Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12871] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I appreciated the Minister taking a call to explain the issues as he sees them. Notwithstanding his explanation I am concerned. His speech really summarised the reasons why there is concern. Referring to the broad powers of the commission and its discretions and the desire not to fetter those discretions in using the information emphasises the very broad breach that has been made in what was a statutory assurance of confidentiality. 
The Minister properly referred to the terms of reference. He said they required the commission to report to the Government and to otherwise keep information confidential except for matters that come up in public hearing. But without something like this the Police Complaints Authority cannot look future informants in the eye and say: “Just look at the statute. There is a risk to you if you provide this information. You may be shunned you may lose your career and you may find that even worse happens to you. It could be physical violence in some environments by narking but don’t worry about it Parliament has said the information will be kept secret.” 
That is a very powerful assurance but this bill is a hole in it. That hole goes straight to a commission that has already announced that it will hold as much of its procedures as it can in public. This is a commission that knows that it has to restore faith in transparency to the public. It has to tell the public that there is no cover-up so the pressures for revealing some of the most sensitive information are here. The most sensitive data might indeed be who said what—not what was said but who said it. We do not want and cannot have the commission fettered in its ability to find the truth and report it. The amendment I have proposed expressly preserves that—that is the overriding requirement—but we can set up a requirement that also recognises that an assurance has been given here and that the very least intrusion on that assurance is all that can be justified. 
The bill states that this whole Act expires after 1 year so we could not draft into it something that said that a protection exists while these provisions are in force. We might have been able to say that the provisions would expire except for the provision that protects the data but what I have proposed is getting an undertaking from the commission. The terms of it are set out. The commission can provide it as a matter of routine to the authority. The commission itself is protected from the unfair pressure that might otherwise come on it to release information purely because that will look more transparent. It is the truth that must be released not necessarily the steps that are involved in getting there. 
This is an unusual situation where in a sense people have been given immunity in advance. The law has always found immunities difficult. When one co-offender has been given immunity there is always an outcry over the unfairness of it but that is often the only way we can get future co-offenders to give evidence. There is always a price. If an assurance is given to induce people to do something and the Government reneges on that assurance then the price we will pay is that in future they will not trust the Government. The amendment is saying we should make sure the commission has a priority that is equal to the priority the authority would put on protecting the people who have given it information. 
I appreciated being able to explore with the Minister’s officials their reasons for being concerned about this amendment. As a lawyer with some experience in law drafting I have to say that they sounded like “Sir Humphrey” explanations to me. They sounded as though they were dredging or scratching to find a reason to oppose this proposal because if I correctly recall they said firstly that it would involve one Government agency or statutorily appointed body telling another what to do.