Ardern Jacinda: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2431. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he have concerns with the Police’s handling of the alleged offending in the “Roast Busters” case given the release of the report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority today; if so what are those concerns?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): Yes I do. The report of the Independent Police Conduct Authority on the police’s handling of the alleged offending by Roast Busters makes for grim reading. The report highlights a failure by police to adequately investigate and a failure to uphold the level of policing that the New Zealand public expects. I sought and received an assurance that Commissioner Bush is taking this report and its findings very seriously.Jacinda Ardern: Is he concerned that the authority found that the child protection team involved in the Roast Busters case did not “properly evaluate all available offences when determining the outcome of their respective investigations.” or that quite simply there were options to prosecute that were not explored let alone discussed with victims?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes I am. Any decision to prosecute is an operational matter for the police to make but I do note that Operation Clover the very comprehensive police investigation that was set up in the wake of the Roast Busters revelations turned over every stone in respect of potential prosecution. It got the best advice from the Solicitor-General and the decisions were made on that advice.Jacinda Ardern: Does he consider that the authority’s report directly contradicts the findings of Operation Clover?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not believe that to be the case.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree that there would have been a better outcome for the victims in the case had the child protection teams properly pursued the lines of inquiry accurately recorded and cross-checked information about the alleged offenders properly evaluated all available options to prosecute considered alternative action in dealing with the young men involved and their families or even just communicated with each other properly as summarised in the report?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is very difficult to answer that question because it relies on rewinding and replaying events in a different way but I do accept that a more comprehensive inquiry in particular in respect of the authority’s main criticism that those investigating individual cases did not draw the dots and see the pattern of behaviour may have actually prevented subsequent incidents from taking place. I do accept that. I think that that is a fair finding to make but it is very difficult to say now whether or not there would have been a different outcome in a prosecutorial sense.Jacinda Ardern: What changes will he require of the police to address such a litany of individual failings as those contained in this report?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member knows there have been a number of changes already made by police both in the wake of the commission of inquiry—the Bazley report—and in respect of the learnings from the Roast Busters case including much better information gathering a higher level of training by police and more seniority given to the child protection teams in Waitematā. I do note that the latest Office of the Auditor-General report into progress on the Bazley report notes that “The Police are focusing more on the needs of people who have reported a sexual assault. Some of the victim support organisations we spoke to observed that the Police were more empathetic … They felt that the Police showed greater respect for victims and were focusing on what is right for the victim.”Sue Moroney: Given that the Minister himself informed me by way of answers to written questions as early as November last year of what the authority’s report confirmed today—that is that police do not require a complaint in order to lay charges in sexual assault cases and that consent does not exist for the sexual activity of a person who is affected by alcohol—what has he subsequently done to ensure that police implement the law and their own policies and procedures in the teenage sexual assault case investigated by today’s report?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Again I preface my answer by reminding the House that decisions to prosecute are made by police and that it is not appropriate for there to be any interference in that decision but the making of a complaint is one variable in a number of variables that go into a decision to lay a prosecution. I also note that the outcome of Operation Clover and the decisions made there were made on the very best of advice including from the Solicitor-General.Sue Moroney: Will the Minister be the person who will actually stand up for these victims then? Will he now expect police to reconsider laying charges in these teenage sexual assault cases; if not what measure will he offer the victims whom the police now admit they failed through the inadequacy of their investigations?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Again that is a matter for police but I do note that Commissioner Bush in his comments today has reminded us that there is no time limit on the laying of a complaint of sexual assault that it is still possible that police would welcome any complaint being laid by any existing or other victims and that they would take those complaints extremely seriously.