Appointments

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this

I move, That pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Ms Angela Irmgard Hauk-Willis and Ms Dianne Mary Macaskill as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, each for a term of three years, and appoint Mr Edward Richard Woods as a member of the Independent Police Conduct Authority for a term of two years. The function of the Independent Police Conduct Authority is to investigate complaints alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by a member of the police, or concerning any practice, policy, or procedure of the police affecting the complainant. The authority is also responsible for investigating any incident involving serious bodily harm or death notified to the authority by the Commissioner of Police.

Section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act, as amended in 2007, directs that the authority consists of up to five members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The authority is chaired by a High Court judge, Justice Lowell Goddard. There is currently only one other member, Mr Allan Galbraith, following the resignation of Mr Mel Smith in December last year. The areas of expertise that Justice Goddard and Mr Galbraith contribute to the authority are central to the authority’s core functions as an investigatory body. The proposed appointments will balance those strengths with an additional capability in governance and strategic planning. The authority is able to have two full-time and three part-time members. I am proposing the appointment of three new part-time members to provide the most cost-effective governance of the authority.

Ms Angela Hauk-Willis is a former deputy secretary of Treasury, where she was responsible for all corporate and central operations, Māori responsiveness, and ethics and integrity. She had a leadership role in organisational change projects, including a value-for-money review and the refocusing of the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit, often known as CCMAU. Ms Dianne Macaskill is a former chief executive and Chief Archivist at Archives New Zealand from 2001 to 2009 and a former deputy Government statistician at Statistics New Zealand from 1996-2001. Mr Richard Woods has been chairperson of the Environmental Risk Management Authority since April 2008. From 1999 to 2006 he was the director of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. In his previous diplomatic career, he served in Rome, Tehran, Bahrain, and Washington. He also served as ambassador in Tehran, Athens, Moscow, and Paris, where he was also a Permanent Representative to the OECD. He was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2007.

Under Justice Goddard’s leadership, the authority will continue to be a rigorous and independent watchdog on police conduct. With these appointments, the authority will have the range of management and governance experience required by a Crown entity board.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this

I rise to speak to Government motion No. 3, appointments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I signal that Labour supports the new appointments to the authority. We believe that the appointments will add to the significant experience and expertise that Justice Lowell Goddard and Allan Galbraith currently bring to the authority.

Labour is committed to having a New Zealand police force that everyone, all New Zealanders, can have pride and confidence in. That is why it is important to have a robust and independent body to oversee the role and function of the police. Not long after I came into Parliament in 1996, the particularly sad issue in Waitara emerged: the shooting of Steven Wallace. At that time there was a lot of debate in this House by members currently supporting the Government around the independent nature of the then Police Complaints Authority. The debate was robust, but, above all—and this is probably the most poignant point that I want to raise in this debate—New Zealanders needed to have confidence that the Police Complaints Authority at the time was independent and was able to look at particularly emotional and emotive circumstances in a way that maintained a high level of independence in the investigations of police conduct.

The Police Complaints Authority was established in 1989 following several years of debate about police accountability. That was sparked, in part, by the role of the police during the 1981 Springbok Tour. Prior to 1989 complaints against the police were investigated internally. Through most of its life, the Police Complaints Authority comprised a single person with a small number of support staff conducting reviews of police investigations. Because of its reliance on police investigations, the authority was perceived as lacking independence, as I mentioned earlier. Recent changes, including the appointment of independent investigators, are reducing that perception.

In March 2007 the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct recommended a number of changes to the Police Complaints Authority, including enhanced powers and improved communication with complainants. The previous Labour Government committed to implementing those recommendations. It made a start with the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 2007, which made five main changes. It clarified that the authority may investigate historical complaints relating to incidents that occurred prior to its establishment. It required the police to notify the authority within 5 working days on receipt of a complaint. It required the authority to provide a copy of its opinion and recommendations to the Minister of Police and to the Attorney-General in certain situations where it is not satisfied with the police response to a recommendation. It significantly increased the membership of the authority to up to five members, and changed the name of the authority to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

I want to mention that although the then Labour Cabinet approved further changes to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, the legislation did not go through because of the 2008 election, but it is worth mentioning the proposals that were considered by Cabinet at that time. They included allowing the authority to undertake its own investigations of complaints about police misconduct in defined circumstances, allowing the authority to conduct its own motion investigations into serious incidents or incidents of significant public interest, amending the current secrecy and privilege provisions so that information gathering during the authority’s investigations can be used in subsequent proceedings, giving the authority investigators the necessary powers to carry out their enhanced investigatory role, enabling the authority to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution where it has investigated the matter itself or directed and controlled a police investigation, and allowing the Official Information Act to apply to the authority.

The Attorney-General, who introduced this motion on behalf of the Minister of Justice, aptly pointed out the role and function of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and I will not go over that. However, simply put, an issue was raised by a member of the Māori Party with regard to the police collecting DNA samples from young people. That is precisely the type of issue, should it arise with members of Parliament, that would go to this particular body. I want to make that point because I have had a situation where, not too long after statements made by a member of this House, a parent came to me and asked me what to do. I immediately referred them to this authority to make investigations on that matter.

In relation to the people who have been proposed, Labour certainly supports the skill and expertise that Dianne Macaskill, Angela Hauk-Willis, and Richard Woods bring to the authority. We think they will fill the skill gap identified by the Minister, Simon Power, and we believe that their appointments, along with the existing appointments, will make a worthy contribution to ensure that New Zealanders can continue to have confidence in the role of the police. Kia ora.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

Following the two previous speakers, Christopher Finlayson and Nanaia Mahuta, the Greens very strongly support the Independent Police Conduct Authority in its role.

The setting up of the authority, which followed on from the Police Complaints Authority, has been a significant improvement. There was a huge backlog under the Police Complaints Authority—many years of backlog—and under the leadership of Lowell Goddard that backlog was cleared up. We pay tribute to the work of people like Mel Smith, who has retired from the authority, and also, of course, Allan Galbraith.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has been doing some very good work, and I think it is important to have that control on police behaviour. We trust that the members being appointed to the authority will help very much to progress its work. We support the nomination of Miss Hauk-Willis, whose background in the Public Service was outlined, and of Dianne Macaskill, who has a very distinguished career as well.

The third nomination has created certain problems, not only with the Greens but more generally with the public. There has been more questioning of the appointment of Edward Richard Woods, better known as Richard Woods, since it appeared on the Order Paper. I want to say straight off that I have found Mr Woods to be a very approachable, very affable gentleman, and I think he would bring that great asset to the job of sitting on the authority. People bringing complaints would feel quite comfortable with him. Certainly, as the Attorney-General outlined, he has a very long tradition of public service in different posts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, more recently at the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and also for a period as director of the Security Intelligence Service.

It is his role as head of the Security Intelligence Service for the period 1999-2006 that has caused some question marks to arise in the minds not only of members of the Green Party but also of members of the public. It is not that we should not have a former Director of Security serving in such a role, of course; nobody would exclude that. I think the question arises because it is important for the reputation of the Independent Police Conduct Authority that a broad range of the public has respect for the people playing that role. The Ahmed Zaoui saga went on for many years during Richard Wood’s tenure as Director of Security, and there was a perception in a big section of the public that Mr Zaoui was not given a fair go, and that the Security Intelligence Service resisted the very thorough and rigorous decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that Mr Zaoui was a legitimate refugee. The complaint was often made that the Security Intelligence Service paid too much attention to how going along with the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority—if it went along with it—would be seen by other, bigger security services. That was reflected in some of the Security Intelligence Service reports of the time. That creates a particular problem.

Another thing that was allowed to happen during that period was the maintenance of a Security Intelligence Service file on a sitting MP—namely, me. The exact responsibility of Richard Woods for that, of course, we can debate. But those two issues together create a public perception that questions whether he is the best appointment at this particular time. I feel slightly reluctant to bring that up, because we are dealing with the qualities of an individual, but when the Green caucus discussed it we questioned his appointment. I think from my own point of view—in bringing forward these questions, which are questions in the public mind—in this case I hope that the Greens are proved wrong. Even though we are reflecting the public questioning of this appointment, we know that this motion will get through today, and in a sense we hope that we are proved wrong and that Richard Woods will do a very good job. But because we have those reservations we cannot vote for the motion here today. Thank you.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I rise to speak in respect of the appointments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and I congratulate the authority on the work it has done, particularly under the leadership of Justice Goddard. She has brought grunt, I think, to the role since it became the Independent Police Conduct Authority, not simply the Police Complaints Authority. She has brought a significant amount of strength and robustness to the investigations conducted by the authority.

I note, too, that Justice Goddard has Mr Allan Galbraith as her deputy. Members will recall that he was the detective superintendent in charge of the investigation of the Rainbow Warrior bombing, and later he served as the police regional commander in the central North Island, so he has spent several years as an investigator and as a leader managing investigations that were brought to the table then.

I think, too, that the appointments proposed today very much add to the work of the Independent Police Conduct Authority and its specific concerns now, not only around investigating complaints but also in terms of making inquiries of its own volition into the conduct and processes of the New Zealand Police. Some comment has been made about the appointment of Mr Richard Woods. From my research, I feel entirely comfortable with his nomination and appointment, and I believe that he brings a lot to the table as well.

The previous speaker, Keith Locke, made mention of a couple of incidents in relation to Mr Zaoui and to Mr Woods’ previous role. I believe that that experience will benefit the Independent Police Conduct Authority. It may well be that, in hindsight, all of us may have acted in a different way, or we may feel that all the information was never in the public domain, or for Mr Woods’ own reasons, which must remain private and kept close to his chest, he may have acted in the same way again.

Nevertheless, I believe that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has a significant role within our community. It certainly adds to the public perception and understanding of police work and the very difficult job that the police have in carrying out their role on our behalf. Police work is something on which every member of society has a view, and every member of society believes he or she knows how the police could act in a better way, but only a few are prepared to put themselves on the line in the way that police officers do.

I commend these appointments to the House. I look forward to offering the appointees my full support as a member of this House. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I join everybody else in supporting the appointment of these people to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I go where I am about to with some reluctance, but it seems that the only proper place to raise this issue is here in the Chamber. I am referring to the delay in releasing the report on the shooting of Mr Halatau Naitoko 2 years ago. I have followed that case with interest, because what occurred there disturbs me greatly. Perhaps it is a resourcing issue, in which case having more people on the authority will facilitate the release of that report. It is improper to write to the Independent Police Conduct Authority to ask for an indication of when a particular report will be released. It seems to me that the only way one can raise disquiet about delays is by raising it here in the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House and the recommendations made to His Excellency the Governor-General on the appointments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, as outlined by the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, in his speech. These new appointments will add to the significant experience and expertise that Justice Lowell Goddard and Allan Galbraith currently bring to it.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority carries out a very important function as a fully independent investigating body for complaints concerning the New Zealand Police. Labour is committed to New Zealand having a police force that all New Zealanders can have pride and confidence in, and that is why it is important to have a robust and independent oversight body.

The previous Labour Government made important changes to the authority to ensure that its integrity and independence were retained. We passed the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Act in 2007, which changed the authority’s name and its powers. The Independent Police Conduct Authority helps to ensure public confidence in the police, by making the complaints process more transparent than it used to be.

I support the view that the vast majority of police in New Zealand do a fantastic job. Certainly they enjoy a very good reputation. They are far more trusted by the general public than politicians. In my former professions, I used to work very closely on specific occasions with the police. As the Asian affairs reporter for the New Zealand Herald—which was a long time ago—I worked very closely with its Auckland-based Asian crime unit. Later, as a lawyer, I worked cooperatively with police officers, either as friends working together to help victims or as rivals arguing as opposing counsel on behalf of clients. In any event, I appreciate that it is not an easy job, and our police should be supported 100 percent for doing their job. But when things go wrong, the public need to be assured that those things will be looked at, examined, and scrutinised in an independent, thorough, and transparent way. It is a matter of determining who watches the watchers.

Prior to 1989, complaints against the police were investigated internally. That is to say, when the issue of a complaint arose, the watchers watched themselves. In 1989 the Police Complaints Authority was established, following several years of debate about police accountability, sparked in part by the role played by the police during the 1981 Springbok Tour. The establishment of the Police Complaints Authority was good, but not good enough. Through most of its life the Police Complaints Authority comprised a single person with a small number of support staff, and it conducted reviews of police investigations. Because of the authority’s reliance on the police themselves, it was perceived as lacking independence. Recent changes, including the appointment of independent investigators, are addressing that perception.

In March 2007 the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct recommended a number of changes to the authority, including enhanced powers and improved communication with complainants. The Labour Government committed to implementing those recommendations and made a start with the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Act 2007, which made five main changes, and my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta outlined those in her speech this afternoon. The Labour Cabinet also approved further changes to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. However, the legislation that was needed to implement those changes did not make it before the House prior to the 2008 election. Those further changes are very valid and relevant—for instance, the proposal to amend the current secrecy and privilege provisions so that information gathered during the authority’s investigations can be used in subsequent proceedings, and the proposal to allow the Official Information Act to apply to the authority.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority is fully independent, much like a court. It makes its findings based on the facts and applies the law accordingly. It does not answer to the police themselves, or to anyone else, over those findings. The authority is headed by a High Court judge and has three members in total, who are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of Parliament. Each member works full-time for the authority, and has executive duties. A further two part-time members may be appointed to the authority to represent community interests. The authority has the same powers as a commission of inquiry to summon witnesses and gather evidence. The police are required to provide all of the information and assistance needed for the authority to carry out its functions.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority is currently chaired by Hon Justice Lowell Goddard, a judge of the High Court. Justice Goddard was appointed to the Police Complaints Authority in February 2007 for a 5-year term. When the Independent Police Conduct Authority was established in November 2007 she retained her appointment and became the chair of the authority. The other current member of the authority is Mr Allan Galbraith, who has been the authority’s manager, investigations, since 2003, and he was appointed as a member of the authority in 2008. Mel Smith served as a board member until November 2009, but since then there have been only two members on the board.

The Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, has said that the areas of expertise that Justice Goddard and Mr Galbraith bring to the authority are central to its functions as an investigatory body. However, the authority needs additional expertise in the area of executive management and corporate governance, including knowledge of the reporting elements of a Crown entity’s responsibilities. It is therefore proposed that appointments are to be made of Dianne Macaskill, Angela Hauk-Willis, and Richard Woods to provide expertise in these areas. Previous speakers have advised the House of the background of the proposed appointees. I am very pleased to endorse their appointments, and I wish them all the best in the future. Thank you.