Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11524] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak about this important legislation— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Now do something with it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: It is important and—in response to a comment the member has made—in the course of multiple calls on this legislation I hope to make a number of substantive points. It is quite interesting from my perspective because I see I spoke on this legislation in 2003 and 2005. Now in 2007 I am speaking briefly on it again. It must surely be the case that the legislative history of this bill is utterly unsatisfactory. We are currently confined to a consideration of Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill or as the Government would now wish to call it the “Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill”. Well what is in a name? Probably there is not much really. “Conduct” is possibly a softer and more appropriate word. 
It is interesting to look at the history around the world of these Police Complaints Authority tribunals and systems. Mr Finlayson reminded me tonight of the seminal work done in this area by Professor Carl Klockars who will be well known I am quite sure to the Minister because he drew attention to the fact that what distinguishes the police from every other domestic institution is that they exercise a general right to use coercive force. The professor noted that it was that right that made the police so valuable to society. The reality of all this however is that it is inevitable that the use of coercive force will give rise to situations of some stress and not infrequently to resentment. No doubt it was such reasons that gave rise to concern expressed at the time that police services were first introduced in the 19th century. 
Just looking back at the history of this matter I note that the first chairman of the authority Sir Peter Quilliam referred to reported complaints of excessive police force in 1841 and a public meeting was called to express concern. So there is nothing new in this issue. The whole concept of coercion involves compelling people to do what they do not want to do or preventing them from doing what they actually want to do. In such situations of course the police act as agents for the majority of the community whose wishes are expressed through constituted authority. There will be in many cases a very fine line between what conduct is acceptable and what is not and where there are divisions in the community itself this can pose difficulties for the police. So where people have been frustrated by the use of police compulsion there is bound to be a reaction. Where it is considered that the police were not justified in the action they took then there is likely to be a complaint from those affected. The types of complaints that have come before the existing authority are not only in respect of the use of compulsive force as we have seen. The use of inappropriate language or sometimes an unfortunate attitude is often the basis for complaints against the police. 
The traditional response to complaints about the police has of course been an internal investigation conducted by—members have guessed it—police officers. In countries with a similar background to ours members of the police have always been required to comply with a strict disciplinary code. That is certainly the case today. Where a complaint was received an inquiry was carried out by police officers and what was considered to be appropriate action was taken by the superiors of the officer or officers concerned. I think it is right to say that there is evidence to support the view that in some cases at least such investigations resulted in outcomes of some severity as far as individual police officers were concerned. Nevertheless it was obviously inevitable that such procedures would give rise to dissatisfaction where complainants took the view that police officers had not acted with independence in cases where members of the police service concerned were the subject of complaint. I think it is also right to say that there was also a concern on the part of more marginalised members of society that the making of a complaint might result in retaliatory action from members of the police. 
We saw in New Zealand a whole lot of events touching the police that I think looking back can be very much seen as the genesis of the principal Act. One of those events I would say would have been the Viet Nam War because the advent of that war and similar issues changed attitudes in respect of protest movements completely. For the first time so-called respectable members of society found themselves in direct opposition to the police and the police were placed in an extremely invidious situation. On the one hand they had the obligation to uphold the law as it stood. On the other hand they were confronted by members of society who considered on moral grounds that certain governmental activities were unacceptable. So in such a situation it was inevitable that major conflicts would occur and erosion of that confidence so essential to stability in a community occurred and accelerated. 
I think at that time—and I was a part of that time—that all of this was accompanied by a much greater readiness on the part of members of society to query previously accepted attitudes and standards. The demonstrations against the Springbok Tour in 1981 brought the changes in society and societal attitudes into sharp focus. At the same time similar conflicts were going on in the UK where there had been big changes in the make-up of society. The society of the United Kingdom had changed markedly as a result of the immigration that occurred after the Second World War and during the conversion of the old British Empire to the British Commonwealth. An example of that would have been the Brixton riots of 1981. 
Dianne Yates 
: I was there. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Right. The member will know if she was there that following those events Lord Scarman carried out an inquiry that was entrusted to him in two phases. The first thing he looked at was to see what the course of events was. He then looked to see what the underlying causes of that disorder were. He referred to a proposal in Canada where a bill had been introduced that would establish an independent system for dealing with complaints against the police. He was also aware that at the same time a bill had been introduced in Australia that made provision for investigation and establishment of a disciplinary tribunal by the Commonwealth Ombudsmen. 
Eventually a system was set up in England that involved the creation of an independent authority. So we had these models that led in due time to the setting up of the Police Complaints Authority which is the subject of this legislation. Tonight we are looking at an enhancement of the ability of that particular authority to carry out a raft of tasks in a setting that is incredibly important and pivotal in the maintenance of the institution of police and the stability of our society. 
 That is all I wish to say in connection with Part 1. In Part 2 I would like to deal with the challenge that Mr Fairbrother has thrown down and suggest a number of issues that I think would improve this legislation were the Government minded to do that. Now it may not be prepared to do so. These issues may have to await the next Government in September 2008; a Government of a quite different hue of a quite different philosophy and a Government much more committed to the welfare of New Zealand.