Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11532] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 National supports the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. At this stage of the Committee process we are looking at Part 2 of this important and significant legislation. The Minister Mark Burton sought to explain a very substantial period of delay in the progress of this bill. One would have thought that if this bill had merit—which National accepts—it would have prompted a more speedy passage. 
The bill amends the principal Act which is the Police Complaints Authority Act. That Act “prescribes the principal role of the Police Complaints Authority as being to consider whether there has been misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of any member of the police and to consider whether relevant practices policies and procedures of the police have been complied with.” There are a number of significant changes that the bill makes to the Act. 
I would like to start by just responding to some comments from Dr Pita Sharples—for whom I have enormous respect—that he has made on behalf of the Maori Party in connection with his two proposed amendments. These amendments come very late in the piece. They come probably too late in the piece to have the consideration that they might deserve. The first amendment introduces a requirement for an independent Police Complaints Authority review agency to be established so that decisions from the authority can be appealed. The second amendment sets up an autonomous Maori investigative branch of the authority to review complaints raised by Maori against the police. 
Part 2 of the bill which is the subject of debate at the moment contains a raft of provisions that are essentially procedural in nature relating to the constitution and operations of the authority. I just note with reference to what Dr Sharples has said clause 10A which is headed “Personnel policy”. I think it is quite unusual to see this sort of provision written into statute regarding the operations of a tribunal. The personnel policy is to comply with the principle of being a good employer and the clause sets out what constitutes a good employer for the purposes of this legislation. I note that 10A(2) states: “a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment including provisions requiring … (d) recognition of (i) the aims and aspirations of Maori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Maori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the Authority;”. That is a most unusual provision. It does tend to some extent I would say to run with what Dr Sharples has said that there should be within this entity some recognition of the issue—which I am sure saddens him as much as it saddens me—of high rates of offending by Maori members of our society. 
The next point I make in the context of Part 2 is that one of the very crunch issues in this bill is seen here in the implementation of a major decision arising out of the review which is that the Police Complaints Authority should have an enhanced investigative capacity of its own independent of the police. As I said earlier in a fleeting way similar conclusions have been arrived at in a number of jurisdictions such as England Australia and Canada. I think that is a very important fact which provides a high level of protection to the police. 
There is a significant aspect in all this that we should all be aware of. In the context of legislators who seek to strike balances I believe that we need to look at the aspect of police morale. It is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and constant critic of the police that will have an effect on morale. But if on the other hand the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police there should be no effect on morale. 
I hope Mr Fairbrother who is still in the Chamber might respond to an issue that I think he could make a useful contribution to. I have suggested in past comment on this legislation that there is a case to extend the scope of this bill. I believe that is an opportunity that certainly sits with us in this particular part of the process of this legislation. This legislation could be extended to deal with prison inmates’ complaints. The same arguments about the police investigating themselves apply equally to Department of Corrections staff investigating complaints against prison officers. This is something I would welcome comment on from Labour members. The situation with the Department of Corrections as I understand it is broadly that currently inmates’ complaints of mistreatment breaches of rights and illegality are dealt with by an in-house inspectorate of the department. There are significant numbers of complaints many of which are dismissed. I express the hope that in the context of this legislation an opportunity may be taken to deal with that issue. I have said on earlier occasions how important that might well be as an issue to resolve.