Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12100] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Before I address the quite serious substance of the bill I would advise that the Opposition parties are disappointed that the Government did not see fit to brief us on the contents of the bill with sufficient notice. The National Party received a briefing that was emailed to our senior whip late afternoon and forwarded to us. At 20 minutes to 8 tonight we still had not actually sighted the bill the Government proposed. It was only when our junior whip approached the Leader of the House Dr Cullen that we were given the generosity of an advance copy of this bill. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: You never did that when you were in Government I suppose. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have to observe that on a bill of this import such a courtesy would have been extended to the Opposition because the Government would have wanted to have multiparty support and it is important for multiparty support that the parties feel as though they were appropriately briefed. Don McKinnon was quite clear that bills of such import should be given in advance to the Opposition. So I comment on that disappointment. 
We believe it is vital that this bill be referred to a select committee. The bill makes substantial changes to the nature in which evidence is given to the Police Complaints Authority. Currently police officers are compelled to make statements and to give information to a Police Complaints Authority investigation. Every other New Zealander has the right to deny the police a statement—in fact Ministers have denied that previously I understand although I stand to be corrected. The point is is that every other New Zealander has a right to deny making a statement to the police. However when it comes to Police Complaints Authority investigations police are compelled to make a statement—even a self-incriminating statement—in order to assist the Police Complaints Authority in its investigations. 
Police make those statements knowing that their evidence cannot be used against them and that is part of the process. What this bill seeks to do is uncertain. It is unclear what the status is of that evidence that was given and how it can be used. I do not think the House objects to a clear indication that those who were involved as investigators for a Police Complaints Authority matter should be able to answer questions of the commission of inquiry but we would like to pursue in the select committee the status of the evidence that was given by police officers to the commission. 
This has the potential to set a quite uncomfortable precedent in that police officers may believe that the evidence they give to the Independent Police Complaints Authority may be used against them or come to public scrutiny in a level that they had been assured would not happen. Those are the sorts of matters that we seek to discuss further in the select committee process. My colleague Richard Worth will be talking about further concerns we have in respect of this bill and some conclusions we have drawn. 
The National Party in Opposition fully appreciates the concerns that the commission of inquiry may have about this. We are prepared to work with the Government to facilitate appropriate disclosure to the commission. We too believe it is fundamental to the integrity of the New Zealand Police that the public sees that inquiries were conducted appropriately or if they were not what can be done to remedy those concerns. Finally I repeat that with a bill of this nature we would have expected an advance copy because the advice we received by email in the late afternoon was not sufficient to draw the conclusion that we would be willing to support the bill. However having read the bill the National Party is prepared to support its referral to the select committee.