Mark Ron: Appointments — Deputy Police Complaints Authority 
Mark Ron: Appointments — Deputy Police Complaints Authority 
[Volume:627;Page:21937] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the motion. The profile of Mr John Gibson QC is interesting. I see that he is from Wellington; he is a graduate of Victoria University; he is an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators—some may say he will need those skills; he was a partner in the firm of Stacey Smith and Gibson and has practised as a barrister since 1978. He has been a member of the Wellington District Law Society council for 5 years and has served on a number of law society committees including the Wellington District Law Society committee on the role of women in the profession. He is the chair of the society’s committee on children and the Family Court. He has been chair of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Licensing Board since its inception in 1980 and has acted as a police disciplinary tribunal member. 
A number of people have spoken very highly of Mr Gibson QC. Among them are the Attorney-General of the day the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer and the Hon W P Jeffries a former Minister of Transport. New Zealand First has no objection to his appointment to the board but we have to mention here today the function and the purpose of the Police Complaints Authority. We note sadly as Dr Worth pointed out that the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill still languishes on the Order Paper. How bizarre it is given the type of legislation we have seen go through this House and the many hours we have spent in urgency chasing a raft of trivial legislation—the many many hours that have been devoted in the House to such issues as civil union prostitution; a number of things that seem to be the penchant of Labour MPs and seem to be foremost in their minds these days—that we do not seem to progress legislation that is vitally important to the police. 
The Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill has been languishing on the Order Paper. That legislation is particularly important considering the loss of confidence that the public has suffered as a result of a very inept performance from a Minister over the last 5 years and the policing priorities that have been accorded by this Government specifically with regard to its focus on traffic issues. The reason which the Minister himself has alluded to that the Government is moving forward with this appointment of a Deputy Police Complaints Authority concerns New Zealand First. Mr Worth is quite right. There is no provision for a deputy but I say to the National Party that for every appointment throughout this land there is a deputy somewhere. The Commissioner of Police has a deputy somewhere and there is a raft of deputy commissioners behind the deputy. It makes eminent sense to New Zealand First that a deputy is appointed now. 
But one of the things the Minister mentioned in his speech is that the need for this appointment has arisen because the Police Complaints Authority is under extreme pressure because of the large number of complaints. Therein is the real issue here. We have not ever seen a time in New Zealand when there have been so many complaints left on the back-burner and so many complaints still under investigation. I have in my possession right now a file concerning a police officer whose case has been dragged out to be what we in New Zealand First would consider as unacceptably long. Both of the complaints lodged against him have taken a year to come to the stage where a prosecution has been laid. I am totally convinced that at the end of the day this man will be found innocent. Then we will deal with the issue of he himself having laid complaints against the police through the Police Complaints Authority. 
An unacceptable policy is being allowed to exist by this Government whereby police officers who have had complaints laid against them are left hung out to dry for months—years. The Government touts itself as being the great protector of the working-class people of this nation and a great advocate for State servants. The Minister raves on endlessly in this House about how supportive he is of the police. For him to say that while the Government ignores the plight of police officers who are under stress under pressure and overworked who sit on suspension waiting for investigations to be concluded and whose families are under pressure because of the focus upon them is totally unacceptable. It belies the Government’s true feelings towards police officers—men and women—and it actually paints the Government as being one of the worst employers in this country. 
 Who else would allow a police officer to be left under investigation for 12 15 or 18 months then just before Christmas only when he rings in and asks what is going on with the investigation against him to be told offhandedly that it has been decided to charge him? What sort of Government allows that kind of administration within the police? New Zealand First has been inundated with letters from members of the public telling us stories of situations when the police will not investigate crimes. Our normal advice to them is to lay a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority. Sadly these people come back and ask why they would do that when it takes months or years to get even a hearing let alone a result. 
We know that the Police Complaints Authority is under huge pressure. We know that the workload is immense. We know that the workload in terms of investigating cases is immense. But this situation is occurring only because we have a fundamental problem in the police. The problem is that they are under-resourced and understaffed and they make mistakes. When they get it wrong—for all the reasons that exist out there—the citizens of this country lodge complaints and those complaints are not acted upon in a timely manner. 
I draw the House’s attention to page 6 of the  
Statement of Intent 2005/06 
 which states police values. The first is: “Maintain the highest level of integrity and professionalism.” The second is: “Respect individual rights and freedom.” My message to this Government is to apply those values as a good employer to the men and women in blue who work for it. They have a right to see the police commanders the men and women who command them held to the highest levels of integrity and professionalism. The individual rights and freedoms of police officers must be respected. They should not be treated as second-class citizens just because they happen to wear the blue uniform. To allow complaints against them to sit festering for months and years is totally unacceptable. 
I note with interest on page 16 under the general heading “Police’s Organisational Development Focus for 2005/06 and Beyond” the heading “Integrity: Police Integrity and Professional Standards”. I signal in this House today and have it put in  
Hansard 
 that we have grave concerns about the professional standards being policed within the police force. It seems to us that some people in the police who hold such appointments actually get a buzz out of targeting their own. We have the gravest fear that their performance is assessed on how many charges they can bring against their own whether or not there are solid grounds for those charges. 
I have on my files evidence of a man a police professional standards officer bringing charges against police officers having those charges investigated and having people put through the wringer—through the mill—for many months only for those allegations to be totally dismissed and totally disproved. He has been reprimanded—but what is the point? The issue here is what happens then to the police officer who has been falsely accused held up to criticism and ridicule and put on the line and tested for months and months only to be found to be as innocent as he said he was all along? I look forward to seeing a Police Complaints Authority that is truly independent and that takes seriously its responsibility to expedite investigations and inquiries in a very very timely manner.