Flavell Te Ururoa: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11690] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou. At the Committee stage of this bill I spoke of a wing at the Royal New Zealand Police College named after my relation Mita Hikairo Mohi and just over a month ago 75 new police officers graduated from wing 241. Mita is of Ngati Rangiwewehi and Ngati Tuwharetoa. For over 25 years he has been sharing his experience and expertise through the Mokoia taiaha wananga on Mokoia Island in Rotorua. If any members ever have the privilege to attend the mau rakau wananga they would be hugely influenced by his teachings of history whakapapa and tikanga and they would see students testing their agility their speed their strength and also their ability to follow instructions and working as an ope taua—as a team. Wing 241 therefore symbolises the unique strength and skills of Mita. 
But wait up there is a bit more. Moana Jackson a Ngati Kahungunu lawyer and acclaimed academic is also the patron of police recruit wing 244 our own Dr Pita Sharples is patron of recruit wing 184 and my brother-in-law rugby league legend Howie Tamati—who is going to get some free tickets for me—is the latest wing patron. I come therefore to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill on a bit of a wing and a prayer wondering whether the symbolic statement being made by the Police College in inviting such prestigious Maori leaders to be wing patrons will make the difference in the relationship between Maori and the police. 
Not being one who is comfortable with winging it I was proud that we as the Maori Party put forward two amendments at the Committee stage of this bill in order to make our contribution towards improving the relationship between Maori and the police. I want to place on record our appreciation to all the parties in the Committee of the whole House that gave the two proposals serious consideration. We acknowledge that the proposals were pretty complex and required a depth of analysis that was clearly difficult to do within the time frame in which these amendments came to the House. 
The big question is why did it take so long for the bill to come back to the House? There have been 1735 days apparently since the bill was introduced in 2002—some 56 months. Between the second reading and the Committee stage there was a period of 882 days; 29 months went by. What is that all about? Anyway the second reading of this bill ironically took place on 5 May 2005 a year to the day that the hikoi opposing the foreshore and seabed legislation came to Parliament. I think it is quite important to make those connections on matters of justice and injustice on due process and on skewed process. 
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for an autonomous Maori investigative branch of the Independent Police Complaints Authority to be established. We saw having such a branch as being a key mechanism to review complaints raised by Maori against the police and it would also have enhanced Maori relationships with the police. This has long been an issue of concern so it was truly disappointing that we were not able to make up much ground on that. 
Dr Sharples talked about a report in the year 2000 from the former Commissioner of Police Peter Doone. It revealed that Maori are significantly overrepresented in apprehension prosecution and conviction statistics. That report concluded: “Criminal justice agencies including the police must work to improve their responsiveness to Maori and to overcome any negative perceptions that may inhibit that responsiveness.” 
New Zealand has received report after report responsiveness strategy after responsiveness strategy yet still the United Nations reported a mere month ago on its concerns regarding the overrepresentation of Maori and Pacific people at every stage of the criminal justice system. Our amendment therefore attempted to break the cycle to recognise Maori ways of looking at things and to establish an autonomous Maori investigative branch. 
We have supported the proposal to establish an independent police complaints authority with an enhanced investigative capacity that is independent of the police and to ensure there is sufficient resourcing in place for it to do its job properly. The key word is “independent”. Independent conjures up associations of being separate being free from outside control and not being subject to the whims and pressures of a greater authority. We in the Maori Party know this word quite well as the proud independent Maori voice in Parliament. 
The amendments made to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill are positive in so much as they increase the independence of staff to investigate complaints and hold hearings and by increasing the staffing component to five there is an enhanced capacity to deal with the complaints. But our concern had always been that the changes do not cut the grade in terms of providing an opportunity for Maori to express rangatiratanga—that is to design and implement Maori solutions. That was the rationale behind setting up an autonomous Maori branch of the authority. It was a proposal that 10 members of this House supported and we acknowledge the vision of the Greens in joining us to make a difference. 
The second set of amendments we put forward arose from our concern at the lack of capacity for the public to have the decisions of the authority reviewed. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for an independent police complaints authority review agency to be established in order to allow the decisions and activities of the authority to be appealed. 
This has been a particular priority for Maori following two key reports  
Police Perceptions of Maori  
and  
Maori Perceptions of the Police. 
 In those reports Maori respondents said they believed that police viewed Maori as being essentially criminal. Simply being Maori was sufficient cause for suspicion by police sort of along the lines that Mr Borrows talked about earlier. Maori participants also felt that there was little point in complaining about these practices as they did not see the Police Complaints Authority as being independent from the police. 
The  
Maori Perceptions of the Police  
study reported that a strong perception for Maori was “the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police should Maori bring a complaint against the institution or individuals within it”. As a consequence of such concerns 
 Maori Perceptions of the Police 
 recommended that another process for hearing Maori grievances should be undertaken immediately. That was the substance of our first amendment—the autonomous Maori investigative branch. 
 The second amendment was very much a backstop position—to set up a review agency to address complaints and act as an independent scrutiniser outside the police system itself. The vote went against us again but we were heartened by the comments from speakers from New Zealand First Labour and the Greens in particular in terms of their acknowledgment of the urgent need to improve the relationship between Maori and the police by whatever means. 
The new president of Bolivia Evo Morales at his inauguration in January 2006 stated: “I wish to tell you my Indian brothers that the 500-year indigenous and popular campaign of resistance has not been in vain.” Well I take a lot of heart from that statement in this House on most days. But here is the crunch. Just as Morales recognised his victory as having come from a proud history of resistance we in the Maori Party believe that we are on the pathway towards ensuring that justice and fairness mean something to our nation. 
Surely a basic tenet in all democracies is to ensure that there are checks and balances laid against the authority of the State when it is negotiating with citizens on matters of law and order. We have not experienced success with our amendments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill in terms of numbers of votes gained in support but we do believe that the general climate of the debate was one that signalled a readiness for the belief that we can improve a situation that requires our total and considered cooperation. 
We stand by our commitment to having an autonomous Maori investigative branch of the new authority to review Maori complaints against and Maori relationships with the police. We recognise also the need for an appeal or review body to consider its activities. This would be particularly important for Maori. So in the end we will vote in support of this bill at the third reading and we look forward to further developments to demonstrate cross-party support for improving the relationship between the police and Maori.