future will advocate that an audit takes place within 3 years, including a review of public and police confidence in the new authority, and, of course, of the rate of success of the resolution processes. We support the secrecy and privacy provisions that have been retained in this bill, although there needs to be some discretion in those matters because sometimes the interests of one outweigh the interests of another. We will be looking to discussing those aspects of the bill in the select committee.

United Future supports this bill going to the select committee. We support a bill that addresses the public concerns for accountability and transparency. We want the best complaints processes for police officers and the public—ones that are not onerous and that justify faith in the authority from both the public and the police. We need to support the police in their increasingly demanding role, and the last thing we want to do is to undermine their self-confidence in doing the job they have been given. Public safety and confidence in the police therefore need to be promoted. We look forward to the submissions on, and further discussion of, this bill. We will support it.

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) : I am delighted to take a call on this bill because, like many New Zealanders, I believe that it is an issue of State importance and I feel very strongly about it. We live in a country that is especially fortunate in that we have many things denied to a majority of nations in the world. We have clean water, education, freedom to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and so forth. I also believe that most New Zealanders would agree that one of our greatest assets is that we are well served by a strong and well-disciplined police force. Unlike some other police forces, ours does not meddle in politics or brutalise its citizens. The police do a difficult job, and, generally, they do it well, despite their constant battles with top-heavy administration, resource shortfalls, and lack of staff. That shortfall in staff is nowhere more starkly manifested than in our police’s inability to control violent and out-of-control crime in Auckland.

One thing we must remember though is that our police force is not perfect. We have all heard stories and allegations of police misbehaviour and ineptitude. Some are related to individual cases, such as the Bain trial, the Tamihere trial, the Bouwer affair, and, of course, some members in the House might remember the Arthur Allan Thomas trial. Others were larger in their scope, such as the allegation that the police removed their identifying numbers just before they baton-charged students at a sit-in protest at Otago University in the early 1990s.

On the whole, people overwhelmingly respect our police force for the work that it does, but, given cases like those, is it any wonder that people doubt that the police always act in accordance with the standards we set them. Everyone hears rumours and urban legends about a range of suspicious behaviours by the police. Typical examples would be of evidence being conveniently discovered under unlikely circumstances, or of hardened criminals who suddenly start to sing like songbirds to secret police witnesses, and who, by the way, subsequently get significant reductions in their sentences.

Whether or not those stories are true does not matter here today. The fact is, though, that, we have all heard them. No one who relays them believes that the police will be brought to account for their actions in those cases by an authority that is perceived to be a part of the old boy network. The need for an independent authority to rule on complaints against the police is as needed here as it is needed in the legal and medical professions. No one takes a body seriously if it is not seen as being independent and impartial, and, worse, if it makes allegations against the police seem more believable, because a clean verdict from the Police Complaints Authority means nothing, and no one expects a guilty one.

Under the current system, there is no credibility whatsoever when complaints are investigated only by serving police officers and when the entire conduct of the inquiry is kept secret. Even the reports of their own investigations are normally not made public, so how can they possibly ever show the public that they are actually doing the job rather than whitewashing the actions of fellow officers? Take the case of the Waitara shooting, for example. Constable Abbott and his family went through hell on earth over the killing of Steven Wallace. The taking of a human life is always a serious matter, but that poor officer endured close to 3 years of agony. His story might have been different if the Police Complaints Authority had had credibility. The public needs to know that there is more to it than a rubber stamp; otherwise, the reaction will always be: “Oh well, of course they cleared him.” As a result of the authority’s status as a spineless body in the public’s view, the exoneration of Constable Abbott was worth essentially less than a Labour campaign promise.

That is why I was gladdened to see this legislation. As I perused the bill, it became clear that here was an intelligent, sensible remedy to problems that have been increasingly evident for some years. It is a vital step to rebuilding the image of the police within our communities. All in all, I was delighted with the common sense displayed in it. Then I got to the section about how the authority should be constituted, and, for me, it all came crashing down—not, I hasten to add, from any fault in the legislation, but in the clear knowledge of how the Labour Government would apply it. According to section 4A, which clause 6 inserts into the principal Act, the authority will consist of three members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. That sounds eminently sensible and reasonable, until we consider the recommendations in Sir Rodney Gallen’s review of the Police Complaints Authority in 2002, in which he proposed that the authority should consist of three persons; that the chairperson ought to be a person who holds, or has held, judicial office; that there should be a Māori member, which recognises the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi; and that there should be a layperson who represents the community generally.

I predict that when it comes to the time to appoint the representatives of this authority, Labour will once again crawl back to its cringing, worship mentality of political correctness. As surely as a dog returns to vomit, Labour members will be unable to resist the delight of appointing someone because of his or her supposed knowledge of the treaty, but who, in reality, will probably be a person whose chief credential has been to insult a vast number of New Zealanders who do not spend their entire lives apologising for events that are over 160 years old, or who do not worship all things Māori with blind fanaticism. Once again we will find Labour seeking out the loudest mouth with the fewest credentials, as it has done before. After all, that is how Labour got its front bench. That is what it will do, because that is what it always does. Any reasonable person would say yes to the appointment of a judge and yes to the appointment of members of a community, and he or she would probably suggest that a third member should be a retired police officer. Yet it does not seem likely that that will happen, given Labour’s track record of pandering to the politically correct clauses of treaty arranging.

In my view, an independent, properly constituted Police Complaints Authority would ease the work of the police. Currently there is a perception that police complaints are not always given the treatment they deserve. It is easy to understand that people do not have faith in the ability of an authority to be impartial when it is constituted and run by the very people it scrutinises in cases where allegations of wrongdoing may exist. I do not believe that we have serious ongoing problems within our police force. Yet, as the saying goes, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.” I put it to members of this House that that must be the case with our police force.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) : I am pleased to rise in support of this bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) : What a stunning speech in support of this bill from the Labour Party. I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I have already doubled the time that the previous Labour speaker decided to devote to its first reading.

This bill is important. It is important because of the concerns that people have about the Police Complaints Authority, whether or not justified, as any member who has spent any time in this House will already know. We have all come across constituents who, sooner or later, establish that their concerns are genuine and then say that they are not prepared to go to the Police Complaints Authority because they do not believe it is independent. It is a very long-held concern. The Police Complaints Authority itself has been well aware of this concern and has strived to overcome it, to no effect. Although I could say that this bill is primarily a smokescreen, and I think that a careful look at the provisions will speak for themselves, there is nothing being done here that could not have been done by simply giving the Police Complaints Authority enough money to hire people to make independent investigations so they do not have to rely on the supply of internal investigators.

Although there is nothing substantially different, it is perhaps important to rebrand the operation. The rebranding, of course, to call the authority “independent” is the most significant part, although I am quite satisfied that the eminent people who have filled the role of Police Complaints Authority for so many years have regarded themselves as independent. But the serious doubts about our legal system do need a response, and ACT will support this bill to the Law and Order Committee because of the requirement for that response.

There are fears that convictions have been secured with manufactured evidence. The previous National Party speaker mentioned the concern about secret witnesses—those hardened criminals who suddenly start singing to their cell mates in prison, and the cell mates then go to court. There are concerns, whether or not they are justified, in almost every high-profile case that we now have. We have the group who are lobbying for David Bain, a group on the Christchurch crèche case, and even a group on the Sounds murderer. It seems now that there has been enough fire where there is smoke, or enough to satisfy many New Zealanders that they can no longer trust the prosecution, and through that, implicitly, the police, and that is a grave shame.

As I said, we could simply have dealt with that if it had been nipped in the bud quite a lot earlier, by ensuring that the authority was able to hire people overtly, from outside the police, for investigations and to carry through the investigations in good time without having to be so obviously dependent on the police.

But the real strength that keeps any uniformed force healthy, productive, and trusted is internal discipline. I am concerned that this community will be offered the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill as a panacea to problems that it does not touch. Vigorous internal discipline comes in a uniformed force when its members are proud, but of course they can be proud thugs, so that is not enough; when they know exactly what their priorities are, but of course it is not enough just to know them, they have to be the right priorities; when they know that the rules mean something and the constraints are applied; and when they feel that they have a reputation to uphold and they want to hold up their heads not only among their peers, which can easily be a gang member uniting against outsiders, but also hold up their heads with their families and with the people they went to school with, and in this little community that should be something we can sustain.

Uniformed forces are especially vulnerable to a corruption of culture, to morale leadership problems, and to the failure of having clear objectives. I say to the House that the circumstances and fears that have prompted this bill should be a big warning to us. The fact is that so many New Zealanders are now concerned—and I am concerned—about a lack of commitment by senior police to the values that they need to uphold. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee that inquired into the reaction to the visit of the President of China. I was very concerned at the way in which senior police officers treated the evidence to that committee. It is clear in the committee’s report that we simply did not believe them.

I started then to take more seriously one or two of the complaints I was getting in my justice portfolio from people who Mr Goff may describe as scumbags, and did. They were coming to me with complaints about police conduct, which were seriously worrying. One of those complainants secured convictions a month ago against a police witness in a very serious case. That person secured convictions for perjury, and the police would not pursue them. He had to bring a private prosecution—this is a person who had spent time in prison. He had to educate himself to the point where he could bring a private prosecution to the stage where the Crown Law Office eventually took it over and secured a conviction, in circumstances that worry me deeply.

I am concerned that while we still have enough of a nucleus of police who are not bad, corrupt, lazy, or oppressive—indeed, most police are not—and we have a commitment by the police to maintain that, we have all the conditions for losing it, and when it is lost it goes quickly. It happens when the police are unacknowledged; when they are poorly paid, although that should not be a problem at the moment; when they are snubbed; when they are poorly led; and when they are frustrated. Of those last things, we have all three.

We have a Minister of Police who snubs police, who overrides them, and who does not respect their statutory independence. We have a Minister of Police who has put out a directive that MPs are not to be spoken to by police without his consent, a Minister who has told the police they are not allowed to come into the precincts of Parliament without his consent, and a Minister who is so afraid of the police speaking to the Opposition that he has gagged them in a way that has not been the case in the living memory of the police members who have told me about it. We have a Minister who is running a police force that is riding on its cultural capital, and it is using it up. We have police who want to catch thieves, and who are instead being told to incur the wrath of the community by blocking motorways for hours on end, chasing people who are not evil, just careless, stupid, or perhaps criminally stupid. The priorities that are being set for the police are not inspiring them.

Worse still, we have a Minister who is so weak in Cabinet that he has not been able to stop the law from being a revolving door. The Police Complaints Authority is only a palliative. The authority cannot cure a culture of absolute frustration at catching thieves and seeing them out the door the next day. It is no wonder police forces start taking the law into their own hands. It is no wonder they start saying that they will see justice, irrespective of whether the evidence is there. It is no wonder they beat people in the cells, because they think the courts will not do anything. This is a problem that the Minister of Police and this Government are fully responsible for.

If members want to see the evidence, they should look at this pathetic bill. While we support it to select committee, we want to know what the Police Complaints Authority will do with its employment policy. It is told to go out and get independent staff, and what does it have to do? The authority has to make sure it recognises the aims and aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for the involvement of Māori as employees of the authority. That is a need. The authority has to go out there and racially appoint.

Worse still is the need for opportunities for the recognition of the aims, aspirations, and cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups. Gangs are a minority group. The police have to recognise a gang’s need to be staunch. What about the cultures that think the highest value is loyalty to one’s family? Or the cultures that think that a good beating does not do anyone any harm? Or the cultures that think it is rude to ask direct questions, or demand yes or no answers? The Police Complaints Authority is not allowed to go out and get those tough, experienced, shrewd, incorruptible people. Instead, it has to go through this politically correct list that the Minister of Police is going to inflict on the authority. It even has to go out and hire people to meet the requirements of persons with disabilities. What does that mean? Those who are overstressed? There are policemen who are “perfing” out of the police now because they cannot cope with the stress. Is the Police Complaints Authority going to pick up its ration of those cases? This Minister has introduced a bill that is an absolute insult to the cause he should be serving.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) : I rise to speak in support of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Bill, and, after listening to Mr Franks attack the bill he is voting for, and attack the Minister when this is about the complaints authority, and all the problems he perceives in the police, I could not help but think of this morning’s Dominion Post where I read of another ACT person in trouble, and I thought to myself that we need an independent ACT complaints authority to deal with all the problems over there.

I am very pleased to support the bill because I think it does address some issues where there could be a perception that there is some bias in the authority’s work. It is very important for the public confidence in this body that that perception does not exist. I think that what Sir Rodney Gallen has done is very good, and it is a bill I am happy to support.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the introduction of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, but there are some concerns, and I am happy to go through them. Firstly, the Police Complaints Authority plays a very important role. We wish to ensure that it is as independent as possible. We believe the public are entitled to have an independent watchdog to supervise as guardian of the police. All we want to say about the representation that has been put before us in this bill is we should make sure that it is still within this area and that there are no jobs for the boys. That is a very important part and whoever are the representatives, they should be in there for the right reasons.

Brian Connell: Selected on merit.

EDWIN PERRY: They should be selected on merit, as my fellow MP has just mentioned. We know there are serious problems within the police force, such as deaths in cells and complaints the public have presented to the police not being carried out in the right manner. I am sure the public are entitled to make sure their complaints are treated correctly and the right answer is derived from their complaint. Cases in history have shown us there is possible corruption within the police force. In the Arthur Allan Thomas case, history has told us the shell case was planted, and the result of that obviously cost Arthur Allan Thomas 9 years of his life. He was acquitted and was paid out a large sum of money. If we look at the police force off shore, Australia has experienced police corruption at its highest. It nearly destroyed the New South Wales police force, and to get over its problems New South Wales had to go to England to engage a Police Commissioner Ryan to pull its police out of its doldrums and restore public confidence.

That is a reasonable complaint here within New Zealand. The police are not held in high regard in some areas and their self-esteem and image have been damaged. With regard to the police in Masterton, which is where I am from, there are issues within that police force that need to be attended to. I am sure this independent complaints authority will sort out some of the problems affecting the public in the Wairarapa district—and not only there but also within the central district of the Wellington region. I sit on the central police liaison board and complaints have come in that would raise the hairs on the back of one’s neck. They are not very nice. [Interruption] Some are about Labour but most are about the police force. The racial overtones within the police system need to be corrected.

Like other speakers who have laid their concerns out, I believe this bill is overdue. We will watch the passage of this bill as it goes through the House, and we will ensure the right ingredients are put into it for the safety of all New Zealanders and to build the self-esteem of the police force again.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) : I rise in support of the bill. We do not need an Independent Police Complaints Authority because there is anything wrong with our police; to the contrary, we in New Zealand have a very good police force, probably as good as there is in the world—and that is the precise reason that we need an Independent Police Complaints Authority. The police intersect in areas of people’s lives where there is stress, dissent, often violence, and often the need for a quick reaction. The fact that our police continually do so well is a tribute to them. But in the area of conflict there needs to be resolution, and there needs to be confidence that the resolution process is a sound process.

What we have learnt from the present Police Complaints Authority is that most complaints are not valid, but the investigation of them is important. The difficulty for complainants is to differentiate between the integrity of the process—because those investigating are members of the police—and the integrity of the result. An Independent Police Complaints Authority will not reveal our police force to be corrupt, inefficient, or bad. What it will do is give members of the public confidence that we are well policed, and confidence that when things do go wrong, the appropriate action is taken. I am enthusiastic for this bill, and I urge the House to vote for it.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I want to make just a few comments on behalf of our spokesperson on these issues, who is not able to be here today. We, like everyone else, it seems, in this House, will be supporting this bill going to Law and Order Committee. We also regard it as an important bill that takes a step in the right direction. It does not go nearly as far as we would wish, and we will be pushing to see some new amendments when it goes to the select committee. We believe that the Gallen report was a very worthwhile report, and we are pleased that this bill does at least implement the recommendation to expand the membership of the Police Complaints Authority from one to three. But I have to say our preference would have been to accept Sir Rodney Gallen’s recommendation that the authority should no longer be a Crown entity but should be an Officer of Parliament, much like, for example, the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, or the Controller and Auditor-General. In our view, it is absolutely critically important that the Police Complaints Authority is independent and is seen to be independent. I think those particular institutions, authorities, that I mentioned before—the Ombudsman, the Commissioner for the Environment, the Controller and Auditor-General, and so forth—have, by virtue of that appointment, an independence that is widely recognised and widely respected. We believe that it would be extremely appropriate for this body to have a similar independence, and the recognition and respect that come from that independence.

We would also like the Government to take on board the Gallen recommendation that the authority should be better resourced to do investigations with its own investigatory staff, not mainly through seconded police, as is the present practice. In our view, using seconded police does not make it fully independent. We also think that any police that are used on the complaints authority should be taken off all other duties during their investigation, for exactly the same reason—it gives them an independence that is very hard to have if one is really just an employed policeman or policewoman undertaking such part time. We think it is also very important that the authority can report directly to Parliament, if it is required to do so. That is another of the recommendations that we shall be pushing for very strongly during the select committee’s consideration of the bill.

In short, we support the legislation. We think it has implemented some of the measures of the Gallen report. It does represent an advance, a strengthening of the authority. It does not, in our view, go far enough. It does not provide the independence that the Gallen report recommended and gave very good reasons for. We can see no reason that those recommendations were not implemented in this legislation, and we will do everything in our power to try to persuade the Government to take on board those recommendations that I outlined. We are quite sure that if we do do that, the independence and respect of the Police Complaints Authority will be greatly enhanced.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) : I am pleased to rise in support of the bill, and I recommend it going to the select committee.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) : I want to take about 7 or 8 minutes to speak on this legislation. There are three or four things that I want to comment on. The first is that a number of people have commented on the fact that we are now talking about a change of name and a change of impression—we are talking about the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I think that that is a good thing. But I want the House to reflect on this: I think that it is a great shame that we have to have a Police Complaints Authority, at all. It is a reflection on our society, actually. The police in this country do a great job for us. I am a strong supporter of the police. They certainly work hard, and they do very, very well in the community I represent. I think it is a great pity that it has become common for people who are unhappy with the police because they have been found out over some event or other, to lay a complaint. It has become a regular thing, and is not because the police have done something wrong; it is more likely because people are fighting against the system. The cases are often frivolous. In fact, I think that Russell Fairbrother made the point that many of the cases that are drawn to the police’s attention are found out to have no substance at all.

I think it is a great shame for our society that we have to have a structure whereby people are able to make frivolous complaints against an organisation that, in the main, is hugely respected in this country and certainly does a great job for us. That is the first point that I want to make. But, having said that, I note that we are now at a stage where the Police Complaints Authority is part of our everyday functioning and infrastructure. Therefore I think it is important that—as Stephen Franks has suggested—we give the impression that it is a totally independent complaints authority. There has certainly been concern amongst the community that there is a bias. I do not believe so myself, but there are those in this society who think that because the police are involved in the complaint and actually operate the authority, they do so with bias. Whenever I have had any involvement with a police investigation—and I am sure other members will feel the same—I had the view that it has been thorough, it has been without bias, and it has been accurate. I think the police do a great job.

However, it seems that it is time now that we move on. In that context I want to make one or two comments about the bill itself. I think that the Law and Order Committee has a fair amount of work to do with regard to this legislation. New section 4A(2), inserted by clause 6, states: “The powers of Authority are not affected by any vacancy in its membership.” That is fair enough, but what happens if there are three vacancies and the membership is three? What happens if, for some reason, there are no members? Who then has the authority of the Independent Police Complaints Authority? Who is to run it until those vacancies are filled?

The second point that concerns me is that under new section 4C, inserted by clause 6, the chairman of the authority is to be a judge or a retired judge. First, I question why a retired judge would be put in charge of an organisation like this. I think it is important that we have someone who is currently working and is au fait with what is happening within our society.

The issue that I want to raise in that context is the matter referred to in new section 4D. New section 4D, also inserted by clause 6, states that the judge is not only to be paid a salary and an allowance, as determined by the Higher Salaries Commission, but is also to retain his or her rank, title, status, precedence, salary, and annual or other allowances as a judge. So they will get a double whammy. I would have thought that that is probably not proper in our day. The person is either going to be a judge or a chairman of an authority. But to appoint somebody who will, as a judge, attract a huge amount of revenue from the taxpayer—we are talking about an income of more than a couple of hundred thousand for a judge—and have a salary or an allowance on top of that while they are not doing the work as a judge but performing as the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Authority, speaks to me of a double whammy. I think that the select committee really does need to study that. The person is either paid as a judge and performs as a judge or the person gets paid as a chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I do not think it is proper that he or she should have two incomes and be performing in only one capacity.

The last issue that I want to raise—and Stephen Franks, amongst others, has alluded to this already, as has my colleague Brian Connell—is with regard to new section 10A, “Personnel policy” inserted by clause 8. I have to say that when one reads through this, the mind boggles. I am sure that the select committee will want to spend some hours over this, because to try to fulfil what this section sets out would be beyond belief. If the Minister believes that we can achieve—not just attempt but achieve—what this clause sets out, then I have to say that his aspirations, and his beliefs in being able to deliver, are far better than mine. When we look at some of these things, I am not sure how anybody can possibly achieve them. One of the things about law that I have found in my time in this Parliament is that if we write law that is not achievable or is silly, then it gets ignored, and we will end up with a silly result here, quite frankly. The select committee needs to look at that section very hard and very long. It needs to really address that section and get it back into the perspective and context of our modern-day society. I think that this legislation is far too politically correct. It just reflects where the Government wants to take us. However, having said that, I think that there are some issues for the select committee to study, and obviously that study is needed. The National Party supports this bill, and I will now take my seat so that that can happen.

• Bill read a first time, and referred to the Law and Order Committee., referred to the Law and Order Committee