Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20347] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. I follow the comments that the Hon Tony Ryall made to this House in a compelling fashion on Wednesday 4 May. The bill arose out of a review of the Police Complaints Authority itself which was carried out by the Hon Sir Rodney Gallen in 2000. The purpose of that review was to examine the role of the Police Complaints Authority in investigating and resolving complaints and incidents involving the police. 
The bill amends the principal Act 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 police practices policies and procedures have been complied with. It makes a number of changes but there are three principal ones. 
The first is concerned with changing the name of the authority. “What’s in a name?” one might ask and it probably is a very good question. The bill seeks to amend the Police Complaints Authority Act by changing the name of the authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I do not think that is particularly significant although some might. 
The second change is the increase of the authority’s membership from one person to three people. There are a whole lot of membership provisions contained within the bill. I will not deal with those in any detail except to note that clause 8 inserts new section 10A “Personnel policy”. In looking at what the present Government considers to be a good employer I see that there is to be a strong focus on Maori interests. I would have thought that the very best people should be chosen for the task no matter what their ethnicity might be but that is apparently not to be so in the case of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Instead those good employees employed by that “good employer” are to have a sound recognition of the aims and aspirations of Maori the employment requirements of Maori and the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the authority. Here we see some affirmative action policies in place. Affirmative action policies around the world have generally not worked out. They represent however a strong commitment of this Government to social engineering policies which have been tried and have been found to be failing. 
So the first thing is the proposed name change and the second is the change in membership from one to three persons; the third is the establishment of the authority as a separate legal entity which recognises its change of status from a single-person office to a three-person body. It makes clear that the authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation or a disciplinary investigation—or both—is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter. It allows the authority when deciding whether to hold a hearing to have regard to whether proceedings or a coroner’s inquest is pending and it gives to the authority certain powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act for the purposes of holding a hearing. It sets out procedures that enable the authority to disclose information that has come to its knowledge through the exercise of its functions about a defendant who has been charged with or convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment. 
The third thing it does is deal with the whole aspect of the obligation to maintain secrecy with only a limited ability to disclose. That was the position and is the position under the current law. This bill provides in great detail for exceptions from those secrecy provisions. I do not want to deal with that aspect; I am sure that others will deal with it comprehensively. 
But I would note two further points in the comments I seek to make. The first is that the Police Complaints Authority currently has 2100 cases before it of which one in five is over 2 years old. We have a real problem with workload and with the resolution of cases before the current Police Complaints Authority. I know that the Minister of Police who is sitting quietly opposite me in the Chamber will want to take a call to explain what the grand plan is for the resolution of that growing and worrying workload. It should be no source of pride for him at all that there is a backload of work in the order of 2100 cases. There are all sorts of implications in that. From the perspective of complainants it is frustrating and worrying and from the perspective of the police it is I do not doubt the same. Where individual officers are facing a review of their conduct it can scarcely be satisfactory that there are backlogs in the order of 2 years. 
The second issue I would like to talk about and it is touched on briefly in the commentary from the Law and Order Committee relates to a National Party proposal—which will be National Party policy so it will be implemented when National comes to power in September 2005— 
Shane Ardern 
: Or earlier. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
:—or earlier—that consideration should be given to incorporating an independent prison complaints capacity within the Independent Police Complaints Authority. I am glad to see Mahara Okeroa in the House quietly serving out time before his departure in September 2005 because he may very well make a satisfactory member of that authority when it comes time for him to hang up his shingle. He will be able to take advantage of some of the lucrative opportunities in the public service. 
But in talking about the incorporation of the independent prison complaints capacity within the Independent Police Complaints Authority I want to say I believe that there is no doubt that we have a real issue in the Department of Corrections in relation to dealing with prisoners’ complaints. I am disappointed with the press release that came from the Minister of Justice today. He has apparently proposed that improvements be made to the prison complaints system but I ask the question why instead of revamping the prisoner complaints process we are not prepared to be more robust. A number of things could be done—including the proposition I am advancing at the moment—that would significantly improve that complaints process. A good starting point for this discussion is that the skills required to deal with prison complaints are transferable to deal with police complaints. Similarly the reverse is true. So I would like to see—and this could be grafted on to this bill when in due time it becomes an Act—an independent prison inspector who comprehensively inspects and reports on the state of our prisons. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales which was established in 1981 is a good example of what is achievable. The United Kingdom adopted a World Health Organization model of “healthy prisons”—that is the phrase it uses—as a basis of inspections. 
So those are the comments that I have sought to make in connection with this legislation. It is supported by National. It makes a number of changes that seem appropriate worthwhile and realistic but there is a great opportunity in all of this and that is to incorporate an independent prison complaints capacity within the authority.