Worth Richard: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12872] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Part 2 is quite a complicated part of this bill and it is not made any easier by the two amendments that members have been asked to consider at this Committee stage. I am not sure whether it will be suggested that both amendments can stand together but it seems to me that the complexity of the issue is such that they probably cannot and whether one of them is in order will no doubt be a matter that will be the subject of a ruling by you Mr Chairman. 
I am glad that the Minister in charge of the bill made the comments he did. They are fair as far as they go but I would make two observations. Firstly the first terms of reference he read out to us were those that are always contained in the charging of a commission to report on an issue and then really take it no further than that. The role of the commission is to report to the Governor-General the person who issued the warrant for the work to be done. The second point the Minister made is correct but it may not take the issue any further that the principles of natural justice would apply to the deliberations of the commission. It is well and good to say that but of course every commission tasked under New Zealand law to carry out an inquiry of this type is bound by those rules of natural justice. They are elements of public law that embrace the idea of a fair hearing and of decisions being given with reasons and of course the proposition that those who exercise the quasi-judicial function do so without fear or favour. 
There is a linkage between Part 1 and Part 2. It primarily arises from the definition in Part 1 “restricted matter”. I am sure it would be helpful to the deliberations of the Committee if the Minister would confirm National members’ understanding of what the implications of the definition of restricted matter in Part 1 are in relation to Part 2. As I understand that connection it is really no more complicated than this: a person who has been a complainant to the Police Complaints Authority and has provided sensitive information to the authority and does not consent to that material being used by the commission will have protection given to that information by dint of clause 6. 
I guess it would be possible for the legislation to stand as it does without having to pick up the amendments proposed by either ACT or United Future and that the issue might simply be left as a matter to be within the judgment of the commission. However I say with some reservations that Stephen Franks’ amendment has some merit because it does not leave it to the commission to exercise discretion about whether the interests of the police officers and others will be protected. It makes it clear on the face of the statute that that will be the consequence. I would say there is a case for making it clear in this instance because this is a most unusual set of circumstances. Police officers have taken a risk to provide information in times past to the authority. They have done that on the understanding and with the assurance against the background of a statutory undertaking that that information will not be disclosed to their prejudice. As this legislation is drafted at the moment it contains the possibility—I do not put it higher than that—that that trust may be broken. 
Mr Franks is right in identifying the considerable legal significance of what we are about with these amendments. If I were to be critical of his amendment—and it is not a quixotic criticism—it is just that I wonder whether the commission will have to reflect on whether in practice it would be workable. His amendment has two elements to it—that is it is in two parts. First of all there is an aspect of acknowledgment and an aspect of undertaking. Will there need to be separate acknowledgments and separate undertakings in respect of any issue of confidential information? There will have to be some consideration given to that issue.