Tanczos Nandor: Appointments — Deputy Police Complaints Authority 
Tanczos Nandor: Appointments — Deputy Police Complaints Authority 
[Volume:638;Page:8580] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to like other members support the appointment of Judge Lance as Deputy Police Complaints Authority. Members have spoken about the many reasons Judge Lance makes a very good appointee. Unlike some members such as Mr Borrows I am not a lawyer and do not hobnob with judges. I do not know them all by first name or know all their histories. So like some other members I had to google. What I found on the public record was an impressive account of independent thought and forthrightness qualities which other members have referred to in relation to Judge Lance. So the Green Party is very happy to endorse this appointment. 
I have to ask though what Police Complaints Authority we are appointing him to. Because as members know this House has been waiting for some time for the progression of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. The Government said it was waiting for Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on police conduct before progressing this bill. Other members and I have had occasion to ask given that the report has been so delayed whether it would not have been better to just go ahead and progress the bill then review it after the report was finished. 
Well now the report is finished and it is a very good and important piece of work as well. I think it is now time for us to start asking the Government when we are going to see the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill actually progress through the House. 
I raise the issue because it is important to reflect on what job Judge Lance is being appointed to a Police Complaints Authority or an Independent Police Complaints Authority and whether we are talking about independence in name or in practice. The Minister Mark Burton repeated the assertion that the fact that appointments to the authority are made by the Governor-General on a recommendation of the House of Representatives reflects the constitutional importance of the role and the need to emphasise the independence of the role. 
But of course as with so much of the Police Complaints Authority there is a danger that we swap the appearance of independence for the reality. I think it is worth reflecting on whether it is the appointment process or the capacity to actually do independent investigations that is important. It is pretty clear that the Police Complaints Authority has been severely hampered by the inability to do practically any kind of independent investigation until quite recently. That is why the Green Party has welcomed the Government adding additional resource to the authority to allow some independent investigation to be conducted. 
In that context we welcome Judge Lance’s appointment as deputy authority in the hope that the Police Complaints Authority is able to demonstrate a more genuine independence. As I say members have already referred to Judge Lance’s history in demonstrating independence. 
During his speech the Minister Mark Burton referred to the  
Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct 
. I would like to touch on a couple of things in the report that are relevant to this appointment to the context of this Parliament and to the wishes of this Parliament. I think I am reflecting the views of other members fairly when I say the desire of this Parliament is to see a Police Complaints Authority that is willing to bare its teeth when necessary when it comes to investigating and holding the police to account. 
As a minor example one of the things that is highlighted in this inquiry report is the statutory requirement for the police to notify the authority of any complaint received from a member of the public as soon as practicable or if the complaint is of a serious nature as soon as possible. The reports states: “… I would consider that it would be appropriate for the PCA to be notified within one week …”. Over the page—on page 178—we find a list of a whole range of complaints that were notified to the authority well after the fact. The report states: “Of particular concern to me was the number of complaints that were notified to the PCA after 30 days. In the worst instance it took the police 518 days to notify the PCA of a complaint”—when the police have a statutory obligation to notify as soon as practicable—“and this notification occurred only after the complainant had made a third complaint about the same officer.” 
In another instance the Police Complaints Authority was not notified of a complaint until after the police investigation had been completed. The interesting thing is that far from complaining the counsel for the Police Complaints Authority said: “nothing turns on the point in this case because in any event even if notification had been promptly given … the PCA … with its usual and necessary practice would inevitably have deferred any action on the file until the Police investigation … was complete.” So the counsel said that it did not matter that the authority was not told until after the investigation had been completed because it would not have made any difference anyway. 
That demonstrates the absolute inadequacy we have had from the Police Complaints Authority. I do not entirely blame the members because there have been resourcing issues but some of it does come down to the need to have a Police Complaints Authority that is willing to bare its teeth and hold the police to account. I certainly hope along with other members that the new team of Justice Goddard and Judge Lance will demonstrate that willingness. 
The other thing I want to touch on in regard to this inquiry report are the changes to the Police Complaints Authority proposed by the police. Given that we are looking at an Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill—which is stuck somewhere in the depths of the labyrinthine processes of this Parliament—it is interesting that the police themselves proposed to this inquiry that primary responsibility for resolution of serious complaints should shift from the New Zealand Police to the Police Complaints Authority. The police envisage the Police Complaints Authority assuming oversight of the investigation of less serious complaints and conducting many more investigations in its own right. 
The police have also proposed to remove the secrecy provisions to allow the Police Complaints Authority to take a significantly greater role in the investigation of complaints against members of the police. At the moment investigations by the Police Complaints Authority are hampered by the fact that anything it finds cannot be used in any criminal or disciplinary proceeding. That means that if a serious complaint is made the Police Complaints Authority backs off until the investigation is completed so that it does not interfere or contaminate the evidence. Although the authority has said that that is OK because the more serious a complaint is the more review and oversight it will give it the reality is that the more serious a complaint is the less oversight there is because there is more need for the authority to back away from any involvement in the case. The police themselves are suggesting that those secrecy provisions be done away with and this is something that the Green Party has raised on numerous occasions as well. It just seems incredible that there is this secrecy provision so that either investigations are doubled up—which they are—or the Police Complaints Authority backs away from any oversight of those investigations. 
Interestingly the Police Complaints Authority has opposed those changes—or at least it did when this report was being written—as did the New Zealand Police Association. The Police Association said that the Police Complaints Authority “acts effectively as a ‘review authority’ or an ‘appeal authority’ “ and that the suggestion being put forward by the police was being opposed because of “resourcing and the effective removal of the PCA’s appellate and review functions vis-à-vis the Police.” Again I question whether we want another appeal or review process. I think we really want a credible first-complaint investigation. Actually having the first investigation carried out independently and credibly by an independent authority will ensure that investigations are properly done—not having an appeal process and oversight at second or third hand. 
The very last point I would make is in regard to concerns about resourcing. In regard to the issues that would raise the Green Party has proposed on numerous occasions to join the Police Complaints Authority with an independent prison inspectorate to allow the development of an investigative capacity across those two bodies and also to allow the Police Complaints Authority not just to investigate complaints reactively but to proactively identify potential areas of systemic abuse and corruption and investigate them.