Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3670] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 As the spokesperson on justice for the National Party I tell members that National welcomes this bill and will speed its passage. It is obviously critical to the maintenance of an effective legal system that the police are competent are accountable for their actions and enjoy public confidence. That could be put in a line by saying that the fount of justice must not be sullied. I join with the comments made by the Minister in welcoming this bill. In respect of the bill I seek to make just three points.  
The first point is that it was a major decision arising out of the review to which the Minister has referred that the Police Complaints Authority should have an enhanced investigative capacity of its own independent of the police. For a few moments I just want to explore the case in support of that proposition. It is clear to me and to members of the National Party that it is time now for the authority to have such a capacity. Similar conclusions have been arrived at in England and in Australia and the literature makes it clear that such a conclusion has eventually been arrived at in just about every other jurisdiction where an authority of this kind has been set up. While it may seem to favour the concern of the complainant for independence there are also advantages for the police in the adopting of an independent investigative procedure. The police would no longer be subject to the same criticisms but more importantly they would be less likely to be affected by doubtful complaints brought by persons who are the subject of criminal proceedings for ulterior motives. They would also be relieved of that very uncomfortable obligation of investigating their colleagues.  
In New South Wales the audit report on the investigation of police complaints noted the importance of the recognition of links and patterns that identified serious shortcomings. I believe that the authority being independent and involved solely in matters of this kind is in the best possible position to identify such links or patterns and that is a strong argument for the authority to be involved in direct investigation itself. In addition there is a protection for so-called whistle-blowers. If members of the police were aware of undesirable practices occurring it would be difficult to deal with those through the ordinary police channels of authority. It would be much simpler to ensure that the necessary material was available to the authority which would be in a position to take any necessary action.  
There is also the question of police morale. It is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and a constant critic of the police that will have an effect on morale. But if on the other hand the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police—and they have that confidence at present—there should be no effect on morale. I would hope rather those members of the police who include the vast majority of persons in the service can feel confident that if there are undesirable activities occurring they will be dealt with and the standards of the service maintained.  
Concerns have been expressed in the past on behalf of both complainants and the police of delays in completing investigations. I think it has been acknowledged that such delays would generally seem to have been the responsibility of the investigating police officers rather than the authority. No doubt in some cases at least delays have occurred because the authority investigation was seen as having less immediate urgency than other work on which an officer was engaged. I argue that it would clearly be advantageous to both the police and complainants if that kind of delay could be avoided and on the whole it seems more likely to be avoided if the authority has in appropriate cases an investigative capacity. This will clearly be a significant issue for the Law and Order Committee to whom this bill is to be referred. That is the first issue that I would like to deal with.  
The second point is to invite Government members to consider an extension of this bill. I believe this new Police Complaints Authority could be expanded. In offering that view to members I wish to acknowledge the work that the Hon. Tony Ryall as a former Minister of Justice has done in that area. I support the innovative views that he has offered to me which I now offer to Parliament. He says—wisely in my view—that the Independent Police Complaints Authority could be expanded to deal with prison inmates’ complaints. The same arguments about the police investigating themselves apply equally to Department of Corrections staff investigating complaints against prison officers. Obviously there would be financial savings and other efficiencies in such an amalgamation. As we begin the debate this afternoon on this bill to establish the Independent Police Complaints Authority I believe we should be looking at the possibilities of extending the jurisdiction of that authority.  
The situation with the Department of Corrections is broadly this. Currently inmates’ complaints of mistreatment breaches of rights and illegality are dealt with by a five-person inspectorate in the Department of Corrections and a three-person team in the Office of the Ombudsmen. Last year the inspectorate—and I am talking about issues of complaint in the Department of Corrections—dealt with 2000 formal complaints and the Office of the Ombudsmen apparently dealt with a similar number. Very few complaints are upheld. Mr Ryall believes and I support his view that the investigative skills and processes of investigating police and inmates’ complaints are quite consistent. I hope that issue will be looked at by the Government and certainly by the Law and Order Committee to which submissions on the bill would be addressed.  
The third issue I would like to deal with concerns some of the machinery aspects in the bill. I do not know whether it is appropriate that this authority be entitled the “Independent Police Complaints Authority”. The Police Complaints Authority has always been independent—the police would accept that and so would the public. This change may just be another instance of the political correctness that so characterises every foot fault of this present Government. But it seems important for those politically correct reasons for this politically correct Government to change the name of the Police Complaints Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. National has no quarrel with the proposal to increase the authority’s membership to three persons but we do have a concern given the revamped jurisdiction and the additional powers that are to be given to the authority that the authority is properly resourced. It would be a tragedy if the Government for ideological reasons made a decision to starve this particular authority of sufficient resources to do its work and transferred the funding that should be available to it to other more questionable enterprises of which there are many.  
Finally I refer to the specific clauses dealing with particular issues. I note that there are three parts to the bill and that the legislation deals not only with issues of substance relating to the Independent Police Complaints Authority but also with a number of machinery issues. So questions of salaries and allowances staffing personnel policy and superannuation or retiring allowances are dealt with.  
It would not be fair to say that this change is long overdue. But it is right to pay tribute to the Hon Sir Rodney Gallen who in his review of the Police Complaints Authority has identified many of the issues that have been carried forward into this legislation. National supports the bill; we will speed its passage. We would like the Government to consider the proposal to expand the Independent Police Complaints Authority’s role in the way that I have described.