Urgent Debates

Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I have received letters from Keith Locke and Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the commission of inquiry report into police conduct. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, and I consider that it does justify the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the applications. The first application was received from Keith Locke and I therefore call on Mr Locke to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

I move , That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The Green Party will be splitting its time. I will speak for the first half and my colleague Sue Kedgley will speak for the second half.

On behalf of the Greens, I would like to congratulate Dame Margaret Bazley on a thorough report. She has exposed shocking behaviour in the New Zealand Police Force—a pattern of sexual offending against women by so many police officers that we as a Parliament have to take it extremely seriously.

In the complaints of sexual assault that Dame Margaret looked at, 141 were regarded as containing sufficient evidence on which to lay charges or undertake some sort of disciplinary action. She does report significant improvement since the worst days of the 1980s and 1990s, but that may be due, mainly, to changes in society, which has meant that sexual violence against women is much less tolerated and more often reported, and this modern reality is reflected more within the police force. The police still have a huge way to go to reassure us that complaints by women will be properly heard and to make it more acceptable for the police to tell on their mates when they cross the line into unacceptable behaviour or criminality.

At bottom is the ongoing problem of what Dame Margaret Bazley calls “the wall of silence” from colleagues when complaints are made. The starting point of the problem, as outlined in this morning’s Press in a quote from Victoria University’s Michael Rowe, is that everywhere in the world police officers have extraordinary loyalty to one another. This loyalty is forged on the dangerous frontline, where officers count on their mates to back them up and there is strong pressure to overlook the misbehaviour of a fellow officer on whom they might be counting to protect them the next day or the next week. That is precisely why police systems for detecting wrongdoing in their ranks have to be much stronger than other Government agencies, not much weaker, which is the picture that we get from Dame Margaret’s report.

The police must start right now to create a culture of openness, and, as Margaret Bazley points out, an effective whistleblower mechanism is an essential component of this. I think that the best judge of whether the police are really changing their culture for the better is their demonstrating in their future practice that police whistleblowers will be protected and their careers not stymied. Whistleblowers have to be protected by the police hierarchy and by a much better Police Complaints Authority than we have now—one that is fully independent.

The police can no longer be in charge of investigating complaints against themselves. The new Independent Police Complaints Authority, now proposed in a bill before Parliament, is an improvement, but it is not sufficient to deal with the problems we see in this report. It is not sufficient just to increase the number of appointees on the authority from one to three. Any new investigative body has to be given much greater resources, with its own staff sufficient to carry out all of its investigations without relying in any way on police investigators.

In fact, the Greens are in favour of a new body that combines the functions of the Police Complaints Authority and a new prison inspectorate, with considerable staffing in the joint agency and a wide range of expertise so that it can be effective and completely independent from either the police or prison management. We use the term “inspectorate” deliberately, because any new body should not only deal with individual complaints against, for example, the police, but also be able to initiate its own investigations when it sees any signs of systemic problems of the sort Dame Margaret has just investigated.

There is still too much of a cover-up culture in the police, as we have seen over the past couple of weeks. Last week the police tried to cover-up their exclusion of a press gallery journalist from a photo opportunity with the Chinese Vice-Premier. The police blamed the journalist, and they may have got away with that cover-up but for the fact that, perhaps unbeknown to them, their actions were being videoed. The previous week an unarmed man in West Auckland was “Tasered” while on the ground surrounded by four police officers. This again was action clearly beyond the police mandate in the taser trial, which was that tasers should be used only when there is a threat of injury, which there clearly was not in this case. Again, the police might have got away with their cover-up but for the fact that an onlooker filmed the event on his cellphone.

This police culture of “back your mates even when they are wrong” lies at the heart of the problem of the sex offending we are dealing with today. All kinds of police knew what was going on in Rotorua at the time and either said nothing or tried to cover it up. Inspector John Dewar, who handled the original complaint of Louise Nicholas in Rotorua, is now belatedly, and after huge publicity, being charged with attempting to obstruct or defeat the course of justice. In the Nicholas case, the Police Complaints Authority relied on the police to do the investigation, which was like putting foxes in charge of the chicken coop.

Dame Margaret Bazley has exposed a very rickety and deficient system of dealing with complaints today. She had to put forward very basic organisational changes, like the national commissioner’s office being informed of serious complaints against the police, which has not been the case up until now, and proper information being given to complainants about the progress of their complaints, which also has not been the situation up until now—either within the police or with the Police Complaints Authority. She also exposed a whole lot of other things, like the fact that some people, when they are subject to a serious allegation, simply slide out by resigning from the force.

I think we have to realise that with the police force we are dealing with a very powerful institution, particularly when it is acting collectively. Complainants can feel very vulnerable, so every opportunity and avenue has to be open for them to complain. At this point I will hand over to my colleague Sue Kedgley, who will explain the Green position further.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

The Green Party is particularly pleased that the Commissioner of Police has, at long last, offered an unequivocal public apology and thereby made an implicit admission of guilt by the police for what this inquiry has uncovered and the harm that has been done to so many New Zealand women over the past few decades, in particular to women who have been abused by police officers, to women whose complaints were not taken seriously by police officers, and to women who were turned away from police stations and so forth.

I believe that both the apology by the commissioner and this report are important steps in helping to close this tragic saga, but, as my colleague Keith Locke has said, much more needs to be done. We need processes to reassure New Zealand women that the culture of violence and abuse that flourished in certain parts of the force, and which has been documented in this report, will no longer be tolerated, and that any complaints of sexual abuse made to the police in the future will be treated with the utmost seriousness, with compassion, and with respect.

The Minister of Police made a public statement today that the public can have confidence in the calibre of police investigations into allegations of sexual assault made by police officers and that women will feel reassured and safe about reporting sexual violence offences. Sadly, I am afraid that this is not the case. The truth is that most women who have been raped do not take their cases to the police because they believe they will be damaged and re-victimised all over again by the investigation and by the court processes. I believe that this report and the recent court cases, sadly, will have fuelled and reinforced their fears, not assuaged them. Therefore, the confidence of New Zealand women in reporting sexual offences will have to be won over time. This report today is the first step in what will be a long healing process. It will be a long process of turning around the police culture and regaining trust—in particular, the trust of New Zealand women—in the police force.

The report has confirmed what so many women have been saying anecdotally over recent years. Much of what women have said has been dismissed, but this report gives proof that there was a culture of scepticism in the police’s dealing with complainants of sexual abuse; that these stereotyped attitudes may have prejudiced the police’s approach to complaints; that there was evidence that police officers turned a blind eye to sexual activity of an inappropriate nature carried out by police officers; and, of course, that there was a wall of silence from police officers in order to protect their colleagues. These are incredibly serious findings that really amount to an admission of a cover-up in certain parts of the police force, which obviously caused huge harm to every single woman whose case was denied or covered up in this way in the past.

I guess that it is particularly concerning, when we look at the release of the report and its findings today, and consider the very long history of this sort of culture in the police force. Eleven years ago, in 1996, a study noted that there was “an organisational culture in the police force that was dominated by male values”. It spoke of sexual harassment, discrimination, “tolerance of forms of male behaviour that marginalised the contribution of women”, and of degrading pastimes such as night-shift sexist videos. The question we must ask is what has happened as a result of that very revealing report. How much has changed since then, and what has been done to change the male work-culture of the police? These matters are what we need to be reassured about if women are to have their faith, their confidence, and their trust in the police restored.

The report also confirms that there was a sexual assault investigation policy, which governed how police should handle sexual assaults and investigations into them. But it also states that as recently as March of 2005, experienced detectives were arriving at the Royal New Zealand Police College for courses and admitting that they did not even know that such a policy existed, let alone what it specified. They said that the lack of implementation of this particular policy was also reflected in the fact that no attempt was made to appoint a national sexual assault coordinator until 2005—8 years after the policy’s introduction. Also, the policy was supposed to be mandatory. It stated that it was a mandatory policy, yet the way that it was implemented meant that compliance with it remained an aspirational target. So all of these events of the past suggest that much needs to happen for New Zealand women to be reassured that there has been a profound and real change in the police culture, and for them to feel they can have the confidence and trust in the police that is essential for the police force to be effective.

What is also of concern is that some of the women who have bared their souls to the commission have said that they feel they have been left hanging, and that they feel they have been hung out to dry by the inquiry. Some of them, I think, were expecting that the process would bring them personal resolution, reconciliation, and closure. They say that they feel they have been treated with an attitude of: “ ‘thank you very much for your story, you are no longer required, goodbye.’ ” I think that this is a real concern. No doubt, those women will be pleased with the unequivocal and generic apology made by the commissioner, and they will be pleased by this report. But I think that more needs to be done so that the women who have bared their souls feel that they are able to have personal closure of their own agony over secrets that many of them have nurtured for many decades.

I am astonished that there was no code of conduct for police officers. It is hard to believe. We are delighted that, finally, there will be a code of conduct for police officers. Thank you very much.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) Link to this

The Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct was established in February 2004 to carry out a full, independent investigation into the way in which the New Zealand Police had dealt with allegations of sexual assault made against members of the police and associates of the police. This followed the publication of allegations made independently by two women, Ms Louise Nicholas and Ms Judith Garrett, suggesting that police officers might have deliberately undermined or mishandled investigations into complaints of sexual assault that had been made against other officers. A set of terms of reference was established for the inquiry, and those terms of reference were subsequently altered somewhat in May 2005 as a result of the commission’s concern that police inquiries currently before the courts could be jeopardised.

The commission of inquiry report is a very important document, and I thank those members who have spoken on it so far. I thank Dame Margaret Bazley for her comprehensive report. I am impressed with the scope, depth, and thoroughness of the investigation, and with the common sense she has taken in her recommendations. I also acknowledge the Prime Minister’s role in setting up the inquiry to ensure that allegations made over a period of years were examined and brought out into the open. It is clear that this inquiry has acted as a catalyst for change in the New Zealand Police.

Further, I acknowledge the courage and persistence of the women who brought forward the complaints that resulted in this inquiry. I also express in this House my disgust at the actions of individual police officers who indulged in disgraceful conduct at any time during the 25-year period covered by the inquiry. They let down their colleagues, the women of New Zealand, and New Zealanders in general. I sincerely regret what has happened to individuals, and I feel confident that Ministers who have held this portfolio previously would feel the same as I do today. I am pleased to see that the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, has, in a statement, unreservedly and unequivocally apologised to the victims of the actions of a few officers who have let down the police and let down the public. As the member Sue Kedgley said, that is a very important part of the healing process in going forward from here.

As Minister of Police, I will do all I can to try to make sure that this sort of unacceptable behaviour does not happen again, but I acknowledge that in any profession there will always be individuals who transgress. The important consideration is to minimise the risk of such individuals emerging within the New Zealand Police and to identify and remove such individuals from the service as expeditiously as possible. They were not wanted then, and they are not wanted now—if any of them remain. I know that that is exactly how the Commissioner of Police feels, as well.

Turning to the report, I can do no better than to quote the words of Dame Margaret. She said that the report has presented “a series of ‘snapshots’ of police standards and practices over a 25 year period. Much of the Commission’s focus was necessarily on historical matters.” The snapshots, especially those from the earlier years, are sometimes ugly. Her report also notes, however, that there have been “significant improvements in standards and practices over that period.” She also points out: “New Zealand is fortunate to have a police force in which this kind of misconduct is a relatively rare occurrence. However, the risk that misconduct, particularly sexual misconduct, poses to public confidence in the police is a significant one.” That is why this report is being taken so seriously by this Government and by members in the House, who, I know, will participate in this debate.

Dame Margaret has said many things in her report, but I want to respond to Sue Kedgley’s comments in relation to two of those things. Sue Kedgley quoted me as saying that the public should have confidence in the calibre of the police. In fact, I was quoting the words of Dame Margaret Bazley in her report. In her report, that is exactly what she says. She said: “it is my view that, at the present time, the public can have confidence in the calibre of police investigations into allegations of sexual assault by police officers and police associates. Although the evidence the Commission has seen highlights some failings in the past, the policies and procedures surrounding how such allegations are investigated have improved markedly over the past 25 years. Nevertheless, further improvements are needed, in particular to address the proliferation of policies and procedures …”. She makes the point that although there has been improvement and women can have confidence in the calibre of those investigations, there is still further improvement to be made. She also said—and I think it is important to answer Sue Kedgley on this—that “there was no evidence of any concerted attempt across the organisation as a whole to cover up unacceptable behaviour.”

So what I believe we have here are individual police officers who have indulged in disgusting behaviour and who have attempted to keep that behaviour from fellow officers. But it is important to point out that Dame Margaret does not believe that there was a culture of cover-up within the New Zealand Police then, or that there is now.

It is important to look at the recommendations of the report itself. The report, as members know, makes 60 recommendations. Forty-eight of them apply to the New Zealand Police; 12 of them apply to the Police Complaints Authority. I am really encouraged that the police have already begun acting across a range of these complex issues. I made the point that I believe that the commission of inquiry itself has been a catalyst; but that would be to say that nothing happened from the 1980s right through to the time of the inquiry. In fact, many, many things have happened. We could look back at the reporting of sexual harassment, for example. The report points out that a lot of work was done in the early to mid-1990s to develop policy around sexual harassment. That developed over time and is just one example of things that have changed.

I agree with the member Sue Kedgley that society has also changed over those 25 years. Attitudes that were held by New Zealanders 25 years ago would not be acceptable to many people in our society today. Margaret Bazley points out in the report that if we take an issue like the use of alcohol within the police, when there was a culture of heavy drinking and there were police bars, we see that, over time, that culture has changed. Today we do not build bars in police stations. And let us look at society as a whole. Attitudes towards alcohol have changed. I came into this House in 1984 when there were many, many bars in Parliament. In 1984 the drinking culture in this place was different. Today Parliament has one bar, which is shared by all, including members, the media, and staff. So there has been a change in culture, and I welcome that.

Of the 48 recommendations that Dame Margaret Bazley has made, four have been completed. I have for members, if they have not already received it, a list, put out by the New Zealand Police, of all the recommendations, showing what action has been taken, what action will be taken, and a date of completion for those recommendations. I know that my colleague Tariana Turia will recognise that format; it is the same one we used after the inquiry into the under-reporting of cervical smear abnormalities in Gisborne. The document sets out the recommendations and gives the public some clear indication as to what action will be taken and when. Four of the recommendations have already been completed, two are partially completed, 31 are under way, eight are yet to be done, and three will be ongoing matters. Some of these recommendations must always be ongoing matters, such as looking at the health of an organisation and at its practices. One has constantly to be looking at that. One cannot say: “That is finished; we will never look at it again.”

I will outline in my comments today what I think are five or six really important recommendations that require urgent attention. The first one relates to the code of conduct. It is true that the New Zealand Police has never had a code of conduct. It is not part of the New Zealand Police. Obviously, officers swear an oath, but they do not have a code of conduct. A code of conduct has been drawn up. It was agreed with the Police Association during its industrial relations negotiations last year. That code of conduct will be put in place this year, 2007, and today the Commissioner of Police released the draft for everybody to see. It has gone out for consultation and it is available for members to see. I believe that it is a very important step forward, because the code deals with many of the issues that came up in this report. I think it has to be the basis of the industrial relations strategy, going forward, for the New Zealand Police. I also believe that the drawing up of new police regulations, which revoke the disciplinary tribunal system and implement the best-practice State sector disciplinary system—based on a code of conduct, and in keeping with the principles of fairness and natural justice as part of employment relationships—must be implemented as soon as possible.

I believe that we can implement those regulations this year. There needs to be the implementation of an early warning system to identify officers at risk of inappropriate behaviour. Although there is a regional ability to alert commanding officers of inappropriate behaviour, what is being sought is to bring that information into a central database. I see that very much—and I am sure that my colleague Georgina te Heuheu will relate to this—as being like the Medical Council of New Zealand, in that when there are complaints against a professional, those complaints are reported in and come up as a red flag against the actions of that officer. So the reports are taken into a central database, all the data is collected, and a warning is given as to whether there is a persistent problem. Of course there will be officers who have complaints against them; that is the nature of policing, as we know. But when we can identify that an officer is displaying inappropriate behaviour, we will get the red light—the alert—early. I have also already asked the State Services Commissioner to carry out an annual health audit of the organisation, of police culture, and that will be asked for by the Commissioner of Police. Actually, he intends to ask for it. I checked with the State Services Commissioner as to whether he can do that, and the commissioner believes he can. I think that that is a very important recommendation.

I have one other matter, because I know I am running out of time. I think it is important that the recommendations in this report are not just implemented but also audited, to see whether they are implemented over the period of time. It is recommended in the report that there be a 10-year audit by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General in order to make sure that every one of the recommendations is implemented. I hope it will be done in less than 10 years, but the commission of inquiry suggests a time of 10 years for that audit.

One other step has been decided on by the New Zealand Police—and Tariana Turia will recognise this, as well. It is that the police intend, on a quarterly basis, to update a public website of those recommendations, stating what has been implemented and what progress has been made. That is exactly what we did with the commission of inquiry into the under-reporting of cervical screening abnormalities in Gisborne. That means that the public can, at any time, access that website and, on a quarterly basis, know what progress has been made towards the implementation of those recommendations.

I believe that the public of New Zealand and the New Zealand Police will welcome this report today, because it has been a long time in coming. There is no doubt that the police in New Zealand have felt the weight of these inquiries and court cases. I believe that the police in New Zealand want to move from this position to a position that is positive, and to show their faces to the people of New Zealand. There can be no tolerance for the sorts of examples identified by Dame Margaret. It was disgraceful conduct by police officers and associates over a period of 25 years, involving exploitation of vulnerable people, particularly women. It cannot be acceptable.

We have to move forward from here, and I welcome the positive nature in which this report has been received. This is a serious debate; it is not one that puts glory on anybody in this House or outside it, in terms of the actions of a number of individuals. We have to resolve this issue, move on, and ensure that the confidence the public has in the New Zealand Police continues.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I rise on behalf of the National Party in this snap debate. Let us not underestimate how much of a thunderbolt this particular report is. It has ultimately resulted in the police being put on notice for a period of 10 years by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. It has resulted in the police now being subject to annual reports from the State Services Commission investigating the culture of policing in New Zealand. This is a significant and far-reaching report. Thank goodness for public servants like Dame Margaret Bazley and Kevin Brady, who are prepared in the name of the public good to make the tough calls, and to state without fear or favour the facts as they actually exist. One would hope that those types of approaches could be taken to other departments and ministries over the course of the next wee while.

As the Minister has said, this report is extremely important, particularly for the women of New Zealand, and particularly for those women who originally made complaints about police conduct in the 1980s. But the women of New Zealand must have no fear, at any time or at any place in New Zealand, when they approach the New Zealand Police over an issue that has concerned them. The Police is an institution—unlike, frankly, some other Government departments or ministries—that the public must have 100 percent confidence in, at all times. This report is a blow, frankly, for the Police, and I will talk about that in some detail shortly. But it is now up to this Government, and to subsequent Governments, to make sure that that confidence in the police is restored, and that the public are able to trust that when they make a complaint, it is dealt with in a professional way.

Dame Margaret did find evidence of disgraceful conduct, and she found that 141 of those complaints contained enough evidence for criminal or disciplinary charges. Dame Margaret also said that there were incidents of officers attempting to protect alleged perpetrators—which is unforgivable. As the Minister said, Dame Margaret has made 60 recommendations, and although I acknowledge that the Commissioner of Police today has unreservedly and unequivocally apologised to victims for the actions of those officers who let the police and the public down—which should be acknowledged, and he should be congratulated on that—he went on in his statement to make the most curious remark: “ ‘However, following close and thorough scrutiny of the way we go about our business, the report does not point to systemic failings with Police policy, procedure, standards, training or behaviour.’ ”

I am afraid that Dame Margaret Bazley found the opposite, when she stated: “In my view police management lacks the policies, procedures, and practices necessary for effectively dealing with such misconduct, and for removing the officers concerned.” She went on in her report to make this statement: “The good work done by many investigating officers, particularly in the past 15 years, has been placed in jeopardy by systemic flaws that need attention from both police management and Government legislators.” Yet the commissioner undid what I am sure was a genuine apology to the New Zealand public by stating further down in his press release that the report did not point to systemic failings with police policy.

Well, I tell the commissioner that it did. The report did point to systemic failures, particularly relating to matters surrounding policy, procedures, and standards. In fact, Dame Margaret is particularly concerned about this issue, because she went on to say, tellingly, in her statement this morning—something the Minister did not mention when she related the fact that the Government will now put in place a 10-yearly audit of the Police, plus an annual culture check by the State Services Commission—“… I am concerned that the police impetus for change may not be sustained once the commission is discharged.” In other words, it was not the Government’s idea to put in place the State Services Commission’s annual culture review, or the Audit Office’s 10-year watchdog role. Dame Margaret says in her comments that she is “concerned that the police impetus for change may not be sustained once the commission is discharged.” We need to take this matter seriously, because Dame Margaret is a fearless public servant, and in this House we do her no good unless we honestly repeat her statements as they are written down. The report makes it clear that there are long-term concerns.

We are looking forward to hearing from the Minister of Justice on the Police Complaints Authority matter, because Justice Lowell Goddard, who is, in National’s view, a fine appointment to the job of Police Complaints Authority—in fact, she is the Authority—has started the process of strengthening the independence of that office. National waits with interest to see how that will be reinforced by the Government. She is, in our view, doing a good job on that front.

This report states that the culture that existed in the Police was unacceptable to the public and those who wish to make complaints to the police from time to time, but it goes on to state, in Dame Margaret’s straightforward way, that she does not trust these matters to be implemented without continuing audit and review processes. That should concern those members of the police who believed a substantial document that sets out all the positive things the commentary said about the New Zealand Police, which was released this morning. That was very quickly put up on the Police website today. It is titled “Positive commentary about NZ Police and the Commission of Inquiry report”, and lists various quotes that say positive things about the police—which is to be encouraged. But it would have been nice if Dame Margaret had been able to say that, upon the findings of her inquiry, she had an absolute gut feeling and total confidence that no further audit or follow-up would be needed.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise to contribute to this debate on behalf of New Zealand First, and I want to start by reading these words to the House:

“The New Zealand public have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude to Australia when it comes to policing, and while there may have been some justification for this in the past, it is certainly not the case now.

At least the Australians have ordered commissions to look into their various police services. Some of them can now move on.

New Zealand has steadfastly refused to do so, apart from the Compton inquiry earlier this century when a Police Commissioner was using police constables to work for him personally. Instead, they have just talked about it: ‘Isn’t it awful, isn’t that dreadful, isn’t this wicked …’ That seems to be the way of New Zealanders and their media.

Does the whole common structure need to be reviewed? Many experts would say at least one tier of that structure should be removed.

Police I have spoken to believe that a massive restructuring of the New Zealand Police Service is long overdue, with the main reform aim being to have less police bureaucracy.

In New Zealand, senior police officers are not used to public scrutiny and, in fact, resent it. To be fair to them, however, neither are politicians, the judiciary, the legal profession or public servants.

As the New Zealand police have made an ‘art form’ out of writing off complaints over the years the Police Complaints Authority is a toothless tiger.

It is hoped this book will cause the public to think more about the corruption and coverups in our society and then, hopefully, do something about it when they encounter it.

Surely, it’s time for some professionalism at the top? Not just in the police, but across the board.

While this book is often critical, it does offer some solutions based on twenty years’ experience in the police and a further twelve years studying the Australasian legal system and police departments around the world.”

This was written by Tom Lewis in January 1998 in the introduction to his book Coverups, which I hold in my hand. It is interesting that as far back as 1998 some long-serving police officers were expressing their concern about practices in the police force and some deficiencies within the public service—deficiencies that were not giving the public the confidence they needed that all was well within our police force. Tom goes on to talk about other Government departments as well, but we are talking specifically about the police force, as did the bulk of his book.

New Zealand First thinks that warts and all, as bad as it is, and as horrible as the reading in this report will be for most New Zealanders, this is a very good day. It is a good day for democracy, a good day for the public service, and a good day for the police force, because we have to hand the long-awaited Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct produced for us by Dame Margaret Bazley. I also take the opportunity to say that it is a good thing that Margaret Bazley is a Dame, because, on the basis of this report New Zealand First says she certainly deserves such a title. Unfortunately, in the future, public servants who serve us as well as she has will not have the privilege of being accorded that title, because the Government has removed such systems of recognition from the statute.

The report is not good reading for New Zealanders and is not good reading for the police force. It is encouraging that Dame Margaret Bazley points out that the number of incidents of police misconduct over the years—although, as Mr Power pointed out, she found 313 complaints of sexual assault against 222 officers, and 141 of those she said contained sufficient evidence for which criminal charges could have been laid—was “relatively rare across the force”. She goes on to say that the public could have confidence in the calibre of police investigations into allegations of sexual assault by police officers “in more recent times”.

It is no secret, and it is widely accepted and known, that certain sectors in the communities’ minority groups in this country have for years expressed concern about how they have been treated by the police. It is regrettable, sad, and a blight on our history—on our record—that one of those groups should be New Zealand women and that they should have been treated so badly by a few officers in the police force, and also that senior officers who were in a position to have done something in those times, did not. Had they simply done one thing—that is, their duty, which is something they took an oath on and swore to uphold—then we would not be reading the sordid tales we are reading in this report.

New Zealand First takes some pride in the fact that it has played a major role in increasing the size of New Zealand’s police force and thereby its diversity, which is encouraging. We are also encouraged by the increasing number of women who are joining the force. From that will come—it has already come—a change in the culture, a change in the attitudes, and a change in the way the police operate today and, more important, will operate in the future. I am reminded of the words of a proverb that has often been said in the past: “All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.” Sadly, this report tells us that for a very long time good people who could have done something did nothing. That is in the past, and we should not just consign it to history and just say: “Well, we’ve dealt with it. Let’s move on.”; it is useful henceforth for us to remind ourselves about our history and our past so that we may do better and serve the citizens of this nation better.

New Zealand First has long championed for this country a stronger police force, tougher laws for transgressors, and victims’ rights and we have championed an increase in the budget for the New Zealand Police. We have championed an increase in the numbers of police officers on the beat. But we also stand by the view that we want, and demand, an increase in the quality and standards demonstrated by our policemen and policewomen who actually do their duty for us on the streets. This will come only with the code of conduct.

The announcement that the code of conduct is to be part of the review is welcomed, but let us not underestimate the difficulty of that. Here are a couple of points to ponder. New Zealand has changed, as the Minister said. We would have thought it unacceptable that a police officer could take up after-hours work as a prostitute and that that police officer be allowed to continue in the job. There will be challenges now, because prostitution is a legitimate form of employment in this country. That is something this Parliament has done. The challenges now for the police as to what the code of conduct will look like should not be underestimated. We have introduced a range of standards that other New Zealanders will challenge to this very day.

I also put on record here today that the Police Complaints Authority now needs to be absolutely, 100 percent independent. New Zealand First asks now that the Minister change the legislation he has drafted to make the Police Complaints Authority an Office of Parliament, to make the commissioner for the Police Complaints Authority a commissioner’s appointment, and to put that office under the New Zealand Parliament and under the Officers of Parliament Committee, which is chaired by the Speaker, has all parties represented on it, receives totally independent funding, is not in any way subordinate to the Ministry of Justice or the police, and is seen to be totally and absolutely independent of those bodies. This report now makes it absolutely imperative.

We have a good person in Justice Goddard. We have faith and confidence that she can do the work that has to be done. But New Zealand First is now saying that we should go one step further. Let us give the Police Complaints Authority absolute and total autonomy to investigate without fear or favour any allegations of this type that are ever brought before it again, and let us make sure that it is resourced so that it can conduct those investigations from a first principles starting point. No more should it be seen to be party, or subordinate, to the police or the Ministry of Justice in any way, shape, or form.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe. Tēnātātou te Whare. The UMR Research report released last month described a common goal for police to be ethical, professional, well respected, and effective. Yet, 3 hours ago, a report was released that upheld against police 141 complaints of sexual assault between 1979 and 2005 that demonstrated sufficient evidence for criminal charges or disciplinary action. It is a report that barely skims the surface of the traumatic impact and devastation that sexual violence leaves in its wake.

This nation has been battered by the storms of violence for far too long. Sexual violence costs the economy approximately $1.2 billion per year. But its cost in leaving women and families annihilated by the fear, the memories, and the pain of assault cannot be quantified. Today we must as politicians restore faith in the police so that our women can be reassured and have faith that justice will be done. This report sends that message. We know that sexual violence is significantly under-reported in New Zealand. Now we have it in black and white—the proof of police officers turning a blind eye to inappropriate sexual behaviour. The report describes incident upon incident of disgraceful conduct.

First and foremost, as a nation we must be bold enough to face the epidemic of sexual violence we are seeing evidence of in the policing sector that also manifests itself across other areas of our community. We absolutely must front up and dispel any illusion that violence of any kind is normal and acceptable. Our first responsibility is to provide leadership in our own whānau, hapū, and iwi to take responsibility to live without violence. Today the opportunity is provided by the very public, high-profile review of the police, to send a message that we are a nation that refuses to shirk away from the disgraceful conduct and the terror of sexual assault that some members of our police force have inflicted upon others.

The Māori Party commends the work of Dame Margaret Bazley and the commitment of the commission in reviewing all relevant investigation files on complaints of alleged sexual assault by police or police associates since January 1979. This report today is just another link in a chain of dysfunction and disarray that has been associated with the New Zealand Police. We have had a crisis with 111 calls, with too many emergency calls unanswered and New Zealanders being left in the lurch. We have heard former Police Commissioner Rob Robinson detail the filth that was clogging up the capacity of the police computers—emails, images, and movie clips of a pornographic nature. There have been other crises of confidence with the police system, as we witnessed in the report of Māori perceptions of police, which stated that simply being Māori was a sufficient cause for suspicion by the police. The studies revealed that Māori respondents believed that police viewed Māori essentially as criminal. I repeat that simply being Māori was a sufficient cause for suspicion. It is not a new story.

I looked today at another report about the police, The. In that report Moana Jackson describes a level of disillusionment that has grave portents for Māori and police relations. He drew on analysis from the Waitangi Tribunal, which stated: “When one significant section of the community burns with a sense of injustice, the rest of the community cannot safely pretend that there is no reason for their discontent. That is a recipe for social unrest …”.

The challenge before this House today is what we do with the burning sense of injustice that New Zealand citizens are experiencing today, as they have over the last few months and, indeed, decades. We do not want a police system whereby Māori believe they will be ignored or unfairly targeted for apprehension, arrest, and prosecution. We want to see cultural competence included in police employment contracts. It was former Police Commissioner Peter Doone who argued in the year 2000 that we must look for a fundamentally different approach required to break the cycle in which many police and Māori hold negative perceptions of each other. I think of our young women who have been sexually abused and have ended up in institutions in this country, full of anger and outrage at what has happened to them and not able to trust the police or the State systems to provide them with protection. They are women who are criminalised by their anger and outrage, and by the trauma of sexual abuse that has never been addressed.

Where have we got to when those whom we turn to for help are, instead, condoning or turning a blind eye to sexual activity of an inappropriate nature? Where have we got to if the evidence of assault is greeted with a wall of silence from colleagues protecting those officers complained about? What sort of police system has emerged for complainants to become the subject of negative stereotypes and to be treated with what the report describes as a culture of scepticism?

The Māori Party was pleased to see the unreserved apology from Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad—his genuine remorse that families and friends have suffered from such hurt and harm. We appreciated the statement from the Police Association that it supported the need for a code of conduct for the police. We are even more pleased to learn of the Prime Minister’s immediate response that the Government is promising to implement all of the 60 recommendations made by the commission of inquiry.

The recommendations are extremely full and comprehensive, detailing examples of training and discipline reaction and recommending a code of conduct for police. The report gives us a new start, an opportunity to strip away the sapwood and start again. The first recommendation says it all. It is what one would have thought to be a standard—indeed, an essential policy—for any business to operate by. It is: “New Zealand Police should develop standards, policies, and guidelines on inappropriate sexual conduct towards, and the forming of sexual relationships with, members of the public. These should be incorporated into all codes of conduct and relevant policy …”. But how much hope can we expect from a response from police made shortly after the report was released, which states: “The report does not point to systemic failings with police policy, procedures, standards, training, or behaviour.”

This report is totally about systemic failures of policy, procedures, standards, training, and behaviour. How much more must the public of New Zealand be exposed to before failings are recognised and something done? Then again, I was absolutely appalled that the President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, on today of all days, could come out with a statement that says he hopes police can get on with the job now and move on from “the distractions which have occurred over the last few years”. Sexual assault is not a distraction. One hundred and forty-one upheld complaints are not a distraction.

We welcome the call from the report for a culture to be created where people are willing to stand up and challenge unethical or criminal behaviour. As the report states: “Cases where misconduct went unchallenged for months or years undoubtedly had a dampening effect on the morale of female and male officers.” We must do better.

Recommendation 57 suggests that police districts should establish groups of community representatives who meet regularly to provide comment and feedback on police service delivery and policing issues throughout the district. Perhaps this is where our greatest hope can lie—hope that our communities are heard, that longstanding concerns are registered and addressed, and that failings are identified and successes are shared. We must today make a mark in the sand so that never again will we see such deplorable actions and disgraceful behaviour carried out by the police of this land—as we see in this report. And in this respect the Māori Party welcomes this report—we also know that we are lucky that we have a Minister of Police who will make sure that all of those recommendations in the report will be carried out. Tēnā koutou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this

Today is the culmination of what has been a very grim sense of foreboding for a long time, as we have witnessed the trials, the aftermath of those trials, and the speculation about the way that evidence was presented to the juries of those trials, over the conduct of certain police officers and a prevailing culture within the organisation at that time. Although, like many New Zealanders, I welcome the report as being a chance to put all those issues out in the open where they belong and as providing a chance for us to move forward now and resolve them, I am not entirely confident that will prove to be the case. I say that for these reasons. I support the recommendations that have been outlined in the report, and I am pleased that the Government is going to implement them. But, from a cursory reading of them, I am not satisfied that they go far enough.

The fundamental issue here concerns a deeply ingrained culture within that organisation, premised around loyalty to colleagues—and that is a great thing to have. But it is a culture blemished and blinded by that loyalty having become so overriding that wrongdoing cannot be seen as not being part of it. Without addressing the way that appointments at senior middle-management level and above are made and introducing more transparency into that process—notwithstanding the fact that there will be a code of conduct, and notwithstanding the commitments that have been given—I am not entirely convinced that the fundamental problem will be addressed. If members cast their minds back to the recent trials, they will remember that it became clear there was a profound, deeply interwoven culture of everyone looking out for everyone else, and of making sure either that they all had the same story to tell or that the processes by which the various complaints were investigated were coordinated in order to make sure that only in the most extreme instances did things ever progress. That is the root of the problem that has given rise to the crisis of confidence in the police that this report seeks to address.

In fact, to put the situation into some sense of perspective, this report is the worst moment for the New Zealand Police since a previous commissioner, Mr Compton, was dismissed for corruption in the late 1950s. This is a half-century crisis of confidence in the New Zealand Police. The solution has to be bold in order to replace the sense of suspicion, intimidation, and scepticism that there will be, in many sectors of the public, as a result of these events. As I say, I laud the inquiry; I think it is a positive step forward. Dame Margaret Bazley is a superb person, and her judgment is acute and needs to be respected. But the inquiry has to be followed up with action as well.

I want to make two further points in the time available to me. There is one group of people who deserve our absolute admiration at the moment. They are the women who came forward with their complaints and who continue to come forward today in very difficult, stressful, and often hostile situations. Without them, we would not be having this discussion today. We owe it to them to act.

There is one final group that we also need to remember today. As we speak in this House, policemen and women are out on the beat—good, decent policewomen and men. We should respect them and the job they have to do. They are the ones today who will bear the brunt of the criticism that arises from this report, because they are there. They are innocent parties in the main, but we owe it to them to put things right too, because their careers, their future, and our nation’s community security are at stake.

This is a very positive report. I am not entirely convinced, though, that it goes far enough. The onus now rests on the Government and on this House to make sure that the messages the report contains regarding what is unacceptable behaviour are translated into new procedures and new practices that endeavour, as best we can, to ensure there is no repetition of such behaviour in the future.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this

Dame Margaret Bazley has been a fine servant of this country—a public servant—and, I think, never more than in the quality, depth, and thoroughness of the report she has given to us today, with all of the challenges that it represents.

I echo the comment of Mr Dunne, who has just resumed his seat. First and foremost we should acknowledge the courage of the women who made this report—and, therefore, the recommendations arising from it—possible. I refer to the 60 recommendations we have been addressing in the course of this debate this afternoon. I will be addressing, in particular, the balance of the report’s recommendations—the 12 or so dealing with the Police Complaints Authority. The others have been quite well canvassed by previous speakers.

As Minister of Justice I have responsibility for policy, and for securing and managing funding for the Police Complaints Authority, and, of course, I am involved in the appointment of its members. The Police Complaints Authority is a critical part of the architecture of providing not only a police service but also the access to a proper complaints process, should it be required, that is the right of the public of New Zealand.

The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct relating to the authority fall broadly into two areas: recommendations relating to the handling of complaints by the authority, and those that require legislative change. Briefly, 10 of the 12 recommendations deal with improving the authority’s accessibility to people who may wish to make a complaint; developing a communications strategy to increase awareness of the authority; enabling complainants to make submissions and statements orally to the authority; ensuring that the authority has more regular communication with complainants, once complaints have been lodged; looking at ways of effecting regular feedback from a sample of complainants, partly by way of quality control of the work that is being undertaken; dealing with the backlog of complaints; ensuring that the authority exercises its discretion in favour of accepting historical sexual assault complaints; putting a very tight time limit on taking action in terms of communicating with complainants; removing the discretion in terms of the authority communicating with the Attorney-General and the Minister of Police over any matter where the authority does not believe the police have taken necessary and timely action when recommended to do so; and, finally, looking at the availability and freedom of information concerning the detail around complaints, and that, in part, requires looking at some of the provisions around privacy of information dealing with individuals.

Those are a wide range of recommendations and I want to say, without ambiguity, that all of the recommendations will be actioned. All of the recommendations in the inquiry report dealing with the Police Complaints Authority will be implemented.

With regard to the recommendations requiring legislative change, they will be actioned through amendments to the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, which, as members know, was put on hold specifically so that any outcome from this inquiry requiring legislative change could be actioned as quickly as possible. Keeping this new legislation effectively ready in the wings has meant that we can now move quickly on the recommendations. The bill provides an appropriate vehicle for implementing these changes; indeed, I have already instructed Ministry of Justice officials to develop the appropriate amendments.

I have discussed with the Police Complaints Authority, Justice Goddard, those recommendations that are of a more operational nature and focus, and I thank Simon Power for his strong endorsement of Justice Goddard and the work she is already doing as the new Police Complaints Authority. I absolutely agree. She has indicated her strong commitment to action these recommendations, and work is already under way on a number of them.

This report provides a clear set of recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness of the authority. Although work has been undertaken to date, the Government certainly does intend to make any other changes required to address the issues that the report raises. Similar to the situation with the Commissioner of Police, media statements have been made available on a table, and members certainly can avail themselves of them. They give more detail of the recommendations concerning the authority and the action that either is being taken or is being proposed to take.

I also want to touch briefly on additional action that has already been taken that is relevant to some of the issues raised in this report. A team of four investigating officers was established to enable the authority to investigate major matters independently. I think that was an important step, and further work needs to be done to advance it. As part of last year’s Budget, the authority received additional funding to help address the backlog issue that is identified in this report. Again, that work is well under way. That was over half a million dollars of additional funding specifically to target the backlog.

We also already have mechanisms in place to address some of the quite specific issues raised in the inquiry report. The commission recommends changes to the way that sexual assault complaints are investigated, and, in addition, the resourcing of support groups involved in assessing and supporting complainants. The recently established sexual violence ministerial group and the Task Force for Action on Sexual Violence will take a leading role in recommendations in this area. Again, that ministerial group and task force are already established. There has been significant consultation with key sector groups to ensure that the terms of reference of the task force are appropriate and supported by the wider field, both governmental and non-governmental. The task force supports the work of the sexual violence ministerial group, which I chair as Minister of Justice, and also comprises the Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Minister for ACC, and the Minister of Police. The aim of that task force is to achieve better coordination of responses to sexual violence—a key area of concern addressed in this report.

Finally, later today I will be asking Parliament to support a recommendation to the Governor-General to appoint Acting District Court Judge Michael Lance QC as Deputy Police Complaints Authority, which will further enhance the authority’s work and effectiveness.

I conclude by simply noting that, as I said at the start, Dame Margaret Bazley has done this country and this Parliament a fine service with the quality, depth, and thoroughness of this report. She has clearly articulated the issues and, yes, the failings that need to be addressed. She has made recommendations—60 of them—each of which requires action, and it is our job to take that action. This Government will act on all 60 of those recommendations. The police are committed to implementing the change that is required. The Police Complaints Authority is absolutely committed to implementing the recommendations that relate to it. I believe that this report does indeed represent both a dark day but also the beginning of the significant transformation and change that are required. I am confident that the steps are now being put in place to ensure that the recommendations are genuinely implemented, and that the oversight of that process will ensure that it is a long-term and sustainable process of change.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

If there is one organisation in this country that we need to have implicit faith in, it is the New Zealand Police, because that organisation carries the can for a lot of other organisations and agencies. When they are unavailable, it is the police that people think of to call on when they are at their most vulnerable. I find today to be a particularly difficult day, and as the Minister of Justice has said earlier, it is a particularly black day for the New Zealand Police.

I am wary of some comments made that suggest the New Zealand Police needs in some way to put this issue behind it and move on. I believe that that is the last thing it needs to do. I believe that the New Zealand Police needs to be able to carry in the back of its mind today the lessons it can learn from this report, and the lessons it has taken on board over the last few embarrassing years, as various incidents have come to light. I feel sorry for the vast number of police officers; I think about half of them have been in the police for only 10 years.

But I believe that the underlying theme at the bottom of this report is one of satisfaction on the part of the public with the work of the police. It is not up to the police or to the rest of us to decide whether people can have confidence in the police. In the end, it is those people—the most vulnerable in our community—who will decide whether they have the confidence in that organisation that is needed in order to be able to bare their souls, in some respects, and to make complaints of a most personal nature.

The initial complaints that led to this report are welded into the minds of police officers and former police officers like myself. In thinking back on the culture that existed at that time, I say, thankfully, that there have been a large number of changes. I can say that I, like many others, am very proud of the service I had with the New Zealand Police—in my case, between 1975 and 1999. But I feel tainted by these complaints, particularly as a member of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) through the 1980s and 1990s, and I feel tainted by the tenor of this report, although I believe that every one of its recommendations is completely justified. I agree with the Government, which has said it will implement every one of them.

The fact is that although individual officers have been the subject of complaints, individual officers have the ability to change the culture of the groups in which they operate. Although the commissioner has made the point, as he sees it and as he has viewed it, that there is no suggestion within the report of systemic failure, I agree with others who have spoken and said that, in fact, Dame Margaret Bazley has found exactly that to have occurred.

I think back to the early 1980s and to training within the CIB. For instance, the detective manual that existed at that time called upon detectives to be very wary of complainants in sexual abuse matters, and reminded detectives that those complaints were easy to make and hard to defend. In actual fact, of course, such complaints are incredibly hard to make. Thankfully, in the mid-1980s there were law changes in respect of sex crimes within the Crimes Act that protected victims and encouraged them to be able to give good evidence that could lead to a conviction. The fact is too that at that time the police implemented a number of sexual abuse and child abuse teams, which led each of us to a new understanding of the psychology of sexual victims and sexual offenders.

What I find most despicable about the complaints, of which a lot has been made in the media—and so it should have been—is that each of the three offenders whose names we heard mentioned time and time again had been members of the CIB. Each of them would have been fully aware of the nature of the psychology of sex victims. Each of them would have known that the behaviour exhibited by 18-year-old and 16-year-old girls, and by those who had been the subject of abuse, showed a consent that was not soberly given in full awareness of the facts as to what they were consenting to at the time. I do not believe, personally, that the police officers had any right to rely on any consent they had been given. Even today—20 years down the track—to try to argue that it was all a matter of consent is something I find absolutely abhorrent. The public demand higher standards of the police than of those in other professions, and that has been underlined time and time again when dealing with members of the public.

I notice that recommendation R18 seeks consistency and transparency in the complaints process, so that there is a consistent level of service across the country. I think that particular recommendation goes to the heart of what I was speaking about just a couple of minutes ago: the ability of an individual or a couple of individuals to dictate the culture within the group. No one would look back on the history of the Rotorua CIB squad and see that there was anything less than a disgusting level of public service in relation to sexual crimes. It is important that members of the public who wish to make a complaint are able to go into any police station around the country and to receive the same high level of service that they would receive anywhere else.

I also note the recommendations that there is to be an annual “health of the organisation” audit by the State Services Commission and, under recommendation R60, annual auditing for 10 years by the Auditor-General in relation to the implementation of new measures. I see those audits as being entirely necessary, because no matter what changes may have been made in recent times or will be made in the next couple of weeks in respect of this organisation, we have to know—and to have confidence—that the changes will be implemented not only this year but next year, the year after that, and the decade after that. The fact that Dame Margaret Bazley saw fit to put into writing her concern that the organisation may move on too quickly from this inquiry—and believe, once it is over, that the boxes have been ticked—and the fact that she has seen fit to put in not one but two audit measures that will operate over at least the next decade is hugely embarrassing for members of the New Zealand Police. And that is embarrassing to myself, as someone who was associated with that organisation.

I do not wish to continue speaking much longer, other than to say that the complainants in all matters who are making complaints against the police take their complaints seriously. It is incredibly important—in fact, it is fundamental—to life within a civilisation that the members of the public can have full confidence in their State’s agent. I am very happy with the recommendations in respect of the Police Complaints Authority. I know that the authority will do all it can to give substance and confidence to its work in respect of the New Zealand Police. Although this is a black day, I look forward to a day sometime down the track when every one of our country’s citizens can have a full level of confidence in our police service.