Goff Phil: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12744] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Law and Order Committee for its report and its recommendations which are unanimous. 
This bill amends the Police Complaints Authority Act of 1988 to allow the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct to fulfil its terms of reference to inquire into the adequacy of any investigation carried out by the police on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority. To do that it is necessary to override the secrecy provisions of the Police Complaints Authority Act so that relevant information can be disclosed to the commission. The secrecy provisions require the authority and its staff members to maintain secrecy in respect of all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their functions. The secrecy provisions are needed to create a climate in which witnesses can give evidence without fear of self-incrimination or retribution. The secrecy provisions in the Act are retained but are lifted for the purpose of this inquiry only. The bill has a sunset clause and the legislation will expire 1 year after the commission has finally reported. 
Concerns were expressed to the committee that the existing protections for witnesses to the authority’s investigations have been removed along with the secrecy provisions. That is quite wrong. Aside from the secrecy provisions the bill does not in any way interfere with the other existing protections and privileges available for witnesses to authority investigations. Under the Police Complaints Authority Act no statement or answer given by any person in the course of proceedings before the authority shall be admissible against that or any other person in any court. The exceptions to this relate only to proceedings for perjury or for an offence against the Police Complaints Authority Act itself. This bill does not change this fundamental protection in any way. The same type of protection exists in the Commissions of Inquiry Act. In addition the terms of reference for the commission exclude the determination of guilt or innocence of any particular individual. These existing provisions should ensure that witnesses cannot be prosecuted using information they provided to the authority under the expectation of secrecy. 
The committee agreed that existing protections continue to exist but to allay concerns expressed by submitters and those who have given information to the authority it recommended that a specific clause be inserted for the avoidance of doubt. This clarifies that no proceedings can be taken against witnesses before the authority on the basis of what they told the authority. 
Certain matters in addition are defined as restricted matters. These include firstly any information produced by the authority deputy authority or staff member of the authority; and secondly any communication by a person to the authority in which that person made a complaint about police conduct and in respect of which that person has not given consent to the authority for it to be disclosed to the commission. 
The authority or any person holding any office or appointment under it or members of the police cannot disclose to the commission any restricted matter. The effect of this definition is that the commission can direct that the authority disclose any matter produced by members of the police who investigated on behalf of the authority but not information produced by the authority in response to that information from the police. An exception to this is instructions and directions from the authority to members of the police investigating on its behalf. 
Concern was expressed by the Police Association that complainants to the authority are the only group that will have any protections. Again that is wrong. I have outlined the protections that are available for all witnesses to the authority. The ability of complainants however to refuse to allow the authority to disclose their complaints to the commission is a necessary protection available for those who may have provided extremely personal and private information. The exclusion of correspondence made directly to the authority respects the expectation of confidentiality of that information. 
In response to a submission made by the Police Managers Guild the committee considered that instructions issued by the authority to police investigating on its behalf may provide useful context for the commission. The committee recommended an amendment to the bill to allow the authority to disclose to the commission directions and instructions given to the police investigating on the authority’s behalf. This information cannot contain matters relating to the complainants or their complaints. The authority must continue to maintain secrecy in respect of all other information it produced. 
There have been some reports in the media that this bill would throw open thousands of files containing the evidence of witnesses previously assured that their evidence would be kept secret. However the police have indicated that the number of files held on behalf of the authority relating to sexual assault complaints against the police is expected to be fewer than 200. This bill covers only files within the ambit of the Police Complaints Authority Act but does not address access to files existing before 1988 when that Act was passed. The commission’s terms of reference cover matters back to 1979. Files that pre-date 1988 are not subject to the same restrictions as files that were created after 1988. Access to these files will be via other legislative and procedural mechanisms. 
Lastly there was some support from submitters for provisions to be inserted into the bill to determine how the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct deals with the information it receives from the authority. The Police Association suggested the bill be amended to require the use of anonymity aggregation and review of individual cases as a way of enabling the commission to fulfil its terms of reference without exposing those who have relied on the secrecy that the Act provides. The select committee did not agree and noted the practical difficulties associated with this proposal. A commission of inquiry is established under the Commission of Inquiries Act. It is outside the scope of this bill and inappropriate for Parliament to determine the processes of a commission. How the commission deals with information will need to be considered on a case by case basis and general legislative provisions would therefore be unsuitable. In addition the commission is likely to be mindful of the circumstances in which the information was received by the authority and of the need to maintain the integrity of the authority’s procedures. The commission has already indicated that it will ensure the interests of persons before it will not be unfairly jeopardised. The commission is bound by principles of natural justice. It also has the ability to make decisions to treat information confidentially where it believes that that is necessary in all the circumstances. 
In conclusion the objective of this bill is to amend certain provisions of the Police Complaints Authority Act to ensure that they do not prevent the current commission of inquiry from gaining access to information needed by the commission to carry out its functions. That is vital and it is equally vital that there is public confidence in the commission the authority and the police. This legislation is designed to assist in achieving that end. I commend it to the House.