Mark Ron: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11536] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 There is pretty much cross-party consensus on most of the issues here. While some people are highlighting specific issues they wish to have changed I think that we cannot lose sight of the realities in some of the propositions that have been put. I refer to the two submissions of the Drs Worth and Sharples. 
I think Dr Sharples’ submission—the Maori Party’s proposed amendments—is well considered and well written which indicates that a degree of thoughtfulness has been put into it. But I have to put on the record that New Zealand First will not support these amendments. A couple of issues spring to mind. It is proposed in the Maori Party amendment to clause 6 that a Maori investigative branch be established that consists of three members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of iwi runanga and the Minister of Maori Affairs. Can members imagine that discussion in the current climate? Various iwi and hapu are at each other’s throats right now stymying various settlements because of their different views on boundaries process and mandate. I can well imagine the degree of debate discussion and discourse that would emerge as each iwi tried to assert its position and right to be represented over and above all other iwis. 
That is not the only reason we would not agree with such an amendment. I emphasise the point made by Russell Fairbrother which we believe is quite an astute observation. The reality is that Maori are now climbing through the ranks of the New Zealand Police in a way very similar to the way in which they have climbed through the ranks of the Defence Force. The notion of having an autonomous Maori body set up to investigate decisions made by a newly appointed Maori Commissioner of Police is quite interesting. In effect we could actually have a group of Maori representing an argument against a police force led by a Maori and commanded by Maori at district and area levels challenging those Maoris’ decisions or the appropriateness of the way in which they have dealt with Maori. 
I also remind people that the reason that Maori are so overrepresented in crime statistics is that we indulge in crime to that level. The continual argument from people who advocate that there must be something wrong with society because Maori are overrepresented in prisons ignores the fact that we are overrepresented in prisons because we break the law because we commit crime. Having said that the argument put forward by Mr Fairbrother that the police force has historically not treated all people equally is pretty widely accepted. We know that well. We know that from the way in which our whanau and our whanaunga have been treated over the years. But that cannot be said of today’s police force. I point to a very senior officer Wally Haumaha. Some have even tipped him as possibly being the first Maori Commissioner of Police. He has done a tremendous job. As we see more of his ilk working their way through the ranks we will see a continuance of the improvement of attitudes in the way in which the police administer themselves the way in which they conduct themselves and the way in which they administer and enforce the laws of this land. 
These laws are increasingly being passed by a House with a larger representation of Maori. As we sit here today we can see the evidence of that. Except for the Maori Party which has 100 percent Maori representation New Zealand First has traditionally been the party that has had the highest level of Maori representation of all parties in this House. Indeed you know it was not so long ago that Labour would not even— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What about now? 
RON MARK 
: I will get to the National Party in a minute in the second part of my call. Not so long ago Labour would not even nominate a Maori candidate in a safe Labour general seat. That happened for many many years. So that institutionalised approach and attitude towards Maori well known in the past was also carried by the Labour Party. I often used to challenge Tariana Turia now a leader of the Maori Party when she was in Labour. I used to ask her why the Labour Party would never stand a Maori candidate in a safe Labour general seat. She used to wink at me and say: “I know Ron. Why do you think that is?”. These things happily will become something of our past something we read about in our history as we evolve and change. 
New Zealand First is fully confident that that change is occurring and we are confident that these changes will give the Police Complaints Authority a far higher degree of scrutiny and a far greater degree of independence. I look forward to the day that maybe—I say this to satisfy Dr Pita Sharples my whanaunga from further north—we see Judge Joe Williams appointed to head the Police Complaints Authority. What would we say then? Would we say that Judge Joe Williams is not capable of fairly adjudicating or investigating issues that affect Maori complainants? That would be a nonsense. We in New Zealand First think that New Zealand is moving forward and beyond that. I compliment the Maori Party members on the way in which they have considered their amendment and on the fact that they have submitted it so comprehensively and completely but New Zealand First cannot quite see their view and will not be supporting it. 
As for Dr Worth’s contribution and his philosophising about the concept of an independent prison inspectorate similar to the Police Complaints Authority I ask whether he is a member of the same National Party that refused any investigation into the activities of the “goon squad” in Christchurch prisons. Is this the same National Party that appointed the emergency response unit that oversaw its establishment and that refused to accept that the unit was in any way acting inappropriately and had caused the death of a Maori inmate in Paparua prison? Is this the same National Party? My golly maybe things have moved on for the better. Maybe we do have a realisation within the National Party ranks that its members’ behaviour and conduct in respect of the way in which prisons were managed and the way in which complaints put forward by inmates were handled was not proper and was not as it should have been. 
But we in New Zealand First still have trouble balancing that view against National’s calls for no compensation for people in prisons who have been wrongly done by. We are looking for consistency in any amendments. I suspect because Dr Worth has not put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that much of his argument is simply philosophising simply tongue-in-cheek surmising and on that basis I accept it. Were Dr Worth serious I would fully expect a Supplementary Order Paper to be on the Table and him to be championing the amendments on it. But clearly that is not the case. 
We would support Dr Worth though—New Zealand First would support him—if he wanted to move at some stage through separate legislation or maybe through an inquiry to examine the total independence of the Department of Corrections prison inspectorate because we share the views that he is now espousing. It is a pity he was not the Minister of Corrections in the former National Government. Maybe we would have had a different response to the request of Brian Neeson—that highly valued member of the National Party—who joined forces with New Zealand First to call for an investigation. 
There are many things about this bill that we might wish to ponder discuss and muse over but essentially New Zealand First feels that Part 2 will give that degree of independence. We give this caveat though: we will be watching. I guess we share the concerns of Dr Sharples. The proof of the effectiveness of this legislation and the true independence of the authority will be seen by its deeds—what it does and how it manages the complaints brought before it. I feel that this bill may not be the final throw of the dice in this respect and that some of the concerns expressed by some people the cautions given—including those from Russell Fairbrother—may well need to be further examined when it has a couple of years under the belt.