Mark Ron: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11528] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this Committee stage of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First and to put on record that New Zealand First has always supported and will continue to support any legislation that gives increased independence to this body. We believe fully and wholly that the integrity of the police force is very much determined by the public’s perceptions as to how their complaints or concerns raised regarding policing practice or specific instances are dealt with. Of course I guess it is fair to say that this bill is before the Committee because of the concerns raised by the public over what was perceived to be a situation of partiality or bias by the Police Complaints Authority. Very often criticism was levelled at the organisation by people who simply asked how the police could in any way investigate themselves impartially. 
New Zealand First notes a couple of things. Firstly this bill came to the House in December 2002. The New Zealand First member of Parliament who sat on the Law and Order Committee at that time was Edwin Perry who is not with us— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: A very good member. 
RON MARK 
: He was a very good member. I also note that another good member who sat on the committee was one Brian Connell. I was hoping to hear a contribution from Brian Connell today or at least at some later stage in this bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What happened to him? 
RON MARK 
: I am not sure what happened to Brian Connell but I think that the rest of the nation is very clear as to what happened. 
The core of the issue—and as we get into Part 2 we will see how these concerns have been dealt with—is the independence integrity and authority that is bestowed upon this organisation. I have to say right from the outset that the appointment of Justice Goddard is in New Zealand First’s view a very insightful appointment. We are looking forward to good things under the leadership of Justice Goddard. 
We do however wonder at the purpose of simply amending the title of the bill by inserting the word “Independent”. There are those people who have—rightly or wrongly in our view—said that this is just window-dressing and that inserting the word “Independent” does not create independence. From New Zealand First’s perspective we see the appointment of a highly valued and very competent senior judge to head the authority as being the principal manner in which true independence is gained. 
The first of the number of things that have vexed New Zealand First members’ minds and hearts as we have gone through this bill is the issue of how the police deal with their own. We know that the Police Complaints Authority is the last centre of refuge for police officers who feel they have been wrongly served or wrongly done by. I will put on the record of the Committee right now the name of Constable Kerry Joyce down in Christchurch. Kerry Joyce stands out as one of those examples of how the police can get things so badly badly wrong when they accuse one of their own for whatever reason of doing something or of impropriety that is subsequently proved to be totally false. I would say—even being kind to the police—that some of the accusations levelled at that officer were malicious. 
 In New Zealand First we do not lose sight of the effect on the family of that police officer. We do not lose sight of the effect on his wife or the effect on his children as their dad’s name and photograph is published in the media and all sorts of allegations are made about him by the police. It concerns us that a man—or a woman—in the service of the New Zealand Police can be subjected to such allegations when subsequently those allegations can be proven to be false wrong incorrect and even malicious. 
This man has not received any form of compensation from the police. I guess that that particular case will play its way through the Employment Courts cost the taxpayer an absolute fortune and cost hundreds of hours of police time. Might I suggest that this is all because of the lack of a vigorous and thorough investigation under the previous Police Complaints Authority which should have gotten to the core of the matter a helluva lot earlier than was the case as the matter eventually unrolled through the court. 
The Police Complaints Authority is often looked upon by people—citizens of New Zealand—as being a place where citizens can go to issue and argue their concerns with the police. We forget sometimes that the Police Complaints Authority is also the body to which police officers themselves have a recourse of action for wrongs done to them. Might I suggest from New Zealand First’s perspective that we think that the loops and the hoops that police officers are often required to go through to prove their innocence are far too long far too convoluted and do not in any way compensate those officers for the losses they incur when they are found to be innocent. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.