Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : National supports the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. I follow the comments that the Hon Tony Ryall made to this House in a compelling fashion on Wednesday, 4 May. The bill arose out of a review of the Police Complaints Authority itself, which was carried out by the Hon Sir Rodney Gallen in 2000. The purpose of that review was to examine the role of the Police Complaints Authority in investigating and resolving complaints and incidents involving the police.

The bill amends the principal Act, the Police Complaints Authority Act. That Act prescribes the principal role of the Police Complaints Authority as being to consider whether there has been misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of any member of the police, and to consider whether police practices, policies, and procedures have been complied with. It makes a number of changes, but there are three principal ones.

The first is concerned with changing the name of the authority. “What’s in a name?”, one might ask, and it probably is a very good question. The bill seeks to amend the Police Complaints Authority Act by changing the name of the authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I do not think that is particularly significant, although some might.

The second change is the increase of the authority’s membership from one person to three people. There are a whole lot of membership provisions contained within the bill. I will not deal with those in any detail, except to note that clause 8 inserts new section 10A, “Personnel policy”. In looking at what the present Government considers to be a good employer, I see that there is to be a strong focus on Māori interests. I would have thought that the very best people should be chosen for the task, no matter what their ethnicity might be, but that is apparently not to be so in the case of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Instead, those good employees employed by that “good employer” are to have a sound recognition of the aims and aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the authority. Here we see some affirmative action policies in place. Affirmative action policies around the world have generally not worked out. They represent, however, a strong commitment of this Government to social engineering policies, which have been tried and have been found to be failing.

So the first thing is the proposed name change, and the second is the change in membership from one to three persons; the third is the establishment of the authority as a separate legal entity, which recognises its change of status from a single-person office to a three-person body. It makes clear that the authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation or a disciplinary investigation—or both—is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter. It allows the authority, when deciding whether to hold a hearing, to have regard to whether proceedings or a coroner’s inquest is pending, and it gives to the authority certain powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act for the purposes of holding a hearing. It sets out procedures that enable the authority to disclose information that has come to its knowledge, through the exercise of its functions, about a defendant who has been charged with, or convicted of, an offence punishable by imprisonment.

The third thing it does is deal with the whole aspect of the obligation to maintain secrecy, with only a limited ability to disclose. That was the position, and is the position under the current law. This bill provides in great detail for exceptions from those secrecy provisions. I do not want to deal with that aspect; I am sure that others will deal with it, comprehensively.

But I would note two further points, in the comments I seek to make. The first is that the Police Complaints Authority currently has 2,100 cases before it, of which one in five is over 2 years old. We have a real problem with workload, and with the resolution of cases before the current Police Complaints Authority. I know that the Minister of Police, who is sitting quietly opposite me in the Chamber, will want to take a call to explain what the grand plan is for the resolution of that growing and worrying workload. It should be no source of pride for him, at all, that there is a backload of work in the order of 2,100 cases. There are all sorts of implications in that. From the perspective of complainants it is frustrating and worrying, and from the perspective of the police it is, I do not doubt, the same. Where individual officers are facing a review of their conduct, it can scarcely be satisfactory that there are backlogs in the order of 2 years.

The second issue I would like to talk about, and it is touched on briefly in the commentary from the Law and Order Committee, relates to a National Party proposal—which will be National Party policy, so it will be implemented when National comes to power in September 2005—

Shane Ardern: Or earlier.

Dr RICHARD WORTH:—or earlier—that consideration should be given to incorporating an independent prison complaints capacity within the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I am glad to see Mahara Okeroa in the House, quietly serving out time before his departure in September 2005, because he may very well make a satisfactory member of that authority when it comes time for him to hang up his shingle. He will be able to take advantage of some of the lucrative opportunities in the public service.

But in talking about the incorporation of the independent prison complaints capacity within the Independent Police Complaints Authority, I want to say I believe that there is no doubt that we have a real issue in the Department of Corrections in relation to dealing with prisoners’ complaints. I am disappointed with the press release that came from the Minister of Justice today. He has apparently proposed that improvements be made to the prison complaints system, but I ask the question why, instead of revamping the prisoner complaints process, we are not prepared to be more robust. A number of things could be done—including the proposition I am advancing at the moment—that would significantly improve that complaints process. A good starting point for this discussion is that the skills required to deal with prison complaints are transferable to deal with police complaints. Similarly, the reverse is true. So I would like to see—and this could be grafted on to this bill when in due time it becomes an Act—an independent prison inspector who comprehensively inspects and reports on the state of our prisons. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales, which was established in 1981, is a good example of what is achievable. The United Kingdom adopted a World Health Organization model of “healthy prisons”—that is the phrase it uses—as a basis of inspections.

So those are the comments that I have sought to make in connection with this legislation. It is supported by National. It makes a number of changes that seem appropriate, worthwhile, and realistic, but there is a great opportunity in all of this, and that is to incorporate an independent prison complaints capacity within the authority.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future for the second reading of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, a bill that seeks to enhance the independence of the Police Complaints Authority in light of the shooting of Steven Wallace in Waitara and the ensuing civil case against the officer involved, and of the independent review of the authority in the year 2000. The Gallen review recommended that the authority should be independent of the police and constituted as an Officer of Parliament rather than a Crown entity. It recommended that the authority should have a chair, Māori representation, and a lay person, and that it should use and retain the discretion to maintain secrecy of investigations.

The bill has incorporated most of those recommendations, because the membership of the new authority has increased from one to three, and it will be appointed in consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister of Women’s Affairs, and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. The authority has remained a Crown entity, though, but it will be now funded from Vote Justice and will not report to the Minister of Police.

Funding will allow for a team of six investigators to be established, which will enhance its independent investigative capacity. Previously it tended to review the results of investigations that had been already carried out by the police. The secrecy of investigations has also been maintained in this bill to ensure the protection of all parties involved.

The select committee unanimously supported the passage of the bill, subject to several amendments. The first was that the disclosure provisions were to be simplified to allow the authority to disclose information to a defendant if it may point to his or her innocence and, upon request, this information is able to be issued as a certificate that the defendant can admit as evidence in any court.

Secondly, the bill is clarified to state that the authority will have a similar ability to that of the Ombudsman to decline to investigate a complaint because the complainant had an adequate remedy that, for whatever reasons, the complainant chose not to exercise. United Future is happy to support the second reading of this bill.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I rise to support the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill in its second reading. This bill is about transparency and accountability. The authority is a very important institution for this country. The bill is also about strengthening the public’s confidence in this institution, especially in respect of investigations. The panel will be strengthened, as other speakers have said. It will be chaired by a judge, with two additional persons on the panel. The authority will have an independent investigation unit. As others have reported, its line of reporting will not be to the Minister of Police. All these measures are not an expression of criticism of the current Police Complaints Authority; they are designed to strengthen transparency and public confidence in the authority. Some very, very high profile cases have, as Judy Turner mentioned, been referred to the Police Complaints Authority. I think that with any institution there must be a perception of strong public confidence in respect of its independence.

As we are speaking about the police, I want for a moment to indulge the House to pay tribute to one long-serving police officer in my area, one Senior Sergeant Geoff Kenna, who this month, after 35 years—

Shane Ardern: Does he vote for the National Party?

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do not know how Senior Sergeant Kenna votes. I do not care; he is a fine New Zealander and a fine policeman. After 35 years he is retiring. This man has an eminent record of 11 years as Papanui sub-area commander. In 2001 he was appointed officer in charge of the district highway patrol, and he was instrumental in huge reductions in the injury and death rates in respect of that area. Sadly, because of his highway patrol role, he is another policeman who has come under attack, of course, from members opposite, including one member who occasionally resides in my area, Mr Ron Mark. But I transgress just briefly to pay tribute to the wonderful work that Senior Sergeant Kenna has done. He was also initially responsible for the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill, which was passed through this House.

I simply want to commend the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill to the House. It is good legislation. It builds on the authority’s independence and transparency in the 14-year period that the authority has existed. The bill will strengthen public confidence in the authority. As it goes forward to investigate further complaints that may arise, it will do so as robustly as it has done in the last 14 years. I think this is a good bill. I think it is supported generally across the House, but I do not hold my breath to hear the speeches from certain members who will speak after me, who will, of course, indulge in petty parliamentary politics and not rise to the occasion.

RON MARK (NZ First) : What a sanctimonious little jerk that man is at times!

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows—

RON MARK: He did not take offence.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my job to keep order in the House. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

RON MARK: I withdraw and apologise. And as I was saying, is it not interesting how some members just cannot resist. This member at the moment is giving such cause for concern amongst his own party that I have members of the Labour Party ringing me now, and ringing my family, to distance themselves from the rather venal comments that he is throwing around the Waimakariri electorate. All I can say to that member, to add to the comments he just made, is to keep it up, because it is working well. We in New Zealand First are enjoying the results.

Since he was indulged in his comments about, and his compliments to, a hard-working police officer in the Waimakariri, I ask the House to be indulged also as I pass on my congratulations to my late father-in-law, who was a police officer for many, many years, to my brother-in-law, to my two nephews, to my niece, to my son, to my wife’s uncle—a fine detective living in the Waimakariri, John Whiting, commonly known in the Papanui area as “Ting”, and to the many other members of the New Zealand First family who are police officers currently serving this nation and keeping the streets safe. Unfortunately people like Doug Woolerton’s son, Peter Brown’s daughter-in-law, and Bill Gudgeon’s son-in-law are all subject to the rather curious decisions made by this Government as they struggle to keep the streets of New Zealand safe, as they struggle to do their jobs without the resources they need, and as they struggle against all the odds to serve the people of this nation. I want to thank Clayton Cosgrove for introducing the opportunity for me to thank all those fine men and women in blue who serve us. I also want to say—

Jill Pettis: Why does this member spend so much time slagging off the police?

RON MARK: Cutting through the rather caustic comments coming from the chief Government whip as she strips the varnish from the walls behind me, I want to say that this bill is a timely reminder to this Government that it is not assisting its police officers. The honourable member Richard Worth was quite right to point out the huge number of cases that are outstanding—in excess of 2,100 that have not been attended to. I ask this caring, sharing, bleeding-heart Government that thinks it has the franchise for looking after police officers, how many police marriages have broken up as a result of the stress and trauma inflicted on the families of officers—both men and women—

Clayton Cosgrove: Ha, ha!

RON MARK: Cosgrove laughs. He thinks this is a joke. I tell that member that in his own electorate right now a group of concerned police officers are furious at delays in the Police Complaints Authority procedures. They have sat and watched a very fine officer being hung out to dry for 18 months while he waits for the police to decide whether there is a case against him. He waited just prior to Christmas to hear whether he would be charged. That officer rang his commanders in Christchurch just before Christmas—[Interruption] Cosgrove is laughing again. He thinks this is a joke. This is a man who has no family—no children of his own. He has no empathy with, or sympathy for, this officer who has children to think about.

Clayton Cosgrove: Madam Speaker—

RON MARK: Does the member have children? I forgot.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should not be personal like that. He knows that.

RON MARK: Madam Speaker, that member is laughing, and this is a serious matter that affects one of his constituents. This officer—[Interruption] There he goes again! I will send the to this officer’s family to let them know that Cosgrove was laughing through this speech.

Clayton Cosgrove: You’re making it up.

RON MARK: Making it up! I want that on the record. Cosgrove says that the case I speak of is made up.

Clayton Cosgrove: I’m saying you’re making this up.

RON MARK: He is saying that I am making this up. Well, this officer waited prior to Christmas, wanting to know what was happening with the police complaint that had been laid against him. Then he had to ring up, and only when he rang—[Interruption] Only when he rang, I say to Minister Hawkins, was he told: “Haven’t you been told? We’re laying charges.” So the case is now before the courts. I am looking forward to the result of that case, because if this officer is, as I suspect he will be, found innocent by the courts of the charges, then I and New Zealand First will do everything we can to ensure through the Police Association that he gets full compensation for the tardy, tawdry, disgusting way in which he has been treated. And he is not the only one. There are hundreds of police officers like this. One only has to go back through the newspapers to see officers who have been investigated by the Police Complaints Authority and have been charged in the courts—

Jill Pettis: This is the member who spends his political career attacking the police.

RON MARK: —only to be found innocent, I say to Jill Pettis. Where is Jill Pettis’ concern for these police officers when they are found innocent after being hung out to dry for 1 or 2 years? [Interruption] We know when it is hurting, do we not, Shane? They start rabbiting on, and the varnish just rolls off the walls. This member has only one interest in his deepest heart for New Zealand First, and that is to make sure the police are looked after. This bill is a good bill in the sense that it brings transparency. Mr Cosgrove is right about that. That is why New Zealand First is going to vote for this legislation.

But let us be very clear. Let us take an opening line from a letter I received when I got back from the Speaker’s tour. This is the sort of thing that leads to complaints. “On 29th March 2005 I wrote to you about my disillusionment as a detective. Our ranks are being depleted and detectives are being pulled off their normal duties to man traffic checkpoints. I specifically refer to an operation which took place …” and I am not going to say the area, because we get witch hunts, “on Wednesday”, and the date is stated, “I stated that all CIB staff in that area were directed to man traffic checkpoints for the entire duration of their shift, concentrating on seat belt enforcement. The Minister of Police essentially denied that that was the case. His denial was supported by the …” district administration “when they were questioned about the operation by the … ” local newspaper. “They denied that detectives were being directed to do this duty, and that also there were CIB presence on this operation that had been limited to short periods of time and had been on a strictly voluntary basis. That information, if it were correct, would mean that either I was a liar, or was mistaken in my assertions. I am not a liar, and my information was correct. Any misinformation about this operation was promulgated by the area commander of our district, …”, and the writer then names him.

He then goes on to name the six Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) officers deployed for the full duration of their 8-hour shift off their CIB duties on to seat belt enforcement. The Minister has the nerve to stand in this House and deny that it is happening. Well, I tell the Minister that while he is working on the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, he should have some regard for the way in which he demeans the honour and integrity of long-serving detectives such as this. Because, despite what his little lackey, Mr Cosgrove, says, they are not with him. They do not believe what he says—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw that remark.

RON MARK: I withdraw calling him a lackey.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.

RON MARK: I said “I withdraw that.”

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member knows that when he is told to withdraw he makes no other comment. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

RON MARK: I withdraw and apologise. The member over there also knows that police officers have had a gutsful. They have had a gutsful of the Police Complaints Authority taking so long. They have had a gutsful of being called liars. They have had a gutsful of providing information to try to make their service much better for the public, and being told they do not know what they are talking about. Well, Mr Cosgrove and Mr Hawkins can accept one thing. Between the two of them they do not know what is going on on the ground. They do not listen to those officers. If one did listen one would actually be on the track to resolving some of the problems.

• Bill read a second time.