King Annette: Urgent Debates — Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—Report 
King Annette: Urgent Debates — Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—Report 
[Volume:638;Page:8544] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct was established in February 2004 to carry out a full independent investigation into the way in which the New Zealand Police had dealt with allegations of sexual assault made against members of the police and associates of the police. This followed the publication of allegations made independently by two women Ms Louise Nicholas and Ms Judith Garrett suggesting that police officers might have deliberately undermined or mishandled investigations into complaints of sexual assault that had been made against other officers. A set of terms of reference was established for the inquiry and those terms of reference were subsequently altered somewhat in May 2005 as a result of the commission’s concern that police inquiries currently before the courts could be jeopardised. 
 The commission of inquiry report is a very important document and I thank those members who have spoken on it so far. I thank Dame Margaret Bazley for her comprehensive report. I am impressed with the scope depth and thoroughness of the investigation and with the common sense she has taken in her recommendations. I also acknowledge the Prime Minister’s role in setting up the inquiry to ensure that allegations made over a period of years were examined and brought out into the open. It is clear that this inquiry has acted as a catalyst for change in the New Zealand Police. 
Further I acknowledge the courage and persistence of the women who brought forward the complaints that resulted in this inquiry. I also express in this House my disgust at the actions of individual police officers who indulged in disgraceful conduct at any time during the 25-year period covered by the inquiry. They let down their colleagues the women of New Zealand and New Zealanders in general. I sincerely regret what has happened to individuals and I feel confident that Ministers who have held this portfolio previously would feel the same as I do today. I am pleased to see that the Commissioner of Police Howard Broad has in a statement unreservedly and unequivocally apologised to the victims of the actions of a few officers who have let down the police and let down the public. As the member Sue Kedgley said that is a very important part of the healing process in going forward from here. 
As Minister of Police I will do all I can to try to make sure that this sort of unacceptable behaviour does not happen again but I acknowledge that in any profession there will always be individuals who transgress. The important consideration is to minimise the risk of such individuals emerging within the New Zealand Police and to identify and remove such individuals from the service as expeditiously as possible. They were not wanted then and they are not wanted now—if any of them remain. I know that that is exactly how the Commissioner of Police feels as well. 
Turning to the report I can do no better than to quote the words of Dame Margaret. She said that the report has presented “a series of ‘snapshots’ of police standards and practices over a 25 year period. Much of the Commission’s focus was necessarily on historical matters.” The snapshots especially those from the earlier years are sometimes ugly. Her report also notes however that there have been “significant improvements in standards and practices over that period.” She also points out: “New Zealand is fortunate to have a police force in which this kind of misconduct is a relatively rare occurrence. However the risk that misconduct particularly sexual misconduct poses to public confidence in the police is a significant one.” That is why this report is being taken so seriously by this Government and by members in the House who I know will participate in this debate. 
Dame Margaret has said many things in her report but I want to respond to Sue Kedgley’s comments in relation to two of those things. Sue Kedgley quoted me as saying that the public should have confidence in the calibre of the police. In fact I was quoting the words of Dame Margaret Bazley in her report. In her report that is exactly what she says. She said: “it is my view that at the present time the public can have confidence in the calibre of police investigations into allegations of sexual assault by police officers and police associates. Although the evidence the Commission has seen highlights some failings in the past the policies and procedures surrounding how such allegations are investigated have improved markedly over the past 25 years. Nevertheless further improvements are needed in particular to address the proliferation of policies and procedures …”. She makes the point that although there has been improvement and women can have confidence in the calibre of those investigations there is still further improvement to be made. She also said—and I think it is important to answer Sue Kedgley on this—that “there was no evidence of any concerted attempt across the organisation as a whole to cover up unacceptable behaviour.” 
So what I believe we have here are individual police officers who have indulged in disgusting behaviour and who have attempted to keep that behaviour from fellow officers. But it is important to point out that Dame Margaret does not believe that there was a culture of cover-up within the New Zealand Police then or that there is now. 
It is important to look at the recommendations of the report itself. The report as members know makes 60 recommendations. Forty-eight of them apply to the New Zealand Police; 12 of them apply to the Police Complaints Authority. I am really encouraged that the police have already begun acting across a range of these complex issues. I made the point that I believe that the commission of inquiry itself has been a catalyst; but that would be to say that nothing happened from the 1980s right through to the time of the inquiry. In fact many many things have happened. We could look back at the reporting of sexual harassment for example. The report points out that a lot of work was done in the early to mid-1990s to develop policy around sexual harassment. That developed over time and is just one example of things that have changed. 
I agree with the member Sue Kedgley that society has also changed over those 25 years. Attitudes that were held by New Zealanders 25 years ago would not be acceptable to many people in our society today. Margaret Bazley points out in the report that if we take an issue like the use of alcohol within the police when there was a culture of heavy drinking and there were police bars we see that over time that culture has changed. Today we do not build bars in police stations. And let us look at society as a whole. Attitudes towards alcohol have changed. I came into this House in 1984 when there were many many bars in Parliament. In 1984 the drinking culture in this place was different. Today Parliament has one bar which is shared by all including members the media and staff. So there has been a change in culture and I welcome that. 
Of the 48 recommendations that Dame Margaret Bazley has made four have been completed. I have for members if they have not already received it a list put out by the New Zealand Police of all the recommendations showing what action has been taken what action will be taken and a date of completion for those recommendations. I know that my colleague Tariana Turia will recognise that format; it is the same one we used after the inquiry into the under-reporting of cervical smear abnormalities in Gisborne. The document sets out the recommendations and gives the public some clear indication as to what action will be taken and when. Four of the recommendations have already been completed two are partially completed 31 are under way eight are yet to be done and three will be ongoing matters. Some of these recommendations must always be ongoing matters such as looking at the health of an organisation and at its practices. One has constantly to be looking at that. One cannot say: “That is finished; we will never look at it again.” 
I will outline in my comments today what I think are five or six really important recommendations that require urgent attention. The first one relates to the code of conduct. It is true that the New Zealand Police has never had a code of conduct. It is not part of the New Zealand Police. Obviously officers swear an oath but they do not have a code of conduct. A code of conduct has been drawn up. It was agreed with the Police Association during its industrial relations negotiations last year. That code of conduct will be put in place this year 2007 and today the Commissioner of Police released the draft for everybody to see. It has gone out for consultation and it is available for members to see. I believe that it is a very important step forward because the code deals with many of the issues that came up in this report. I think it has to be the basis of the industrial relations strategy going forward for the New Zealand Police. I also believe that the drawing up of new police regulations which revoke the disciplinary tribunal system and implement the best-practice State sector disciplinary system—based on a code of conduct and in keeping with the principles of fairness and natural justice as part of employment relationships—must be implemented as soon as possible. 
I believe that we can implement those regulations this year. There needs to be the implementation of an early warning system to identify officers at risk of inappropriate behaviour. Although there is a regional ability to alert commanding officers of inappropriate behaviour what is being sought is to bring that information into a central database. I see that very much—and I am sure that my colleague Georgina te Heuheu will relate to this—as being like the Medical Council of New Zealand in that when there are complaints against a professional those complaints are reported in and come up as a red flag against the actions of that officer. So the reports are taken into a central database all the data is collected and a warning is given as to whether there is a persistent problem. Of course there will be officers who have complaints against them; that is the nature of policing as we know. But when we can identify that an officer is displaying inappropriate behaviour we will get the red light—the alert—early. I have also already asked the State Services Commissioner to carry out an annual health audit of the organisation of police culture and that will be asked for by the Commissioner of Police. Actually he intends to ask for it. I checked with the State Services Commissioner as to whether he can do that and the commissioner believes he can. I think that that is a very important recommendation. 
I have one other matter because I know I am running out of time. I think it is important that the recommendations in this report are not just implemented but also audited to see whether they are implemented over the period of time. It is recommended in the report that there be a 10-year audit by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General in order to make sure that every one of the recommendations is implemented. I hope it will be done in less than 10 years but the commission of inquiry suggests a time of 10 years for that audit. 
One other step has been decided on by the New Zealand Police—and Tariana Turia will recognise this as well. It is that the police intend on a quarterly basis to update a public website of those recommendations stating what has been implemented and what progress has been made. That is exactly what we did with the commission of inquiry into the under-reporting of cervical screening abnormalities in Gisborne. That means that the public can at any time access that website and on a quarterly basis know what progress has been made towards the implementation of those recommendations. 
I believe that the public of New Zealand and the New Zealand Police will welcome this report today because it has been a long time in coming. There is no doubt that the police in New Zealand have felt the weight of these inquiries and court cases. I believe that the police in New Zealand want to move from this position to a position that is positive and to show their faces to the people of New Zealand. There can be no tolerance for the sorts of examples identified by Dame Margaret. It was disgraceful conduct by police officers and associates over a period of 25 years involving exploitation of vulnerable people particularly women. It cannot be acceptable. 
We have to move forward from here and I welcome the positive nature in which this report has been received. This is a serious debate; it is not one that puts glory on anybody in this House or outside it in terms of the actions of a number of individuals. We have to resolve this issue move on and ensure that the confidence the public has in the New Zealand Police continues.