Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12748] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to speak on this Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill which allows the lifting of secrecy provisions in the Police Complaints Authority Act for the benefit of a commission of inquiry—that commission having been appointed to look into claims of sexual offences by police. 
 To a member of a party not represented on the Law and Order Committee the committee’s report shows signs of it having been done under time pressure. Although the committee members may be so close to the matters at issue that they are confident they have a clear understanding of them I find it a little difficult to work out from the report in some cases exactly what it was that they decided. I hope that during the Committee stage there will be some elucidation on some issues. 
I am concerned for example that the committee rejected the request that material that had been provided in confidence or with a promise of secrecy would benefit from automatic suppression when it went to the commission. I can see that automatic suppression would be too much of a problem but I wonder why such material would not benefit from a presumption that it would be suppressed—a presumption that could be lifted by the commission if it decided that its requirements overrode the interests of privacy or confidentiality. It seems that the committee found areas where it could not get a perfect solution so it decided that it would not have any solution at all. It seems to me that there could well have been middle courses that would have served the purpose we want which is essentially to reassure New Zealanders that the Government does not renege on promises lightly or if it is forced to do so by compelling reasons reneges to the least extent possible. I do not find the committee’s report very reassuring there at all. 
There is a strong principle here. We have to remember that when people learn about the law they learn about it in terms of folklore—they do not know the words. If they do get to know about this bill what they will learn is that Government promises cannot be trusted; that people might be assured that information they give to the Police Complaints Authority will be kept secret but they cannot trust that assurance as the Government can always go back and bring in another bill. That is the message of this bill. In my opinion it is not obvious on the face of it that the select committee and the Government have taken all the steps they could have to show that when Governments do renege on a promise they do so as carefully and with as many limitations as are feasible given their purpose. ACT certainly supports the purpose of this bill which is to make sure that this commission of inquiry is not frustrated. We would like to be able to support this bill unequivocally but I have to say that on the face of this report it is not possible to do that. 
I am concerned that the kinds of people who might be affected include not just police who have given evidence or whose material is there; it might be that there are others who are scared that suddenly there will be disclosure of who narked. That could be a very significant fear. Particular cases always tug at the emotions and the cases raised in Rotorua cause us to say that this commission of inquiry should be able to get at this information but our job really is to decide what this bill will mean when translated in the street. Will it mean that people should not help the Police Complaints Authority because it will come back on them? Will it mean that when the Government tells people to trust it people should decide not to take the risk? 
Why did the committee suggest that the commission of inquiry have so many powers to protect but not give an indication to the commission through this law that when it does have those powers it ought to really exercise them? There is nothing in this bill to reflect the committee’s own concerns. The committee is saying it is concerned but believes that the commission will act wisely. It is really saying “Trust us.” or “Trust the commission.” Why did the committee not put into this law something that tells the commission to remember that information provided in confidence should be treated in confidence as far as is feasible? That would be a very simple drafting matter. I see no reason why the committee could not have put it in. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This speech is just a stream of consciousness. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Of course I doubt whether Mr Rick Barker who is tossing silly comments across the House and saying this speech is a stream of consciousness would understand this. I do not think any Government members have read this report. They would not bother. They threw this bill into the House at the last minute. They did not bother to discuss it with anyone on the other side of the House. They started the debate on this bill without having even warned the House that it was coming because they were ashamed that they had set up the commission of inquiry without any preparation and without realising that it would run parallel to the police prosecution. The commission already looked like monkey business because the police officers who are the subject of the inquiry will be able to claim prejudice and perhaps even double jeopardy. The commission of inquiry was already compromised. This bill was a knee-jerk hasty reaction and a reaction that could rebound because there is no provision instructing the commission to protect people as far as possible. 
There is some argument that the Government did not want to do that because it would have meant that the commission had to consult with thousands of people who had provided evidence. Well why did the bill not just say there would be consultation with those who reasonably appeared to the commission to be in a position where they might be concerned about the privacy of their information? That could easily have been done but it has not been. It is another piece of sloppy work from the justice portfolio— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: You can’t be taken seriously when you are making a speech with your hands in your pockets. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: No wonder Mr Barker is braying; he is braying because he is embarrassed and trying to cover it up. We will support this bill going through to the Committee of the whole House stage but we will be looking for answers as to why it does not better protect privacy because it is such a gross invasion.