Worth Richard: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12106] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 With reluctance National supports the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill. I say that it is with reservation because for reasons I will refer to in a moment there seem to be a number of drafting shortfalls in the legislation. 
But more significant I would assert that the Standing Orders do not contemplate the process that has been followed in connection with the introduction and speedy passage of this bill. That is quite clear from looking at the Standing Orders. Standing Order 273 relating to the introduction of Government bills notes: “A Government bill is introduced by the Leader of the House informing the Clerk on any working day or by 1 pm on any sitting day of the Government’s intention to introduce the bill.” That may or may not have happened in this case—we do not know—but what we do know is that just over an hour ago was the first time that National saw this bill and was able to reflect on its implications. 
It is clearly contemplated by the Standing Orders that there be a space of time between the introduction of a Government bill and the bill being set down for first reading. That is made manifest by Standing Order 280 which provides that “After its introduction a bill is set down for first reading on the third sitting day following.” This bill was introduced perhaps an hour ago and instead of that planned 3-day pause—which may be longer than that because it is 3 sitting days—we are now involved in the first reading of this bill. 
So it is little wonder that Opposition members are concerned about the course of process that has been followed here and it is not surprising that one of the Opposition members should say in such a bold way—if in fact United Future counts itself as being in the Opposition—that all bets are off. We have seen eroded an important convention that should characterise the conduct of this House and that is that where practicable the process of legislation should be accompanied by a degree of goodwill and comity. That has certainly not happened here. 
The work of this commission of inquiry is clearly important and critical work. I do not believe that in the lifetime of most members of this Parliament a state of affairs has occurred where significant reservations are looming large in the public mind about the conduct and integrity of the police. As all members would accept it is absolutely critical in a legal system that there be a high measure of confidence in the police and support for their activities. I suggest that recent newspaper publicity has put that issue clearly at risk. If it is the case that the Crown Law Office the New Zealand Police the Ministry of Justice and the commission of inquiry believe that the commission may be hampered in carrying out its task through inability to access material held in Police Complaints Authority files then quite clearly that material should be delivered up subject to appropriate safeguards. It is absolutely vital that the work of the commission not be impeded and that there emerge from its deliberations support for the conclusions that follow from its consideration of the issues. But I do not believe we should have been put in the position of having to hasten this legislation through Parliament. This was a readily identifiable issue at an early stage. The moment the commission reflected on what its task was to be it should have been immediately apparent that issues touching the work of the Police Complaints Authority would arise. 
The bill itself is deceptively simple. It is in two parts but from looking at those two parts I think a host of issues arise that need to be considered by the select committee. For example in clause 4 there is a definition of “member of the police” that seems to run into an immediate drafting problem. It provides: “member of the police includes a former member of the police (other than a person who is currently a staff member or employee of the Authority)” and I fix on that phrase “staff member or employee of the Authority”. Surely staff members are employees of the authority. How could that be otherwise? 
Then there are issues that other speakers have referred to relating to the scope and intent of the definition of “restricted matter”. There is a sunset clause that provides that the bill expires 1 year after the commission finally reports and that clearly is an appropriate provision. 
In Part 2 where the substance of the bill is contained other issues arise. It is quite clear that the two critical sections are sections 32 and 33 of the principal Act. For myself I have no quarrel with the changes proposed to section 32 but if one looks at the thrust of the drafting of the changes proposed to be made to section 33 one finds that the same cannot be said. That particular clause which is more concerned with aspects relating to the authority sits singularly uncomfortably with what is planned in subsection (2A) of section 32. 
There is a section in the Police Complaints Authority Act that has not been altered by this bill and that is section 25(4). So it seems to be the case that evidence that has in the past been given to the Police Complaints Authority will not be allowed to implicate by way of admission the officers or persons who gave that evidence. That is not absolutely clear and needs to be considered because quite clearly complainants and police officers who gave that evidence to the authority did not contemplate on the then state of the law that that material might be used against their interest. 
Finally could I say that in supporting this bill going to a select committee the National Party should not be assumed to be assenting to the details of the legislation. We take the view that it is appropriate that it go before a select committee so that consideration can be given to dealing with the excrescences in the drafting and to aiding the commission to do what is clearly critical work. 
Bill read a first time.