Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12104] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 This bill is deemed to be required so as to allow the commission of inquiry into police conduct to fulfil terms of reference that amongst other things include the scrutiny of any investigations carried out by the Police Complaints Authority. In every sense the bill is an evaluation of the adequacy of a process that represents the very means by which the integrity of the Police Complaints Authority must be assessed. It goes to the heart of how the public can have confidence in our police. 
The bill is aimed at liberating—and I use that term euphemistically—files that are held by the authority and under section 32(1) of the principal Act are subject to blanket secrecy. Those files include information mostly gathered by police conducting investigations on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority access to which is necessary if the commission is to inquire into the operations and processes of the Police Complaints Authority. 
We have heard much particularly recently on alleged police activities that have not been investigated to public satisfaction. Rape allegations against police seemingly dismissed by initial evaluations do nothing for public confidence and nothing to reinforce the police ethic of service to the community. The real point is that without this enabling bill the commission would in all probability be stymied in carrying out its much-needed function. In short access to Police Complaints Authority files is a necessary condition to the fulfilment of the obligations of the commission. 
Although it might seem that the bill is at least 1 week premature given that the question of the extent of the Police Complaints Authority Act secrecy provisions is to be heard on 8 April it will nevertheless allow the select committee to address speedily the inevitable privacy and Bill of Rights concerns. Invariably those concerns will be raised by those who for the most part want to protect the guilty over the legitimate rights of the innocent. The privacy interests of those who can provide valuable information—be they complainants or police officers—should not hinder and blind us to ascertaining the culpability of those police who have abused the public trust. 
I understand the reasons for the bill. I also understand why its review through the Law and Order Committee needs to be truncated but why has the bill taken so long to get to the House and deny other parties the ability to look at it as it was presented? In itself it is hardly a rival for  
War and Peace;  
at 7 pages it would not break one’s foot if it were dropped on it. Why was this bill not brought to the House sooner so that there could be fair examination by other parties? It could have been introduced in tandem with the commission. The Law and Order Committee would then have had a bit more time to consider the bill before returning it to the House. That fault lies firmly at the feet of this Government. 
Nevertheless United Future will support the introduction of the bill not only to empower the commission to do its work but also to help restore public confidence in both the Police Complaints Authority and the police. But we give that support advisedly and only to the extent that the bill be passed over to the Law and Order Committee. After that all bets are off.