Mark Ron: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11686] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 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 Maori have with the police and we have already had a bit of a touch of that from a born-again Maori 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 Maori 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. 
David Bennett 
: Sit down. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you clarify for me whether it is your authority as the Deputy Speaker that requires me to sit down or is Mr Bennett over there the sole authority who can interject on members and tell them to be seated? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s a frivolous point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order. Ron Mark is quite right. The interjection from Mr Bennett was unnecessary. It is neither his role nor mine to sit people down except in certain circumstances. Thank you for raising it.