Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12869] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I congratulate the member. I think it is the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest that we should do that. 
Dail Jones 
: I think it’s called common sense. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. Part 2 deals with the disclosure to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct of certain levels of information. There are two important amendments currently on the Table. Mr Jones has indicated that one may in fact be removed. The concern those amendments reflect is that when an allegation is made against somebody and is investigated and that investigation is revealed along with the person’s name in the current environment there are some people who will assume that there is guilt associated with the release of that name. 
In the Whakatane District Court earlier this year and late last year five police officers were subject to private prosecution by an individual. The judge suppressed the names of the five people who were accused by that individual. The reason for doing that was clear. The simple fact that those five officers’ names could have been published in connection with a court case would have encouraged some members of the public to draw conclusions as to their guilt or involvement in wrongdoing and such conclusions would be quite wrong. I now understand that that case has been thrown out by the judge. 
The two amendments before the House—particularly the amendment in the name of Stephen Franks—seek to address the concern that was raised in the Law and Order Committee about the nature of the information that was given to the Police Complaints Authority. That information was given by police officers under a set of confidentiality and privacy conditions and assurances in legislation that that information would be kept suppressed or secret and could not be used against those persons in any court of law unless in a matter of perjury. So the issue is how we convey Parliament’s concern to the commission. Mr Franks’ amendment—and no doubt that of Mr Alexander—is designed to do that. 
It was clear in the advice to the select committee that the evidence and material that is tabled in the commission of inquiry has the same privilege attached to it that any statements or documents have in a court of law—that is it prevents people being prosecuted and incriminating themselves in that environment and it gives the presiding officers the opportunity to suppress that information as they see appropriate. That is a very important tool for the commission to have. We do not want a situation whereby the mere fact that someone’s name is mentioned in the commission of inquiry means that people assume there is a level of guilt culpability or association that there is not. 
I would like the Minister in the chair Rick Barker to take a call and explain to the Committee how members of the Opposition can have confidence and an assurance at some level that those people who gave information on a confidential basis to the Police Complaints Authority can be assured that their names will not come into any public arena of the commission of inquiry and attract any undue public odium or scepticism.