Newman Muriel: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Newman Muriel: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12104] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on the introduction of the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill. I add our party’s voice to the complaints that have been raised in this debate about the shambles of the Government’s introduction of this bill. This is the sort of bill that the public of New Zealand expects a Government to have talked to other parties about. It is not a bill that parties vote for on political lines. It is one of those rare bills—I might add—that all parties usually agree on because it is in the best interests of the country that we agree on some parts of our law. But this Government did not even have the courtesy to inform Opposition members that the bill was coming or provide us with an advance copy. In fact I picked up my copy when the Acting Minister of Justice stood up to make her speech. That is a total disgrace. 
One of the things that Parliament operates on is goodwill between parties. We see it at the Business Committee every week where all parties agree on how the business of the House will be conducted. In general we do see that goodwill on bills like this. I would like to find out whether that situation was because the Minister’s office is in a complete shambles. I see that the bill is under the name of the Hon Phil Goff although the Hon Margaret Wilson moved the motion so I do not quite know which Minister is responsible. 
 The other point is that we have just heard from United Future and although the member did not spell it out it sounds to me as though United Future was given an advance copy of this bill. So why on earth was this bill introduced under urgency? Why was it not given the normal period of 3 sitting days to lie on the Table so that the parties have a chance to look at the bill take it back to their caucuses seek advice on it and come to this House and debate the real issues in an informed manner? This bill is one of the worst examples of disorganisation by the Labour Government in my time here while Labour has been in power. 
I share the disappointment expressed by other members. When we see such a shambles going on either we have to realise there is a shambles—in other words the Government is not governing properly because it is too disorganised—or we have to be sceptical about its motives in including this bill in the urgency motion and avoiding giving it to members until the debate had started. That is the real worry and I stand here right now not knowing the answer. Is it because the Government is in a shambles or is it because for some reason or other it wants to ambush the Opposition parties? I do not know the answer and it is a real shame for New Zealand when a bill like this has to be questioned in such a way. 
This bill has been drafted because of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct with regard to sexual assault cases. The bill will allow the commission to have access to files that are held by the Police Complaints Authority. This is actually a really profound piece of legislation because all those people who gave evidence to the authority would have done so knowing that their confidentiality was absolutely assured. It was like their evidence would be taken from them and put in a steel box which would be locked with a big key and buried in the ground somewhere and the key would be thrown away. That is how people have viewed the Police Complaints Authority. They have known that the information cannot be used against them that the information can never find its way out into the public arena. That has been one of the success stories of the Police Complaints Authority—the fact that confidentiality has been assured. We now have a bill that is going to dig up all those metal boxes that are buried in the ground. It will marry up all the keys that everyone thought had been thrown away and will open up those files and make them available to a new commission of inquiry. 
Because we have not had a chance to vet the bill thoroughly and understand its intention—certainly our party was not briefed on it—we do not know where else that information will go. Who else will find out what is going on or what people have said in the past? That information until now has been locked away in a confidential manner by the Police Complaints Authority. This is another example where people out there listening to this debate may be worried about the police worried about the Government and worried about things like assurances of confidentiality and we as members of Parliament cannot tell them exactly what is going to be involved in this case. So the bill undermines not only the Government and its intentions but the police as well. Why would people comply with requests made to them when they can say they will not give evidence? Why would they comply if the people who tell them that any evidence would be kept secret and confidential are later seen to break their word? 
That is the problem with retrospective legislation which is what we have now. We have a bill that is overturning assurances that have been made to the people of New Zealand over the years. The ACT party does not believe that retrospective law is good law and in general we do not support retrospective legislation. But in this case given the nature of the inquiry that is going on given the nature of the concerns about the allegations that were swirling around the police we think it is only right that we cooperate in the manner that is possible so that we can try to put all of this behind us and restore confidence in the police. So our party will not vote against this law now even though given the treatment we have received we are tempted to do so. I just remind the Government that goodwill is a two-way street in this Parliament—in fact in life in general. We will not vote against the bill going to a select committee because we do want to hear the advice of the officials we want to hear the advice of the police and we want to hear the evidence given to the select committee by the public. 
We are very concerned that the actual period of time that this bill is open for submissions is very very tight. It is just over a month and as everyone here knows by the time it is advertised and the people who need to know find out that this bill is before the select committee we will probably find that the cut-off date has already arrived and many people will be denied their opportunity to have a say on something that could affect their whole life. We are talking about serious matters and about people who had been assured of confidentiality. 
I finish by saying that first of all we will support the referral of the bill to the select committee but we do expect the Government to do better. This process is simply disgraceful and shameful. It is an arrogance from this Government that it expects goodwill on a very very serious matter and does not treat members opposite with the respect they deserve.