Carter John: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3679] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take about 7 or 8 minutes to speak on this legislation. There are three or four things that I want to comment on. The first is that a number of people have commented on the fact that we are now talking about a change of name and a change of impression—we are talking about the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I think that that is a good thing. But I want the House to reflect on this: I think that it is a great shame that we have to have a Police Complaints Authority at all. It is a reflection on our society actually. The police in this country do a great job for us. I am a strong supporter of the police. They certainly work hard and they do very very well in the community I represent. I think it is a great pity that it has become common for people who are unhappy with the police because they have been found out over some event or other to lay a complaint. It has become a regular thing and is not because the police have done something wrong; it is more likely because people are fighting against the system. The cases are often frivolous. In fact I think that Russell Fairbrother made the point that many of the cases that are drawn to the police’s attention are found out to have no substance at all.  
 I think it is a great shame for our society that we have to have a structure whereby people are able to make frivolous complaints against an organisation that in the main is hugely respected in this country and certainly does a great job for us. That is the first point that I want to make. But having said that I note that we are now at a stage where the Police Complaints Authority is part of our everyday functioning and infrastructure. Therefore I think it is important that—as Stephen Franks has suggested—we give the impression that it is a totally independent complaints authority. There has certainly been concern amongst the community that there is a bias. I do not believe so myself but there are those in this society who think that because the police are involved in the complaint and actually operate the authority they do so with bias. Whenever I have had any involvement with a police investigation—and I am sure other members will feel the same—I had the view that it has been thorough it has been without bias and it has been accurate. I think the police do a great job.  
However it seems that it is time now that we move on. In that context I want to make one or two comments about the bill itself. I think that the Law and Order Committee has a fair amount of work to do with regard to this legislation. New section 4A(2) inserted by clause 6 states: “The powers of Authority are not affected by any vacancy in its membership.” That is fair enough but what happens if there are three vacancies and the membership is three? What happens if for some reason there are no members? Who then has the authority of the Independent Police Complaints Authority? Who is to run it until those vacancies are filled? 
The second point that concerns me is that under new section 4C inserted by clause 6 the chairman of the authority is to be a judge or a retired judge. First I question why a retired judge would be put in charge of an organisation like this. I think it is important that we have someone who is currently working and is au fait with what is happening within our society. 
The issue that I want to raise in that context is the matter referred to in new section 4D. New section 4D also inserted by clause 6 states that the judge is not only to be paid a salary and an allowance as determined by the Higher Salaries Commission but is also to retain his or her rank title status precedence salary and annual or other allowances as a judge. So they will get a double whammy. I would have thought that that is probably not proper in our day. The person is either going to be a judge or a chairman of an authority. But to appoint somebody who will as a judge attract a huge amount of revenue from the taxpayer—we are talking about an income of more than a couple of hundred thousand for a judge—and have a salary or an allowance on top of that while they are not doing the work as a judge but performing as the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Authority speaks to me of a double whammy. I think that the select committee really does need to study that. The person is either paid as a judge and performs as a judge or the person gets paid as a chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I do not think it is proper that he or she should have two incomes and be performing in only one capacity.  
The last issue that I want to raise—and Stephen Franks amongst others has alluded to this already as has my colleague Brian Connell—is with regard to new section 10A “Personnel policy” inserted by clause 8. I have to say that when one reads through this the mind boggles. I am sure that the select committee will want to spend some hours over this because to try to fulfil what this section sets out would be beyond belief. If the Minister believes that we can achieve—not just attempt but achieve—what this clause sets out then I have to say that his aspirations and his beliefs in being able to deliver are far better than mine. When we look at some of these things I am not sure how anybody can possibly achieve them. One of the things about law that I have found in my time in this Parliament is that if we write law that is not achievable or is silly then it gets ignored and we will end up with a silly result here quite frankly. The select committee needs to look at that section very hard and very long. It needs to really address that section and get it back into the perspective and context of our modern-day society. I think that this legislation is far too politically correct. It just reflects where the Government wants to take us. However having said that I think that there are some issues for the select committee to study and obviously that study is needed. The National Party supports this bill and I will now take my seat so that that can happen. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee. referred to the Law and Order Committee