Connell Brian: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12868] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill. I have been in my office listening to this debate with some interest in particular on Part 1. It appears to me that this is a complex and difficult issue. As a member of the Law and Order Committee who has tried to formulate sensible legislation I found this issue had a degree of complexity that was difficult to draw a clear conclusion on. On the one hand I was concerned about the issue of public confidence in the police and on the other hand I was concerned about a cast-iron guarantee of secrecy for those who provide information to the authority. This is an issue that I think is extremely vexed. 
A precedent is being established here and it is one that I do not feel particularly comfortable with but I also find it difficult to deal with this issue without thinking about the broader issue. That is of course about restoring public confidence in our police force. I am somewhat mollified by the sunset clause—which we will come to in Part 2—which essentially allows the bill to have a duration of only 1 year. That is something I am a little bit more relaxed about. As this debate progresses I would like to take a call on that to discuss it in more detail. But my major concern is that the secrecy provisions were invoked to encourage people to come forward to provide information to the authorities and in this particular instance so that people could come forward to the commission so the commission would get a very clear view of what the true issues are. The threat now exists that those who were prepared to come forward might not because they no longer have secrecy guaranteed and those information channels might dry up. As I have said that is why this is a complex issue. 
On balance the serious allegations that have been brought against senior members of our police force are something that I feel we have to get to the bottom of if we are going to restore confidence in our police force. That I believe has left members of the select committee with very little choice as to how they will proceed with this legislation. That conclusion means that the National Party is left with very little choice but to support this legislation but with some reservation. I want to make it clear that there is a distinction between secrecy and privileged information or incriminating oneself. When the Police Managers Guild came to the select committee it made this issue clear. It suggested an “avoidance of doubt” clause which I also want to speak about later in this debate. 
All submitters supported the bill although like many people on the select committee they had some reservations regarding the way it should be constructed. The Police Association raised concerns with regard to secrecy as well and suggested desensitising some of the information so that the secrecy of individuals could be maintained. The select committee wrestled with this for some time and on balance felt it could not support this. The aggregation of this material meant it would make it harder for the commission to do its job. Time was an issue as well. 
Part 1 agreed to.