Wilkinson Kate: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11693] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. The National Party has supported this bill throughout its passage through the House and we will continue to do so at this third reading. 
It is fair to say that the third reading of this bill has been a long time coming. As we all know the amendments to this legislation arose from Sir Rodney Gallen’s report back in 2000 and were introduced to the House in 2002. The bill was first in front of the Law and Order Committee—of which I was not a member—in 2003 around the same time as serious allegations of misconduct were being made against members of the police. At that time the bill was postponed to allow for the Bazley report into police conduct to be completed and released. Those allegations and subsequent criminal proceedings resulted in a huge lack of public confidence in the ability of the police to investigate their own. We believe that this bill is an important step in restoring public confidence and that it is moving in the right direction to establish an authority that is more independent than the current model. It is all very well to have an Independent Police Conduct Authority but the challenge is for that authority to actually be seen to be independent. 
The perception that having the police investigating their colleagues may detract from its independence is addressed by this bill. Although it is important to note that that perception is just a perception and in the majority of matters the police undertake work on behalf of the authority with competence and integrity there will now be less reliance on serving police officers having to investigate their own. 
The bill also strengthens the effectiveness and efficiency of the Police Complaints Authority—soon to be the Independent Police Conduct Authority—increasing the speed at which complaints before the authority are handled and dealt with. As my colleague Mr Borrows already articulated at the Committee stage some of the cases presently before the authority actually go back 5 or 6 years. They have been held up waiting for the outcome of other tribunals or agencies or just simply are caught up in the system. It is clear that a speedier process should have a dramatic impact on the well-being of the complainants but also on the police officers involved who put their lives on the line every day for the safety of New Zealanders. In saying that I do not wish to detract from the importance of delivering a fair investigation for the complainant but I also believe that it is important to consider the toll that investigations take on the officers themselves especially when many investigations take years to resolve. 
The timeliness of investigations was an issue that the Law and Order Committee discussed during financial reviews. We expressed concern about the authority’s ability to complete its work within acceptable time frames. As an example in the 12 months from February 2006 to January 2007 the authority had approximately 2500 files with approximately 800 matters that arose before July 2005 still outstanding. Unfortunately the authority’s annual report does not contain statistics on files that have been carried over from the previous year. I believe that these statistics albeit difficult to ascertain are important in order to reflect accurately the workload of the authority as they contribute to that workload regardless of which year they were opened. 
During the financial review we were advised by Justice Goddard who is appointed as the authority for 5 years. Again I echo the sentiment of others and hope that her reign will continue through to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. She said that 70 percent of the authority’s work is about what we could consider to be relatively minor matters such as alleged roadside rudeness and traffic enforcement. It may well be that the House needs to consider whether this public watchdog needs to be involved in those relatively minor issues in the future. 
Lastly I will speak briefly about the membership of the authority which in the original bill was set at three members only one of whom must be a judge. The Supplementary Order Paper increased that membership to five but still as I understand it only one member needs to be a qualified judge. It is a safeguard that the judge is also the chairperson of the authority and also that this House recommends who the other members of the authority will be but I sound a word of caution in relation to the qualification of those members. There is no qualifying criteria for the other four members. As the New Zealand Law Society submitted: “One of the primary purposes of the Bill is to enhance the independence of the Authority. Screening and/or qualification of the two members other than the chairperson should exist to ensure this happens.” 
 Originally before this Supplementary Order Paper there was also a meeting procedure prescribed that because of the stipulation of a quorum of only two of the then three members risked the situation of decisions being made by the two laypersons only without the judge even needing to be there. If this authority is to have the confidence of both the police and the public it is important that the other members of the authority have suitable qualifications and experience and are not appointed for political expedience or political favours. How complaints are investigated and who investigates these complaints is fundamental to the independence of the authority. 
We welcome this bill and we support the third reading of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. 
Bill read a third time.