Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Today represents the end of a very long legislative journey for this bill. It was introduced in December 2002 to implement the recommendations of Sir Rodney Gallen’s review of the Police Complaints Authority. The bill provides the legislative basis for a strengthened and independent authority in which the public, I believe, will be able to have real confidence.

The bill was deferred while the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct looked into allegations that surfaced in 2004 that suggested that police officers might have deliberately undermined or mishandled investigations into complaints of sexual assault that had been made against other officers. The commission has now reported back with a total of 60 recommendations, 12 of which relate directly to the Police Complaints Authority. The commission’s recommendations fall within two main areas: those relating to the authority’s complaints handling processes and those that require legislative change.

This Government is committed to New Zealand having a police force that all New Zealanders can have pride and confidence in. Therefore, New Zealand needs a robust and independent oversight body. That is why the Government is implementing all recommendations relating to the authority in the commission’s report.

This bill implements the four of those recommendations that require legislative change. Those four recommendations are as follows. In regards to the jurisdiction of the authority, the bill includes a new provision to clarify that the authority may investigate historical complaints relating to incidents that occurred prior to its establishment. Second, in regards to the time limit on notification of complaints, the bill includes a new provision to require the police to notify the authority within 5 working days of receipt of a complaint. I think this is a significant improvement, and something that will be of particular interest to those who perhaps in the past had concerns about what they have seen as a delay. I think this constraint and requirement will be welcomed by many. Third, in regards to the reports to Government Ministers, the bill includes a provision that requires 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 a police response to a recommendation. Again, I think this is a significant movement in terms of the oversight and transparency of the authority. Fourth, in regards to the authority membership, the bill significantly increases the membership of the authority to up to five members.

A further recommendation of the commission is being incorporated into a review of the authority currently being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police in consultation with the authority and the State Services Commission. Officials will report back on options to enhance the role of the authority by December 2007. This work is progressing well.

As well as implementing the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, the bill changes the name of the authority to Independent Police Conduct Authority. There was some question raised by one of my colleagues opposite as to whether the change of name signified anything of real significance. Well, I say to members that it does. The change in name will emphasise the authority’s status as an independent entity, and, I think, better clarify and describe its role. The authority is not confined to the investigation of complaints. It investigates incidents that involve death or serious harm, as well as serious misconduct or neglect of duty. So I think in the title of Independent Police Conduct Authority we get a better sense and description of the broader range of responsibilities that the authority carries.

The bill makes a number of amendments to authority processes, including an amendment to enable the authority to refer a complaint back to the police for investigation by the police. This will enable the authority to concentrate on investigating serious matters. The authority will maintain overall supervision of the police handling of referred-back complaints, and complainants will still be able to raise a matter with the authority if they are dissatisfied in any way with the outcome of any police investigation.

The commission of inquiry also made a number of recommendations relating to improving the processes employed by the authority. These recommendations are being implemented by the authority alongside a comprehensive review of the authority that is currently being carried out. Of note is that on 1 September of this year a new database became operational. The database will incorporate a file management and auto bring-up system and provide for more flexibility for reporting. The data capacity will be greater so that information captured will be more comprehensive and its gathering will be more efficient.

The passage of this bill is, in my view, a significant event in the history of civilian oversight of the police in New Zealand. The independence of the authority will be greatly enhanced. The public will be able to have more confidence in the authority and in the police. I thank the authority for its important work over the years, and I am confident that the new Independent Police Conduct Authority will continue this tradition of service and of building a record of excellence into the future. Finally, in commending the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill to the House, I acknowledge and thank members from across the House for the wide support the bill is enjoying. I think that is indicative of the significance and importance that members recognise is being advanced by this legislation.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. Again, as we have moved through the Committee stage and so come to the third reading, I can confirm that National supports this legislation because it is necessary. The fact is that this bill will give more independence to what was the Police Complaints Authority and is now quite rightly called the Independent Police Conduct Authority. With more independence will come the ability for the public to scrutinise what is happening within the authority, and, of course, probably more important—or at least as important—the ability of the authority to scrutinise the actions of the police.

I find it a shame that a person cannot support more scrutiny of the police, and of the way they do their work, without then being told he or she is anti-police or is stirring the pot by, for instance, recommending that there needs to be a little more transparency. I guess I come at this not only as one who has been “the investigated” through the Police Complaints Authority, but as one who, in another life, has been “the investigator” on behalf of the authority. Public perception has always been that having the police investigate themselves is less than satisfactory. Although it happens in other areas of our society, the fact is that there is a huge imbalance of power between the average member of the public and members of the police who are carrying out an inquiry, an investigation, or a prosecution.

Historically, that perception has come through—the lack of fairness and the need to counter that imbalance in order to maintain a “rule of law” type of fairness within this very strong body that is the New Zealand Police. It has also come out of recent proceedings within our courts, and the ongoing investigation. Obviously, I am speaking about the complaints made by Louise Nicholas and what flowed on from those.

The bill will allow greater speed and handling of complaints, as well. What we have found on the Law and Order Committee, with the Police Complaints Authority reporting to us, has been a huge carry-over, year to year, of matters that have not been finalised because they are largely waiting for the police to get around to fully investigating the complaints before them, and because of the lack of an ability, for instance, for the Police Complaints Authority to be able to crack the whip and demand a response, because it is requiring another Government agency to carry out its work for it. As we know, the police have been under-resourced and have had to work on other investigations that take them away from this most important business.

Initially, the Police Complaints Authority could not tell us how much it was carrying over from one year to another, and only in recent times has it been able to tell us the exact figure. It worked out to be about 40 percent. Having the scrutineer to be kept at bay or to be beholden to the organisation it is supposed to be scrutinising is not the way for a public scrutineer to be treated. So granting more independence is a good thing, and we look forward to learning more about what is before the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and the reception it will get from the police, and the respect and the confidence that it gains from the public.

I want to touch on part of the discussion raised by the Māori Party at the Committee stage. We had some sympathy for two amendments that those members put forward. One seemed to have some significant validity, but it came up at the last minute and it was difficult to be able to gain support for it. The first thing the Māori Party wanted to do was to have a separate Māori branch, if you like, of the Independent Police Conduct Authority to investigate complaints made by Māori. The second amendment was to install an appellate body for Māori that they could complain to, which would then make suggestions back down to the authority about how matters would be resolved. The Māori Party attempted to do some fixing up in regard to this, and a number of National members had some sympathy for that. It was really a lack of time, and the way in which the matter was raised, that prevented us from supporting the matter at that time.

I do believe that the fact that five authorities will be created under this legislation allows Parliament to make appointments that may at least go some way to addressing the Māori Party’s concerns. The point needs to be made too that strong accusations of institutional racism were made by our colleagues in the Māori Party, and there is some basis for those points. I feel the need to say that we can accept where these accusations come from; Māori are overrepresented in prison numbers and vastly overrepresented in numbers of people arrested, and I have to say from some experience that Māori turn out to be the offenders because, frequently, they are the targets.

Sometimes, I guess, it is a little bit like someone who always fishes in the fishing holes. There are two groups of young guys walking down the street; one has a majority of Pākehā, one has a majority of Māori. The policemen are in a police car driving down the road, and maybe there are just two groups, and the cops are doing their job, and they think they will stop and have a yarn to those guys. They wonder whom they will have a yarn to, and they look up and see, say, Billy Smith. They might say: “That is Bobby Smith’s boy, and I know him from the footy club”—or they know him from the RSA, or from here or there—“and that is fine. Who is on the other side of the street? Well, that is some little Māori chap, and I know his old man because I locked him up.” So they stop and talk to those guys, who get a bit upset, and call the police a few names, and the police decide to go through their pockets to find what is in them. Maybe it is an illegal substance, a screwdriver, or whatever. There is an argument or an accusation, and there are arrests for disorderly behaviour, or for whatever is in the pockets, but they never find out what is in the pockets of the little white kids walking down the street.

I do not believe that that is a conscious form of racism, but it is a form of bias that exists. The police in that example never knew what was in the pockets of the little white guys—and whether or not we accept it, or people find it is comfortable to think about it happening in that way, that is the way it happens. Whatever the police find in the pockets, only goes to reinforce what they have in their heads.

We in the National Party made the point at the time that the Māori Party made its amendment known to us that we believe we should live in a country where there is one law for all. People in this House do not like the phrase “one law for all”, but I would like to reinforce this point. When the National Party talks about one law for all, it is talking about an aspiration. We want to live in a country where there is one law for all, so we do not see a need for a specific branch of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. We want to live in a country where people are equal before the law. We do not pretend for one moment that that situation currently exists in this country. I know that I hear Māori, particularly, saying when we talk about one law for all: “Bring it on.”, because they long for a day when there is one law for all and when everyone will be treated in exactly the same way. But in relation to law and order matters, Māori, because they are overrepresented in negative statistics within this country, are limited in their ability to take on this arm of the State. They are limited, for instance, in terms of finance. They are limited to legal aid solicitors and all the constraints that the Legal Services Agency puts on their ability to defend themselves, as opposed to the ability of Pākehā and other races who do have other options.

I accept that I have wandered a little from this third reading debate, but I do want to make the point that I believe strongly that the Independent Police Conduct Authority is a step up for all of us, and I believe that Māori will be far better served, and will have less reason to doubt the scrutiny that the police come under, as a result of the implementation of this legislation. I am proud to support this bill, and I am also proud that my party so strongly supports it.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

I welcome this opportunity to speak in the third reading debate on the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. I welcome its passing into law, because it is a major step in the evolution of an independent review of the area where State intervention through the police cuts into the day-to-day activities of individuals.

It has for a long time been a presumption that the police are well motivated and that their actions are always beyond criticism. Certainly, in my experience, the police force was not full of the ability to have self-criticism but was brimming with urgent self-defence on any accusation of improper conduct. This was the challenge that the first Police Complaints Authority met when the authority was established in 1988. Although many criticised that authority for being timid in its findings and criticised the subsequent authority for continuing that line, one will note that there has been a gradual development of boldness in the decision making of the authority as people have come to recognise that police, although often well-intentioned, are not above making mistakes. Those mistakes, of course, are understandable because in the white hot light of police investigations, when they carry the responsibility for the rest of the community in investigating allegations both minor and serious, they do so with a single-minded purpose that has to be applauded, but that single-minded purpose can often be at the expense of civil and human rights.

I listened to my friend Chester Borrows give the example of two groups walking along the street and one group being described as the little white boys and the other as the little Māori boys. He said that may not be racist but may be biased. I have to say that his recall of two groups is exactly my experience, but I say it is racism rather than bias, although not deliberate racism. It is racism because a conclusion has automatically been drawn because of the colour of one group, and for no other reason. That is the complaint that has often been levelled at the police and has led to areas of dissatisfaction that I think may have been reflected in the Māori Party’s two amendments, which were defeated during the Committee stage earlier this week. The argument evolved during that debate, and it was an interesting debate on some major principles. It was started by Dr Wayne Mapp when he spoke about the importance of equal treatment under the law. It was picked up on by Dr Pita Sharples and Te Ururoa Flavell when they highlighted the degrees of racism that underline some of our important institutions in society, such as the police. The debate was curtailed because of the nature of debates in this House, but I think it was a debate that was touching on some important principles that need to be dealt with.

I do not agree that parties in this House reject the concept of one law for all as referred to by Chester Borrows. I think we are all clear on the concept of one law for all. What is apparent, though, is that that concept is confused, as it was by Dr Wayne Mapp earlier this week, with concepts of equality under the law and equal treatment under the law. Dr Wayne Mapp in his speech was talking about equal treatment under the law, and that is where examples of bias or racism certainly do appear. It is this lack of equal treatment under the law that in fact undermines the concept of one law for all, which, essentially, is what the rule of law is all about. The rule of law exists and is hard to explain, but it is a concept that enables every citizen in this country to go about organising his or her affairs confident that the law that applies to them will also apply to every other person.

So one can conduct one’s life confident that there is a rule of law that applies to everybody. That is not the problem. The difficulty is how it is applied, and this is where the police often run into difficulty—not because they are inherently bad but because they have an onerous responsibility that requires considerable concentration of effort and mind, often after a lack of proper sleep and eating, while they undertake urgent and important investigations right at the knife-edge of human emotions and sensibilities. Mistakes are then made, and conclusions are rapidly reached, and behavioural patterns are sometimes picked up as evidence of responsibility. So the Police Complaints Authority has been an important vent to this potential area of conflict in our society, and the newly structured authority, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, which this bill will bring into being, is a welcome move in the continuing evolution of what has been a good history in our law as we evolve into a human rights – based society.

Chester Borrows also spoke briefly about the Māori Party amendment proposing an appellant authority, and I had no trouble with voting against that although I am one who believes that the appellant system is a hugely important feature of our legal process. The reason I voted against it is that we are a country still bound by precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis. What that does, of course, is encourage a legalistic view of disputes before the court. Appeals bodies generally, almost invariably, do not look at questions of credibility but at legal issues arising by the original finder of fact. If we had an appellant body overlooking the authority, the authority would be hindered by necessarily taking a legalistic approach to inquiries rather than a human-rights approach and a robust approach. That is why I have welcomed the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard to the chair of the present authority and retired judge Michael Lance QC as her deputy. If those two people are rolled over into the new authority, then the new authority will certainly start out in very good heart. Both of them are hugely experienced in criminal law, issues of human rights and fairness, and the onuses that apply to our various jurisdictions in this country. Both can point to a record, both at the bar and on the bench, of writing decisions and passing judgments that have stood higher scrutiny by the appellant authority. I mention that not because I want to pander to their sensibilities but to demonstrate that the appointment of individuals of competence with great judgment and considerable experience in particular fields arms those individuals with a sense as to what is happening properly and what is not happening properly. These qualities, in a judgment applied in the cold light of consideration, which will be the authority’s office, will enable them to make decisions as to what is important to pursue with vigour and what is less important.

What remains, however, is the vulnerability of the authority to the investigation process by the referral back to the police to investigate complaints. That, of course, will continue to be the Achilles heel under this authority, and it depends upon strong leadership, which I believe the authority is capable of providing, so that the referral-back system is not sabotaged. I can give ample examples of how that system has been sabotaged—and of course it is usually sabotaged to the disadvantage of those least capable of handling it. Previously, individuals would go to the police station to lay a complaint of mistreatment by the police, and the duty senior sergeant would look over the desk and say: “We don’t take written complaints today. Come back tomorrow, or come back another day.” The complainant would be deterred from following through with what was a real grievance. I trust the new authority will look past that difficulty.

As we consider the passing of this bill, I think it reflects the very good work by the select committee and reflects a very good debate in this House, but more important, it reflects a very good history of our police force in investigating difficult crimes and prosecuting them to a high standard. Strangely enough, having an independent authority will strengthen the arm of the police, because it does guarantee to one and all that the actions of the police in times of huge stress can be above reproach, and if they are not above reproach, that there is a resolution to that problem and a resolution to that lowering of standards. The fact that the authority has only recommendatory powers, as does the Ombudsman, does not weaken it at all. It is holding up the mistakes of the police to public scrutiny that is the ultimate sanction. That is the matter that gives the authority its real teeth and its real future.

This is a bill that has taken a while to come through, but when we consider that the original authority was established only 19 years ago, I think the evolution of this bill reflects on the changing standards in this country and indicates that we are moving to a sophisticated society where human rights are at the forefront and senses of responsibility are reposed in individuals, no matter their level or status in society.

I have listened a little to the discussion about how the police arrest Māori people, rather than Pākehā, and I think there is a message behind that, which we should carry out. It is that paradigm of how we prosecute offences in this country. The police, of course, carry out society’s wishes, but it is facile to suggest that offending is solely in the hands of the lower socio-economic group. White-collar crime is endemic in this country, and I would like to conclude with one example. I received a complaint once of lawyers who were inflating their legal aid bill. I tried to lodge it with the police, but they were too busy. The Law Society said it could not handle the matter, and the Legal Services Agency said that it did not look at that sort of thing. So that law firm and the complaint I received of it inflating its legal aid bills continues perhaps to this day. That is where the real crime in this country lies.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this

This has been a week where several select committees have looked long and hard at issues of change to parliamentary process—issues of substance, and issues of process. I was interested to hear the comments of the Minister in charge of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill, the Hon Mark Burton, when he spoke about the legislative history of this bill, because it has been very extended. Here we have a bill that was introduced on 4 December 2002, and nearly 5 years later it comes to the final parliamentary hurdle, which is the third reading.

National supports this legislation; it would never do otherwise. But some very unsatisfactory process issues have occurred. One of the hallmarks of this Government is to spring surprises by way of legislative change, without there being a proper opportunity for analysis and discussion. Nowhere is that more apparent than in respect of this legislation. A Supplementary Order Paper is the term of jargon, but we would know it as a series of amendments that were made at very short notice just a few days ago when this bill went through the Committee stage. I look with a degree of dismay at the changes that were made by a Committee that perhaps was not aware of the full significance of them.

When the bill was reported back by the select committee a number of provisions that had been deleted I believe should have been maintained. One of those provisions dealt with the circumstance where, in the course of an investigation, the Independent Police Complaints Authority—or as it is now to be known, the Independent Police Conduct Authority—came across evidence that tended to suggest that a defendant who had been convicted was in fact innocent. This provision, which was wrapped around former new section 33A, set out in clause 19, enabled a certificate to be given of the existence of that information. For some reason, which is not apparent to me, it has been decided by the Government to scrap that provision. I think that is a great shame, because if it is our task as politicians to create legal frameworks that will identify the guilty and also identify the innocent, we should be slow in the latter case to close down such possibilities. But that is what we have done.

The initiative for this legislation reflects historical changes in our society. The other night I referred to the seminal work done by Professor Klockars, who is well known to Mr Groser. His work drew attention to the fact that what distinguishes the police from every other domestic institution is that they exercise a general right to use coercive power. That is actually what makes the police so valuable to society. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that the use of coercive force will give rise to situations of some stress and, not infrequently, to resentment. It was no doubt such reasons that gave rise to the concern expressed at the time police services were first introduced in the 19th century. I think I noted the other night that Sir Peter Quilliam, who was an early chairman of the authority, referred to reported complaints of excessive police force in 1841. It is also a fact that around the world in Western democracies, wherever there have been suggestions of entities akin to an independent police complaints authority, the police have strongly resisted such authorities being established. It is similarly the case here that there was a degree of substantial misgiving by the police force that an entity such as this be set up.

What has happened, though, as society has changed is that we have seen the advent of various protest movements, and in many cases the persons involved in such movements came from those sections of society that in the past enjoyed a relationship of confidence with the police, and had been prepared to express any disagreement with governmental policies by way of the ballot box. So when the Viet Nam War occurred, for the first time so-called respectable members of society found themselves in direct opposition to the police, and the police were placed, of course, in an extremely invidious situation. On the one hand, they had the obligation to uphold the law as it stood, and, on the other hand, they were confronted by members of society who considered, on moral grounds, that certain governmental activities were unacceptable. We saw that in connection with the Viet Nam protests. We also saw it in connection with the Springbok Tour of 1981; and there were similar results in other countries.

I spoke the other night about the Brixton riots in April 1981, where scenes of violence and disorder occurred in Brixton when the police were attacked on the streets with stones, iron bars, and petrol bombs. That led to Lord Scarman’s inquiry, which led to the setting up of a police complaints authority in the United Kingdom. Of course, at that stage similar proposals were going through the Canadian Parliament that had as their purpose the setting up of an independent system for dealing with complaints against the police.

What does this bill do? Well, it does good things, I would say, and that is certainly what National would say. Here we have established the authority as a separate legal entity that recognises its change of status from a single-person office to now, as proposed in the latest Supplementary Order Paper 116, which has been passed, a body of up to 5 members. It is also made clear that the authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation, or a disciplinary investigation, or both of those, is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter. There are issues relating to interfaces with coroners’ inquests, increased powers are given, appropriately so, that reflect the powers given under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to such commissions, and there are a raft of administration issues.

I would like to deal with one aspect that drew comment to the Law and Order Committee, of which I was not a member, which is that this legislation does preserve the recommendatory role of the authority. Proposals were made that the authority be given the ability to make binding recommendations and impose sanctions. Wisely, in my view, the Law and Order Committee did not run with that recommendation. The current process, which it is intended will continue, is that the Police Complaints Authority conveys its recommendations to the Commissioner of Police and the complainants. The Commissioner of Police then has the obligation to notify the Police Complaints Authority, now to be called the Independent Police Conduct Authority, of any action proposed to be undertaken, including any reasons for any proposal to depart from the recommendations, and, if the commissioner takes no appropriate action, then recommendations can be made to the Attorney-General and the Minister of Police for action to be taken.

I hope that the outcome of the processes that are now the subject of implementation by the bill will significantly advance the interests of police morale, because it is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and a constant critic of the police, then that will have an effect on morale. On the other hand, if the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police—and I believe that it has that confidence at present—then there should not be any effect on morale. And I would hope that those members of the police, who include the vast majority of persons in the service, can feel confident that if undesirable activities are occurring that those will be dealt with and the standards of the police service maintained.

National supports this legislation as it advances, if passed today, to the final stage of Royal assent and implementation.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I am not sure that there is a lot more that can be said on this bill, the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. I raised the comment during the Committee stage about how long this bill has been in the mill, so to speak. In fact, I acknowledge my former colleague Edwin Perry, who was the New Zealand First member of Parliament on the Law and Order Committee at the time this bill went through it. I also acknowledge another member who did good work on this bill, who goes by the name of Brian Connell, an excellent MP in the South Island. Many of us hope he will continue on there, despite the fact that he has been ostracised by his colleagues, and despite the fact that National still uses the money allocated to him by the Parliamentary Service as part of its leader’s funding to keep its members all in tow—but National does that. Mr Connell has been a superb member of the Law and Order Committee for many years. I served alongside him after I took over on that committee from Edwin Perry. Brian was instrumentally involved in working on this bill, as well, and I want to acknowledge the work done by him.

New Zealand First has always stood for greater independence of the Police Complaints Authority, and we have long argued that we possibly have not gone far enough with this legislation, and that what we possibly should have done was to make the appointment an Officer of Parliament and given it absolute and total autonomy, answerable only to Parliament—that being the people’s Parliament. That would give absolute assurance. But critics of the bill say: “Change the title all you like, but adding the word ‘Independent’ to the name of the authority does not mean the organisation will be independent.” The substitution of the word “Conduct” for “Complaints”, so that the organisation becomes a police conducts authority not a police complaints authority, might well suit the purpose of a Government that has had to battle through a 3-year investigation into police conduct to try to placate the concerns of the public, but at the end of the day, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. The public of New Zealand will label it as such, if they believe that this amendment bill has not gone far enough.

During this debate a lot has been said about the perceived failures of the Police Complaints Authority to meet the needs of those New Zealanders who are aggrieved or unhappy with the procedures the police have applied in either prosecuting cases or not prosecuting cases. I do not think there would be an MP in this Parliament who has not received complaints by members of the public about the police not prosecuting a case; or if there are such members, then the situation will not remain that way for much longer, as they do more time. These people tell us that they gave the police the information and even gave them the names of the people involved in the crime that was committed. They come to us for assistance to get the police to prosecute their case. Well, most MPs have tended to pass those complaints on to the Police Complaints Authority, and trust in that organisation to investigate the appropriateness of decisions made by police. That work goes on.

One of the reasons that New Zealand First supports this bill is the changes in the appointment process and the calibre of the people who have been appointed. The new extent of the powers bestowed upon the authority gives us confidence that they—namely, Justice Goddard and her deputy—will demonstrate to the public a high degree of independence. I would have to say that in the Law and Order Committee, during the review of estimates and financial review, Judge Goddard came before it I think on two occasions. I think that most members of the committee have developed a great deal of confidence in her, and in her ability going forward, to be independent; to be her own person; and to command, rule, and guide the Independent Police Conduct Authority in the manner in which the public believe it should be done.

I want to take the time to focus on that other group of people who are so often ignored in all this debate. It is very easy to have speakers who truck out the woes, problems, and complaints that Māori have with the police, and we have already had a bit of a touch of that from a born-again Māori sympathiser—Chester Borrows. I shuddered while I was up in my office, watching his presentation on TV. One would have thought that he was not involved in the “Kiwi not iwi” campaign; that he had nothing to do with that rather insidious campaign that placed Māori as somewhat a privileged little group of society. Mr Bennett shakes his head, but I tell him to read again his party’s own press releases, his own party’s speeches, and read again what Don Brash actually said when he was trying to justify his “Kiwi not iwi” campaign. I welcome the enlightened Chester Borrows who sees the reality of where the future of politics lies. Maybe he, unlike Mr Bennett, is coming to the realisation that if National wants a coalition partner, it had better start being nicer to Te Ururoa Flavell and more accommodating to Hone Harawira, because National will not be in Government if it does not get its head around that simple fact. It is timely advice, but Mr Borrows, unlike Mr Bennett, is a more intellectual person, a more enlightened person, and a person whom we would more naturally expect to display enlightenment. That is unlike Mr Bennett, who is thick.

I want to talk about police officers. They are the great forgotten people in this bill and in all of this debate. As much as Mr Bennett might not like police officers and might want to denigrate this speech by indicating that fact to the public who are listening to their radios as they drive, police officers are often unfairly those who become the victims of other police officers who want to make their name by hanging out a police officer to dry. That provision has been ably used under the Police Complaints Authority’s inability to more adequately investigate the actions taken by senior police, and used, in particular, by police officers charged with maintaining professional conduct standards. They are the people who so desperately failed to identify some of the huge conduct issues that were besetting the police over the last 4 to 5 years—some say over the last 15 to 20 years.

I point to Constable Kerry Joyce from the South Island as an example of an unfairly treated police officer. He is an outstanding officer. He has a family, he has children. He is 32 years of age, has had long service in the police force, and was credited, along with another officer, with running early-bird campaigns that saw crime in the inner-city of Christchurch plummet as they set about in those early-bird hours of 3 a.m. dealing to, arresting, and taking in hand people who were disturbing the peace and behaving unlawfully, violently, or thuggishly on the streets of Christchurch. Kerry Joyce came upon a group of drunken men who had left a football game at Jade Stadium, and were outside peeing on the wall of the police kiosk. Kerry Joyce led his team and tried to move people along, and, unfortunately, ended up having to arrest these people. One of these people made a malicious claim that Kerry Joyce had kicked him in the mouth and broken his teeth. The New Zealand Police, rather than investigate the matter fully and completely, suspended him from duty, and it was about 18 months—just before Christmas—before the police finally told him and his family in a matter of fact way that they were going to charge him.

The court case came up eventually. It was a terrible way to be told for a start, and amongst all the publicity that he and his family got out at Kaiapoi, no one showed any concern for his well-being. No one bothered to examine the clear evidence, and eventually, about 2½ or 3 years later, the case was finally heard. It was thrown out by Judge Stephen Erber I think after about 12 minutes, or it might have been 20 minutes, of deliberation. Where are we today? Kerry Joyce has not been remunerated. His family have not been compensated. It put huge stress and pressure on his wife, and on his children as their daddy was labelled a thug by people in the media. Today we now know that had the Police Complaints Authority done its job, and had certain people in police headquarters done their job, charges would never have been progressed in the first instance. Kerry Joyce still awaits redress, and that is what New Zealand First finds absolutely despicable about the existing situation.

We look for and hope that under this new order, this new regime, this new Act, and under a new administration, police officers who are accused of wrongdoing will be treated more fairly, more thoroughly, and will be compensated accordingly when it has been found that they have been improperly charged and treated. We will be watching to see how this legislation performs, and, if necessary, we will be back to amend it even further.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not a challenge to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I thought it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that Mr Mark, in his speech, had rather intemperately provoked Mr Bennett. It is only reasonable to expect a certain level of interjection in that situation. I think that Mr Mark was unduly sensitive and that it would have been appropriate for there to be some acknowledgment that Mr Mark had provoked Mr Bennett.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Green Party is supporting the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. It has been a long time in the hopper since its former existence as the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, and I think improvements have been made on the way through.

The formulation of the bill was helped—unfortunately, in one sense—by the experience in Rotorua and all the goings-on there, with the court cases that followed and the trial of Mr Dewar. As members may recall, back in the early days of the furore over what happened in Rotorua, it was Mr Dewar who did a lot of the investigation for the original Police Complaints Authority investigation into those matters. Of course, he gave the police officers concerned a clean bill of health. There were serious problems there, and it highlighted one of the problems in dealing with police misbehaviour—that is, the police sometimes tend to cover up for each other. Partly that is a hazard of the occupation itself, in that the police, by the nature of their work, are forced to work very closely together, often in very dangerous circumstances. They often owe their lives to others supporting them. Close bonds develop, and they do not want to let their mates down, even if their mates are doing something that is very wrong and not in the public interest.

We absolutely need a police force. We often need police officers to engage in dangerous activity, and it is inevitable that there will be that bond whereby officers support each other through thick and thin. The Dewar case illustrated that it is important that any investigatory body be as independent from the police as possible.

It is good that we are now expanding the numbers on the authority. The original Police Complaints Authority had just one person in charge and hardly any staff. The authority had to rely on the police to carry out the investigation, and very few complaints were upheld. There was a lot of disquiet in the community, and there were huge delays. I have had a delay myself for years at a time in terms of a complaint I made back in 1999. I do not think it has been resolved yet. So there was a big problem in the system.

Then under the original bill—the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill—it was provided that the authority be expanded from one officer to three. I see in the bill that the new authority will now consist of up to five members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House. I think that will give it more capacity. The whole theme, as I understand it, is that the authority will be as independent as possible and have independent staff. Some of those staff may have been police officers who are experts in investigatory situations, but we do not want just police staff or people on very short-term delegation from the police; we want an independent authority.

This is important, as even now the police tend never to see anything wrong in what they are doing. The year-long Taser trial finished on 31 August. It is interesting to read the comments made by the Police Association, various police officers, and the police officers in charge of the trial. For example, they made the comment that in every case that they used the Taser, or every time they brought it out, there was no problem, at all. There is a reluctance to admit that there may have been a few downsides. Of course, there are upsides and downsides. The critics of the Taser—people like myself and Hone Harawira behind me from the Māori Party—would all admit that on occasions there are upsides and downsides. I am not saying that the introduction of the Taser is justified if we look at it overall, but we look at the pluses and minuses of the situation, whereas the police tend just to cover up for each other in respect of the Taser trial and to put a rosy gloss on it. That is an illustration of why it is necessary to have an independent body such as the Police Complaints Authority.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We will monitor the progress of the new authority and make sure that it is truly independent and that it truly keeps the police, whom we very much need in our society, in order.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou. At the Committee stage of this bill I spoke of a wing at the Royal New Zealand Police College named after my relation Mita Hikairo Mohi, and, just over a month ago, 75 new police officers graduated from wing 241. Mita is of Ngāti Rangiwewehi and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. For over 25 years he has been sharing his experience and expertise through the Mokoia taiaha wānanga on Mokoia Island in Rotorua. If any members ever have the privilege to attend the mau rakau wānanga, they would be hugely influenced by his teachings of history, whakapapa, and tikanga, and they would see students testing their agility, their speed, their strength, and also their ability to follow instructions and working as an ope taua—as a team. Wing 241, therefore, symbolises the unique strength and skills of Mita.

But wait up, there is a bit more. Moana Jackson, a Ngāti Kahungunu lawyer and acclaimed academic, is also the patron of police recruit wing 244, our own Dr Pita Sharples is patron of recruit wing 184, and my brother-in-law, rugby league legend Howie Tāmati—who is going to get some free tickets for me—is the latest wing patron. I come, therefore, to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill on a bit of a wing and a prayer, wondering whether the symbolic statement being made by the Police College in inviting such prestigious Māori leaders to be wing patrons will make the difference in the relationship between Māori and the police.

Not being one who is comfortable with winging it, I was proud that we, as the Māori Party, put forward two amendments at the Committee stage of this bill in order to make our contribution towards improving the relationship between Māori and the police. I want to place on record our appreciation to all the parties in the Committee of the whole House that gave the two proposals serious consideration. We acknowledge that the proposals were pretty complex and required a depth of analysis that was clearly difficult to do within the time frame in which these amendments came to the House.

The big question is, why did it take so long for the bill to come back to the House? There have been 1,735 days, apparently, since the bill was introduced in 2002—some 56 months. Between the second reading and the Committee stage, there was a period of 882 days; 29 months went by. What is that all about? Anyway, the second reading of this bill, ironically, took place on 5 May 2005, a year to the day that the hīkoi opposing the foreshore and seabed legislation came to Parliament. I think it is quite important to make those connections on matters of justice and injustice, on due process, and on skewed process.

The amendments would have introduced a requirement for an autonomous Māori investigative branch of the Independent Police Complaints Authority to be established. We saw having such a branch as being a key mechanism to review complaints raised by Māori against the police, and it would also have enhanced Māori relationships with the police. This has long been an issue of concern, so it was truly disappointing that we were not able to make up much ground on that.

Dr Sharples talked about a report in the year 2000 from the former Commissioner of Police Peter Doone. It revealed that Māori are significantly overrepresented in apprehension, prosecution, and conviction statistics. That report concluded: “Criminal justice agencies, including the police, must work to improve their responsiveness to Māori, and to overcome any negative perceptions that may inhibit that responsiveness.”

New Zealand has received report after report, responsiveness strategy after responsiveness strategy, yet still the United Nations reported a mere month ago on its concerns regarding the overrepresentation of Māori and Pacific people at every stage of the criminal justice system. Our amendment, therefore, attempted to break the cycle, to recognise Māori ways of looking at things, and to establish an autonomous Māori investigative branch.

We have supported the proposal to establish an independent police complaints authority with an enhanced investigative capacity that is independent of the police, and to ensure there is sufficient resourcing in place for it to do its job properly. The key word is “independent”. Independent conjures up associations of being separate, being free from outside control, and not being subject to the whims and pressures of a greater authority. We in the Māori Party know this word quite well, as the proud, independent Māori voice in Parliament.

The amendments made to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill are positive in so much as they increase the independence of staff to investigate complaints and hold hearings, and, by increasing the staffing component to five, there is an enhanced capacity to deal with the complaints. But our concern had always been that the changes do not cut the grade in terms of providing an opportunity for Māori to express rangatiratanga—that is, to design and implement Māori solutions. That was the rationale behind setting up an autonomous Māori branch of the authority. It was a proposal that 10 members of this House supported, and we acknowledge the vision of the Greens in joining us to make a difference.

The second set of amendments we put forward arose from our concern at the lack of capacity for the public to have the decisions of the authority reviewed. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for an independent police complaints authority review agency to be established in order to allow the decisions and activities of the authority to be appealed.

This has been a particular priority for Māori following two key reports, Police Perceptions of Māori and In those reports Māori respondents said they believed that police viewed Māori as being essentially criminal. Simply being Māori was sufficient cause for suspicion by police sort of along the lines that Mr Borrows talked about earlier. Māori participants also felt that there was little point in complaining about these practices, as they did not see the Police Complaints Authority as being independent from the police.

The Māori Perceptions of the Police study reported that a strong perception for Māori was, “the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police should Māori bring a complaint against the institution or individuals within it”. As a consequence of such concerns, recommended that another process for hearing Māori grievances should be undertaken immediately. That was the substance of our first amendment—the autonomous Māori investigative branch.

The second amendment was very much a backstop position—to set up a review agency to address complaints and act as an independent scrutiniser outside the police system itself. The vote went against us again, but we were heartened by the comments from speakers from New Zealand First, Labour, and the Greens in particular in terms of their acknowledgment of the urgent need to improve the relationship between Māori and the police by whatever means.

The new president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, at his inauguration in January 2006, stated: “I wish to tell you, my Indian brothers, that the 500-year indigenous and popular campaign of resistance has not been in vain.” Well, I take a lot of heart from that statement in this House on most days. But here is the crunch. Just as Morales recognised his victory as having come from a proud history of resistance, we in the Māori Party believe that we are on the pathway towards ensuring that justice and fairness mean something to our nation.

Surely a basic tenet in all democracies is to ensure that there are checks and balances laid against the authority of the State when it is negotiating with citizens on matters of law and order. We have not experienced success with our amendments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill in terms of numbers of votes gained in support, but we do believe that the general climate of the debate was one that signalled a readiness for the belief that we can improve a situation that requires our total and considered cooperation.

We stand by our commitment to having an autonomous Māori investigative branch of the new authority to review Māori complaints against, and Māori relationships with, the police. We recognise also the need for an appeal or review body to consider its activities. This would be particularly important for Māori. So in the end, we will vote in support of this bill at the third reading, and we look forward to further developments to demonstrate cross-party support for improving the relationship between the police and Māori.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I will take a relatively brief call. It was my privilege and pleasure to be the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee that considered this Independent Police Conduct Authority Bill, now quite some time ago. The reason for the length of time this bill took to finally come to fruition—in terms of this reading, the third reading—has been well documented by the Minister of Justice and by other speakers.

The bill provides the legislative basis for a strengthened and independent authority in which the public can have full confidence. It is really important to ensure that the public of New Zealand has confidence in an independent complaints and review process, and that the public continues to have confidence in the New Zealand Police. Indeed, if the public does not have confidence in the police force of this country, then, in my view, the very functioning of our democracy and its institutions, the notion of separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislative and executive wings, and our whole society as we know it are brought into peril. We see many negative examples around the world of societies that do not have confidence in the operation of their police. So I think this is a very, very important bill.

I acknowledge the previous speakers Dr Richard Worth, the Hon Mark Burton, Russell Fairbrother, and Ron Mark, who have detailed in great depth the importance of the bill. I will not repeat the very important points that they have made. I take an opportunity, however, to thank those who were members of the Law and Order Committee at the time this bill was considered, starting with the deputy chair, Marc Alexander. If Marc Alexander had been No. 3 on the United Future list, he would still be in Parliament today. I think United Future members have a sense of humour, and, dare I say it, I think they would see the irony of Mr Alexander’s placement in terms of what happened to their No. 3 person. That irony would not be lost. Marc Alexander made a very good contribution to the bill and I thank him for being a good deputy chair at the time. I thank the New Zealand First member Edwin Perry for his very good contribution. The deputy leader of New Zealand First is in the House at the moment, and is fully endorsing and nodding avidly at that sentiment—

KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this

I rise to speak in support of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. The National Party has supported this bill throughout its passage through the House, and we will continue to do so at this third reading.

It is fair to say that the third reading of this bill has been a long time coming. As we all know, the amendments to this legislation arose from Sir Rodney Gallen’s report back in 2000, and were introduced to the House in 2002. The bill was first in front of the Law and Order Committee—of which I was not a member—in 2003, around the same time as serious allegations of misconduct were being made against members of the police. At that time the bill was postponed to allow for the Bazley report into police conduct to be completed and released. Those allegations and subsequent criminal proceedings resulted in a huge lack of public confidence in the ability of the police to investigate their own. We believe that this bill is an important step in restoring public confidence, and that it is moving in the right direction to establish an authority that is more independent than the current model. It is all very well to have an Independent Police Conduct Authority, but the challenge is for that authority to actually be seen to be independent.

The perception that having the police investigating their colleagues may detract from its independence is addressed by this bill. Although it is important to note that that perception is just a perception and in the majority of matters the police undertake work on behalf of the authority with competence and integrity, there will now be less reliance on serving police officers having to investigate their own.

The bill also strengthens the effectiveness and efficiency of the Police Complaints Authority—soon to be the Independent Police Conduct Authority—increasing the speed at which complaints before the authority are handled and dealt with. As my colleague Mr Borrows already articulated at the Committee stage, some of the cases presently before the authority actually go back 5 or 6 years. They have been held up waiting for the outcome of other tribunals or agencies, or just simply are caught up in the system. It is clear that a speedier process should have a dramatic impact on the well-being of the complainants but also on the police officers involved, who put their lives on the line every day for the safety of New Zealanders. In saying that, I do not wish to detract from the importance of delivering a fair investigation for the complainant, but I also believe that it is important to consider the toll that investigations take on the officers themselves, especially when many investigations take years to resolve.

The timeliness of investigations was an issue that the Law and Order Committee discussed during financial reviews. We expressed concern about the authority’s ability to complete its work within acceptable time frames. As an example, in the 12 months from February 2006 to January 2007 the authority had approximately 2,500 files, with approximately 800 matters that arose before July 2005 still outstanding. Unfortunately, the authority’s annual report does not contain statistics on files that have been carried over from the previous year. I believe that these statistics, albeit difficult to ascertain, are important in order to reflect accurately the workload of the authority as they contribute to that workload, regardless of which year they were opened.

During the financial review we were advised by Justice Goddard, who is appointed as the authority for 5 years. Again, I echo the sentiment of others and hope that her reign will continue through to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. She said that 70 percent of the authority’s work is about what we could consider to be relatively minor matters, such as alleged roadside rudeness and traffic enforcement. It may well be that the House needs to consider whether this public watchdog needs to be involved in those relatively minor issues in the future.

Lastly, I will speak briefly about the membership of the authority, which in the original bill was set at three members only, one of whom must be a judge. The Supplementary Order Paper increased that membership to five, but still, as I understand it, only one member needs to be a qualified judge. It is a safeguard that the judge is also the chairperson of the authority and also that this House recommends who the other members of the authority will be, but I sound a word of caution in relation to the qualification of those members. There is no qualifying criteria for the other four members. As the New Zealand Law Society submitted: “One of the primary purposes of the Bill is to enhance the independence of the Authority. Screening and/or qualification of the two members other than the chairperson should exist to ensure this happens.”

Originally, before this Supplementary Order Paper, there was also a meeting procedure prescribed that, because of the stipulation of a quorum of only two of the then three members, risked the situation of decisions being made by the two laypersons only, without the judge even needing to be there. If this authority is to have the confidence of both the police and the public, it is important that the other members of the authority have suitable qualifications and experience and are not appointed for political expedience or political favours. How complaints are investigated and who investigates these complaints is fundamental to the independence of the authority.

We welcome this bill, and we support the third reading of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill.