Burton Mark: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11534] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the point my colleague Russell Fairbrother just made because I think he provides a good response to Dr Worth. The issue that Dr Worth raised is a matter that has been dealt with elsewhere. This is not the time to try to bring together the police complaints and the prison complaints processes for the reasons that my colleague Mr Fairbrother has just outlined. The importance of dealing with the need to restore full public confidence in the Police Complaints Authority and the complexities of that are significant enough. That is a matter better pursued more narrowly for the time being. 
I want to touch on some of the provisions in the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill and the Supplementary Order Paper particularly as they relate to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. I will repeat for members that the core reason for the delay in progressing this bill was sound. The delay was in order to ensure that recommendations that arose out of that commission of inquiry could be responded to quickly gathered up in a Supplementary Order Paper as they have been and effectively put in place. Had we proceeded—it may well have been ahead of that Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—it may well be that we would have had to revisit the whole process in order to give effect to some of those recommendations that we are now addressing here including jurisdiction of the authority to include a new provision to clarify that the authority may investigate historical complaints that relate to incidents that occurred prior to the establishment of the authority. That is an important addition to the scope of the authority’s jurisdiction. 
The time limit on notification of complaints is an issue that a number of members have referred to either directly or indirectly in terms of confidence and satisfaction. The Supplementary Order Paper includes a new provision requiring that the police notify the authority within five working days of the receipt of a complaint. This provision addresses one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct but it also addresses one of the public concerns about the need for rapid response in dealing with these matters. 
The reports to Government Ministers and the provision of the Supplementary Order Paper require the authority to provide a copy of its opinion and recommendations to the Minister of Police and the Attorney-General in certain situations where it is not satisfied with the police response to a recommendation. Again it is one of those measures that is about strengthening public confidence and indeed accountability and transparency in the process. 
My colleague provided a thoughtful response to the concern—and I think it is a genuinely held concern—behind Dr Sharples’ Supplementary Order Paper. The authority membership provision in the Supplementary Order Paper appropriately addresses the issue about more diverse representation again in a manner that is consistent with recommendations that fall out of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. It is also to ensure that there is a wider range of experience and perspective in terms of the Independent Police Conduct Authority as it will be named. 
 I want to respond to Mr Guy because I know he was deeply concerned about this question of a quorum—deeply concerned. Obviously he was fretting that we might have moved on beyond that. I suppose one of the administrative changes that falls out of Supplementary Order Paper 116 is that it removes provisions in the bill itself relating to a range of areas that are now effectively covered by the Crown Entities Act 2004. These are things like membership and appointments removal or suspension of members salaries personnel policies meeting procedures and so on—that range of things. 
If I could perhaps refer Mr Guy to schedule 5 of the Crown Entities Act he will see that it deals with this very question. The only circumstances in which the question of a quorum of two is likely to arise is perhaps at the point at which the current authority—and of course there is a deputy so it is a two member authority now—is likely to roll over and become the new Independent Police Conduct Authority. If at that point there are no additional appointees to take the quorum up to the full five then indeed the quorum would be two for the time being because under the Crown Entities Act if an entity has a membership of two the Act requires that the quorum is both members. Thereafter as this authority is increased to five members the requirements of the Crown Entities Act apply. If there is an even number—say four—then the Act requires that a simple half of the board constitutes a quorum. If it is an odd number then the quorum is a majority. So in this case the quorum almost certainly will end up being three of the five members. I hope that settles the member’s concern. I think I have dealt with most of the matters that I want to cover at this stage.