Franks Stephen: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3675] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 What a stunning speech in support of this bill from the Labour Party. I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and I have already doubled the time that the previous Labour speaker decided to devote to its first reading.  
This bill is important. It is important because of the concerns that people have about the Police Complaints Authority whether or not justified as any member who has spent any time in this House will already know. We have all come across constituents who sooner or later establish that their concerns are genuine and then say that they are not prepared to go to the Police Complaints Authority because they do not believe it is independent. It is a very long-held concern. The Police Complaints Authority itself has been well aware of this concern and has strived to overcome it to no effect. Although I could say that this bill is primarily a smokescreen and I think that a careful look at the provisions will speak for themselves there is nothing being done here that could not have been done by simply giving the Police Complaints Authority enough money to hire people to make independent investigations so they do not have to rely on the supply of internal investigators.  
Although there is nothing substantially different it is perhaps important to rebrand the operation. The rebranding of course to call the authority “independent” is the most significant part although I am quite satisfied that the eminent people who have filled the role of Police Complaints Authority for so many years have regarded themselves as independent. But the serious doubts about our legal system do need a response and ACT will support this bill to the Law and Order Committee because of the requirement for that response.  
There are fears that convictions have been secured with manufactured evidence. The previous National Party speaker mentioned the concern about secret witnesses—those hardened criminals who suddenly start singing to their cell mates in prison and the cell mates then go to court. There are concerns whether or not they are justified in almost every high-profile case that we now have. We have the group who are lobbying for David Bain a group on the Christchurch crèche case and even a group on the Sounds murderer. It seems now that there has been enough fire where there is smoke or enough to satisfy many New Zealanders that they can no longer trust the prosecution and through that implicitly the police and that is a grave shame.  
As I said we could simply have dealt with that if it had been nipped in the bud quite a lot earlier by ensuring that the authority was able to hire people overtly from outside the police for investigations and to carry through the investigations in good time without having to be so obviously dependent on the police.  
But the real strength that keeps any uniformed force healthy productive and trusted is internal discipline. I am concerned that this community will be offered the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill as a panacea to problems that it does not touch. Vigorous internal discipline comes in a uniformed force when its members are proud but of course they can be proud thugs so that is not enough; when they know exactly what their priorities are but of course it is not enough just to know them they have to be the right priorities; when they know that the rules mean something and the constraints are applied; and when they feel that they have a reputation to uphold and they want to hold up their heads not only among their peers which can easily be a gang member uniting against outsiders but also hold up their heads with their families and with the people they went to school with and in this little community that should be something we can sustain.  
Uniformed forces are especially vulnerable to a corruption of culture to morale leadership problems and to the failure of having clear objectives. I say to the House that the circumstances and fears that have prompted this bill should be a big warning to us. The fact is that so many New Zealanders are now concerned—and I am concerned—about a lack of commitment by senior police to the values that they need to uphold. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee that inquired into the reaction to the visit of the President of China. I was very concerned at the way in which senior police officers treated the evidence to that committee. It is clear in the committee’s report that we simply did not believe them.  
I started then to take more seriously one or two of the complaints I was getting in my justice portfolio from people who Mr Goff may describe as scumbags and did. They were coming to me with complaints about police conduct which were seriously worrying. One of those complainants secured convictions a month ago against a police witness in a very serious case. That person secured convictions for perjury and the police would not pursue them. He had to bring a private prosecution—this is a person who had spent time in prison. He had to educate himself to the point where he could bring a private prosecution to the stage where the Crown Law Office eventually took it over and secured a conviction in circumstances that worry me deeply.  
I am concerned that while we still have enough of a nucleus of police who are not bad corrupt lazy or oppressive—indeed most police are not—and we have a commitment by the police to maintain that we have all the conditions for losing it and when it is lost it goes quickly. It happens when the police are unacknowledged; when they are poorly paid although that should not be a problem at the moment; when they are snubbed; when they are poorly led; and when they are frustrated. Of those last things we have all three.  
We have a Minister of Police who snubs police who overrides them and who does not respect their statutory independence. We have a Minister of Police who has put out a directive that MPs are not to be spoken to by police without his consent a Minister who has told the police they are not allowed to come into the precincts of Parliament without his consent and a Minister who is so afraid of the police speaking to the Opposition that he has gagged them in a way that has not been the case in the living memory of the police members who have told me about it. We have a Minister who is running a police force that is riding on its cultural capital and it is using it up. We have police who want to catch thieves and who are instead being told to incur the wrath of the community by blocking motorways for hours on end chasing people who are not evil just careless stupid or perhaps criminally stupid. The priorities that are being set for the police are not inspiring them. 
Worse still we have a Minister who is so weak in Cabinet that he has not been able to stop the law from being a revolving door. The Police Complaints Authority is only a palliative. The authority cannot cure a culture of absolute frustration at catching thieves and seeing them out the door the next day. It is no wonder police forces start taking the law into their own hands. It is no wonder they start saying that they will see justice irrespective of whether the evidence is there. It is no wonder they beat people in the cells because they think the courts will not do anything. This is a problem that the Minister of Police and this Government are fully responsible for.  
If members want to see the evidence they should look at this pathetic bill. While we support it to select committee we want to know what the Police Complaints Authority will do with its employment policy. It is told to go out and get independent staff and what does it have to do? The authority has to make sure it recognises the aims and aspirations of Maori the employment requirements of Maori and the need for the involvement of Maori as employees of the authority. That is a need. The authority has to go out there and racially appoint.  
Worse still is the need for opportunities for the recognition of the aims aspirations and cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups. Gangs are a minority group. The police have to recognise a gang’s need to be staunch. What about the cultures that think the highest value is loyalty to one’s family? Or the cultures that think that a good beating does not do anyone any harm? Or the cultures that think it is rude to ask direct questions or demand yes or no answers? The Police Complaints Authority is not allowed to go out and get those tough experienced shrewd incorruptible people. Instead it has to go through this politically correct list that the Minister of Police is going to inflict on the authority. It even has to go out and hire people to meet the requirements of persons with disabilities. What does that mean? Those who are overstressed? There are policemen who are “perfing” out of the police now because they cannot cope with the stress. Is the Police Complaints Authority going to pick up its ration of those cases? This Minister has introduced a bill that is an absolute insult to the cause he should be serving.