Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12867] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 1 is primarily made up of definitions and when the Minister referred the bill to this Committee he sought to debate it as if it were all one part. I am not trying to go behind that but the definitions do set the scene for the principal issue that I think has troubled the select committee and Parliament. We have here what is potentially a very bad precedent. The bill recognises that people provide information on the assurance that it will be received and held in confidence. 
 In the circumstances it could be people who have very nervously approached the Police Complaints Authority. They may have thought very long and hard before they did it. They may have been in a situation of great exposure and might suffer greatly if it were found that they had—to use the jargon term—narked. But the definition of “restricted matter” in clause 4 is very broad and it sets the scene for what is essentially a complete legislative hole in the statutory assurance that has been given. 
I emphasise the breadth of the definitions because the bill simply states that the only protection those people who have provided the information that is contained in the restricted matter have against being exposed is to rely on the best judgment of the commission. Of course the commission will be subject to very intense media scrutiny and there is the potential for some quite unreasonable rhetoric. The commission will be struggling to achieve its objective of reassuring the New Zealand public that there is no cover-up and in doing that it will be faced with calls for the disclosure of material that may prejudice the people who relied on the assurance of confidentiality in the Police Complaints Authority Act. 
It is interesting when looking at the definition for drafting purposes that “restricted matter” is actually defined to mean “any document information or communication”. But where it is used in clause 6 the word “matter” is awkward. To be read properly it almost needs to have been put out in extenso. I am not concerned about the part that we are debating but I urge members to consider it carefully at this stage because when it is made operative in Part 2 that part has the potential to seriously damage the reputation of the New Zealand Government. 
This is not a political matter. It is simply an issue because we all of whatever party have a stake in the integrity of Government assurances. They must be seen as reliable in this country. When people have been assured by statute of confidentiality we should lean over backwards to make sure we show that it is not done lightly when that confidentiality is unilaterally and retrospectively stripped. We need to show that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimise any damage and that we are not simply saying “trust us” because the people who have provided this information have already trusted us. They have already taken a Government assurance when they provided the information. It is unreasonable to then breach it and tell them not to worry because the next person who receives the information will take care that it is not released or the confidence breached. 
Accordingly I take the opportunity in Part 1 to draw attention to the framework of this because the definition there is so broad and the import of it when it is used in Part 2 is so serious in principle that the bill needs an amendment to make sure that the combined effect of Part 1 and Part 2 does not mean the Government is seen as renegeing lightly and not even bothering to take simple steps it could take to minimise the downside or even the life-threatening damage that might follow.