Worth Richard: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11685] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This has been a week where several select committees have looked long and hard at issues of change to parliamentary process—issues of substance and issues of process. I was interested to hear the comments of the Minister in charge of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill the Hon Mark Burton when he spoke about the legislative history of this bill because it has been very extended. Here we have a bill that was introduced on 4 December 2002 and nearly 5 years later it comes to the final parliamentary hurdle which is the third reading. 
National supports this legislation; it would never do otherwise. But some very unsatisfactory process issues have occurred. One of the hallmarks of this Government is to spring surprises by way of legislative change without there being a proper opportunity for analysis and discussion. Nowhere is that more apparent than in respect of this legislation. A Supplementary Order Paper is the term of jargon but we would know it as a series of amendments that were made at very short notice just a few days ago when this bill went through the Committee stage. I look with a degree of dismay at the changes that were made by a Committee that perhaps was not aware of the full significance of them. 
When the bill was reported back by the select committee a number of provisions that had been deleted I believe should have been maintained. One of those provisions dealt with the circumstance where in the course of an investigation the Independent Police Complaints Authority—or as it is now to be known the Independent Police Conduct Authority—came across evidence that tended to suggest that a defendant who had been convicted was in fact innocent. This provision which was wrapped around former new section 33A set out in clause 19 enabled a certificate to be given of the existence of that information. For some reason which is not apparent to me it has been decided by the Government to scrap that provision. I think that is a great shame because if it is our task as politicians to create legal frameworks that will identify the guilty and also identify the innocent we should be slow in the latter case to close down such possibilities. But that is what we have done. 
The initiative for this legislation reflects historical changes in our society. The other night I referred to the seminal work done by Professor Klockars who is well known to Mr Groser. His work drew attention to the fact that what distinguishes the police from every other domestic institution is that they exercise a general right to use coercive power. That is actually what makes the police so valuable to society. Unfortunately it is inevitable that the use of coercive force will give rise to situations of some stress and not infrequently to resentment. It was no doubt such reasons that gave rise to the concern expressed at the time police services were first introduced in the 19th century. I think I noted the other night that Sir Peter Quilliam who was an early chairman of the authority referred to reported complaints of excessive police force in 1841. It is also a fact that around the world in Western democracies wherever there have been suggestions of entities akin to an independent police complaints authority the police have strongly resisted such authorities being established. It is similarly the case here that there was a degree of substantial misgiving by the police force that an entity such as this be set up. 
What has happened though as society has changed is that we have seen the advent of various protest movements and in many cases the persons involved in such movements came from those sections of society that in the past enjoyed a relationship of confidence with the police and had been prepared to express any disagreement with governmental policies by way of the ballot box. So when the Viet Nam War occurred for the first time so-called respectable members of society found themselves in direct opposition to the police and the police were placed of course in an extremely invidious situation. On the one hand they had the obligation to uphold the law as it stood and on the other hand they were confronted by members of society who considered on moral grounds that certain governmental activities were unacceptable. We saw that in connection with the Viet Nam protests. We also saw it in connection with the Springbok Tour of 1981; and there were similar results in other countries. 
I spoke the other night about the Brixton riots in April 1981 where scenes of violence and disorder occurred in Brixton when the police were attacked on the streets with stones iron bars and petrol bombs. That led to Lord Scarman’s inquiry which led to the setting up of a police complaints authority in the United Kingdom. Of course at that stage similar proposals were going through the Canadian Parliament that had as their purpose the setting up of an independent system for dealing with complaints against the police. 
What does this bill do? Well it does good things I would say and that is certainly what National would say. Here we have established the authority as a separate legal entity that recognises its change of status from a single-person office to now as proposed in the latest Supplementary Order Paper 116 which has been passed a body of up to 5 members. It is also made clear that the authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation or a disciplinary investigation or both of those is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter. There are issues relating to interfaces with coroners’ inquests increased powers are given appropriately so that reflect the powers given under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to such commissions and there are a raft of administration issues. 
I would like to deal with one aspect that drew comment to the Law and Order Committee of which I was not a member which is that this legislation does preserve the recommendatory role of the authority. Proposals were made that the authority be given the ability to make binding recommendations and impose sanctions. Wisely in my view the Law and Order Committee did not run with that recommendation. The current process which it is intended will continue is that the Police Complaints Authority conveys its recommendations to the Commissioner of Police and the complainants. The Commissioner of Police then has the obligation to notify the Police Complaints Authority now to be called the Independent Police Conduct Authority of any action proposed to be undertaken including any reasons for any proposal to depart from the recommendations and if the commissioner takes no appropriate action then recommendations can be made to the Attorney-General and the Minister of Police for action to be taken. 
I hope that the outcome of the processes that are now the subject of implementation by the bill will significantly advance the interests of police morale because it is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and a constant critic of the police then that will have an effect on morale. On the other hand if the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police—and I believe that it has that confidence at present—then there should not be any effect on morale. And I would hope that those members of the police who include the vast majority of persons in the service can feel confident that if undesirable activities are occurring that those will be dealt with and the standards of the police service maintained. 
National supports this legislation as it advances if passed today to the final stage of Royal assent and implementation.