Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12746] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition will support the progress of the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill. 
It is useful to remind the House about the rather despicable way in which this bill made its way into this Chamber. Most members of the Opposition did not have an opportunity to read the bill until the Acting Minister herself the Hon Margaret Wilson had started speaking in the debate and that in itself was an outrage. However through the processes of the Law and Order Committee the Opposition parties have been able constructively to address the issues raised in this bill and we have prevailed in the sense that a number of very sensible amendments have been made to it. 
The bill should be read in conjunction with the terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. The key point that members on the select committee belaboured for some time was the lifting of the veil of secrecy across the evidence or statements given to the Police Complaints Authority by police officers during the conduct of an investigation by the authority. The concern raised by a number of submitters was that police officers gave their evidence and comments to the authority on the understanding that that information would not be made public or ever used against them in a court of law other than for a matter of perjury. But these are extraordinary circumstances and the National Party will support the lifting of that veil in these limited cases. 
It was put to the select committee that we should provide amendments for the automatic suppression of that information given 
to the commission. We reject those submissions because we think it is fundamental to the restoration of public confidence in not only the authority but—more important—the New Zealand Police that the commission and Parliament should be beyond any accusation that we sought to limit the availability of information for the consideration of complaints before the commission. 
For those who are concerned about the evidence that was given to the Police Complaints Authority during an investigation we received numerous assurances from counsel and from advisers to the committee that the privileges and protections that attach to that evidence being used against anyone in court other than for a matter of perjury do continue to flow through to the commission of inquiry. There is no likelihood that that evidence can be used against any officer other than in a case of perjury. We think that is an important protection. 
We have also noted in the report back to the House that we believe it is the responsibility of the commission to determine what information is suppressed publicly. There are good reasons why the commission may decide to suppress some information or the names attached to some information. Recently in the District Court at Whakatane five police officers were subject to a private prosecution on what I think were quite spurious and vexatious grounds. During the hearing the judge suppressed the names of all officers involved. The reason for that was clear: in this country now police officers suffer guilt by association and the mere mention of their names in a prosecution or in association with this commission will lead some New Zealanders to believe that guilt has been established when nothing could be further from the truth. So it is important that the commission has the ability as provided for under legislation to suppress information names and details if it is appropriate. I am certain that the commission will adopt a responsible attitude because I do not want a situation where the mere mention of a police officer’s name in passing during the commission of inquiry’s term leads to the media or New Zealanders drawing some conclusion that the officer has undertaken something that was illegal or wrong. 
So the National Party Opposition will be working to facilitate the passing of this bill during the Committee stage. We know that it is a very serious thing that Parliament is doing but we believe that the circumstances warrant this action. We note that the commission of inquiry headed by a High Court judge and a former senior public servant will have the power to suppress information as it sees fit. We are certain that it will take a responsible attitude in that respect in order to achieve what Parliament wants to achieve which is the restoration and improvement of public confidence in the New Zealand Police.