Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12864] 
Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In respect of Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” the purpose of the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill is to facilitate the flow of information from the Police Complaints Authority to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct in order to assist the commission to undertake its inquiries. Evidence given to the Police Complaints Authority is subject to a general privilege in that no prosecution may be taken as a result of that information confidentiality is assured and the only exception is in the case of perjury. 
In order for the commission to fulfil the requirements of its terms of reference the Government has brought forward this legislation to lift the veil surrounding the authority and provide for that information to be made available to the commission. A number of changes were made to the bill by the Law and Order Committee and in particular to the definition of a “restricted matter” in clause 4 “Interpretation”. The change of most note which comes as a result of a point made by the Police Managers Guild is that if the commission of inquiry is to look at how the police undertook investigations in respect of certain incidents those investigations should be seen within the context of the instructions the investigating police received from the Police Complaints Authority. Without information as to the context in which investigations were conducted it is possible that conclusions could be drawn by the commission that could be perceived differently in light of the instructions. 
The bill as introduced proposed that there would be a blanket suppression with no transference of any document generated by the authority or any of its staff. That would have limited the ability of the commission to receive the information that would enable it to use that information. So that change has been made in the bill. The definition of a “restricted matter” was also changed to clarify that term to readers because there was some confusion that restricted matters may be limited to complaints made to the authority rather than any correspondence generated by the authority. So those changes have been made. The inclusion of an instruction communication will be vital so that the commission can consider those matters. This question is being taken as one subject and during the debate members of the National Opposition will want to cover a number of issues and we look forward to taking a number of calls. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill may be only barely four pages but it is a very important bill. To give some indication of that I point out that the various notes and suchlike of an explanatory nature go to 12 pages. A considerable degree of interest in this legislation is evidenced. 
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Police Complaints Authority Act of 1988 to allow the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct established by the Governor-General on 16 February 2004 to fulfil its terms of reference—to inquire into the adequacy of any investigations carried out by the police on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority. So members and anyone else who is interested now know just what it is members are talking about. 
Normally one would not support legislation that breaches the privacy of people who engaged in police investigations—investigations not only last year but also many many years ago. Those people may have made statements and suchlike in circumstances where they felt their views would be privileged and protected. But this issue has caused a great deal of public interest and raises some questions about the credibility of our police force. New Zealand First has the highest regard for the police force. We want to make sure that as much information as is reasonably possible is made available to the inquiry. 
I am pleased that the Law and Order Committee which heard submissions on this matter and heard them extremely promptly and quickly returned the bill to this House with amendments that make the bill much better. New Zealand First does not want to see a situation develop where people start complaining about the inquiry that is taking place because not enough evidence was made available to it—that people complain that such evidence was available but was not provided. We do not want to see yet another inquiry into an inquiry. We want to try to bring this matter to an end in the best possible way and in the total public interest. So we have decided to support this legislation somewhat reluctantly. Hopefully it will only ever be a one-off. 
It is also important to note that in Part 1 clause 5 is a sunset clause. This unusual Act of Parliament unusually will expire “at the close of the day that is 1 year after the date on which the Commission finally reports to the Governor-General.” That is also a very important provision. So we will support the Committee consideration and will make various comments from time to time about it. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker will take a call in respect of Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” of the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct Amendment Bill because there are issues that might be helpfully explained by him. 
I think a good starting point for consideration of Part 1 is the comments the Attorney-General made when she indicated that the bill would be introduced. She said—and I summarise what she said—that investigation files held by the Police Complaints Authority are currently subject to blanket secrecy provisions and those files are likely to include information gathered by police conducting investigations on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority. She went on to say that the provisions are designed to help the authority obtain frank information from police and members of the public during its investigations—information that may be self-incriminating personally embarrassing or feared to invite retribution and may therefore be withheld if confidentiality were not assured. 
It is obviously important that the commission be able to operate without its activities being hampered in any undue way. But there are significant policy and jurisprudence perspectives that need at least to be considered as members of the Committee look at the provisions of Part 1. That critical element of confidentiality was very much part of this Police Complaints Authority legislation when it was set up to enable the fair free and frank disclosure and exchange of information. 
The New Zealand police force stacks up as one of the least corrupt in the world. In the latest survey that I am aware of which looked at 195 countries New Zealand was rated amongst the three least corrupt. Now we find that the police investigation system is very much in the news as a result of allegations of a 1986 pack rape by police of a Rotorua teenager and a subsequent cover-up of her complaints. I guess it is fair to say that some aspects that touch on the integrity of the police are very much under the closest scrutiny. I understand that in respect of complaints made about the police about 40 percent are made to the police and 60 percent go directly to the authority. Last financial year the authority received about 2800 complaints and accepted about 2300 for investigation. That is about 50 cases a week for the authority head to sift through. Apparently about 15 percent of the allegations are upheld. 
I am concerned by a number of aspects of this bill. Although National will support the bill it will look critically at the proposed amendments that have been advanced by Mr Franks and by the representative from United Future. We need to consider very carefully what the implications of those amendments may be. But I would like to deal now—in this and in subsequent calls—with the definition of “restricted matter” which has undergone some change as a result of the deliberations of the Law and Order Committee. Those changes were highlighted—and very accurately so I thought—by the comments made by the Hon Tony Ryall who preceded me in this debate and whose commitment to law and order is certainly well known and very much appreciated by members on both sides. The issue is what is a restricted matter. The bill provides that restricted matters are still subject to the secrecy obligation. The term is defined in the bill as meaning: “… any document information or communication produced by or as the case requires made by a person holding office as …” the Police Complaints Authority or in effect a staff member. Also included in the definition are communications by any person to the authority. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this bill. It is always such a nice change when we can rise in support of a Government bill. I will deal with Part 1 in relation to the commission of inquiry. 
To follow on from Mr Worth who has just spoken corruption in the New Zealand police force is fortunately not a common occurrence. However in the last few years the police have come under increasing scrutiny—certainly as I recall from the time when the shooting in Waitara caused the Prime Minister to make all sorts of allegations about the police. From that day forth we have had a lowering of public confidence in the police. That is a dreadful shame. 
One of the problems is that the Police Complaints Authority has not been seen as having all the powers it needs. We in the National Party are very keen to see the process of looking at police complaints and at the actions of the police become far more robust and be seen as such. 
One comment I have had from police officers is that over the last few years there has been a drop in some standards in the police. It is certainly something they have noticed. That is so important to this bill because it affects police morale. A lowering in police morale can unfortunately sometimes lead to a lowering in standards generally and a lowering in the ability of the police to always deal with issues in a sensitive and careful way. Certainly having spoken to many police about this I have learnt that they find that whereas some years ago a reprimand to a young person would be treated with respect and taken very seriously in today’s world that sort of reprimand and initial action is often ignored. They find themselves hidebound by all sorts of politically correct regulations and rules that really do not stop one piece of crime. 
The police in my electorate Clevedon—which includes Papakura at one end and goes up to the Howick police station at the top end—seem to me to be doing as great a job as they possibly can. They have many many challenges and for them to know that the Police Complaints Authority can be trusted as an independent and robust body is extremely important. Being a police officer in today’s world is not an easy job. Fortunately in New Zealand it is a lot easier than in certain other countries. One reason is that the police become members of the police force for I find the very right reasons—that is to uphold the law of New Zealand to show respect for the people of New Zealand and to be good citizens of New Zealand themselves. 
National is very pleased to support this change so that a more robust process can be in place should there be complaints against the police—as no doubt from time to time there will be. We accept however that there is the odd rogue element in the police force as in any organisation. I am pleased to say that over the years I have noticed the police are often the first to deal with any such rogue elements and to bring them into the open. The police care about their reputation and so should we in Parliament. One of our jobs is to uphold the authority and morale of the police and certainly to make sure they are as much as possible free from corruption. We should do whatever we can to make sure their work is valued in the community. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 1 is primarily made up of definitions and when the Minister referred the bill to this Committee he sought to debate it as if it were all one part. I am not trying to go behind that but the definitions do set the scene for the principal issue that I think has troubled the select committee and Parliament. We have here what is potentially a very bad precedent. The bill recognises that people provide information on the assurance that it will be received and held in confidence. 
 In the circumstances it could be people who have very nervously approached the Police Complaints Authority. They may have thought very long and hard before they did it. They may have been in a situation of great exposure and might suffer greatly if it were found that they had—to use the jargon term—narked. But the definition of “restricted matter” in clause 4 is very broad and it sets the scene for what is essentially a complete legislative hole in the statutory assurance that has been given. 
I emphasise the breadth of the definitions because the bill simply states that the only protection those people who have provided the information that is contained in the restricted matter have against being exposed is to rely on the best judgment of the commission. Of course the commission will be subject to very intense media scrutiny and there is the potential for some quite unreasonable rhetoric. The commission will be struggling to achieve its objective of reassuring the New Zealand public that there is no cover-up and in doing that it will be faced with calls for the disclosure of material that may prejudice the people who relied on the assurance of confidentiality in the Police Complaints Authority Act. 
It is interesting when looking at the definition for drafting purposes that “restricted matter” is actually defined to mean “any document information or communication”. But where it is used in clause 6 the word “matter” is awkward. To be read properly it almost needs to have been put out in extenso. I am not concerned about the part that we are debating but I urge members to consider it carefully at this stage because when it is made operative in Part 2 that part has the potential to seriously damage the reputation of the New Zealand Government. 
This is not a political matter. It is simply an issue because we all of whatever party have a stake in the integrity of Government assurances. They must be seen as reliable in this country. When people have been assured by statute of confidentiality we should lean over backwards to make sure we show that it is not done lightly when that confidentiality is unilaterally and retrospectively stripped. We need to show that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimise any damage and that we are not simply saying “trust us” because the people who have provided this information have already trusted us. They have already taken a Government assurance when they provided the information. It is unreasonable to then breach it and tell them not to worry because the next person who receives the information will take care that it is not released or the confidence breached. 
Accordingly I take the opportunity in Part 1 to draw attention to the framework of this because the definition there is so broad and the import of it when it is used in Part 2 is so serious in principle that the bill needs an amendment to make sure that the combined effect of Part 1 and Part 2 does not mean the Government is seen as renegeing lightly and not even bothering to take simple steps it could take to minimise the downside or even the life-threatening damage that might follow. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill. I have been in my office listening to this debate with some interest in particular on Part 1. It appears to me that this is a complex and difficult issue. As a member of the Law and Order Committee who has tried to formulate sensible legislation I found this issue had a degree of complexity that was difficult to draw a clear conclusion on. On the one hand I was concerned about the issue of public confidence in the police and on the other hand I was concerned about a cast-iron guarantee of secrecy for those who provide information to the authority. This is an issue that I think is extremely vexed. 
A precedent is being established here and it is one that I do not feel particularly comfortable with but I also find it difficult to deal with this issue without thinking about the broader issue. That is of course about restoring public confidence in our police force. I am somewhat mollified by the sunset clause—which we will come to in Part 2—which essentially allows the bill to have a duration of only 1 year. That is something I am a little bit more relaxed about. As this debate progresses I would like to take a call on that to discuss it in more detail. But my major concern is that the secrecy provisions were invoked to encourage people to come forward to provide information to the authorities and in this particular instance so that people could come forward to the commission so the commission would get a very clear view of what the true issues are. The threat now exists that those who were prepared to come forward might not because they no longer have secrecy guaranteed and those information channels might dry up. As I have said that is why this is a complex issue. 
On balance the serious allegations that have been brought against senior members of our police force are something that I feel we have to get to the bottom of if we are going to restore confidence in our police force. That I believe has left members of the select committee with very little choice as to how they will proceed with this legislation. That conclusion means that the National Party is left with very little choice but to support this legislation but with some reservation. I want to make it clear that there is a distinction between secrecy and privileged information or incriminating oneself. When the Police Managers Guild came to the select committee it made this issue clear. It suggested an “avoidance of doubt” clause which I also want to speak about later in this debate. 
All submitters supported the bill although like many people on the select committee they had some reservations regarding the way it should be constructed. The Police Association raised concerns with regard to secrecy as well and suggested desensitising some of the information so that the secrecy of individuals could be maintained. The select committee wrestled with this for some time and on balance felt it could not support this. The aggregation of this material meant it would make it harder for the commission to do its job. Time was an issue as well. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Disclosure to Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am in a little bit of a quandary because I understood that there were to be two amendments moved on this part but now I understand that there is only one. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes there are two amendments on Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes just to clarify it that is correct. There are two. 
DAIL JONES 
: But I have just heard that the amendment in the name of the United Future member is to be withdrawn. So I am asking at this stage whether United Future will take a call on that amendment and explain it to us because if it is withdrawn my speech will change. I will sit down at this stage and await a call from United Future and see what it has to say so that I know what I am talking about in support of either amendment. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I congratulate the member. I think it is the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest that we should do that. 
Dail Jones 
: I think it’s called common sense. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. Part 2 deals with the disclosure to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct of certain levels of information. There are two important amendments currently on the Table. Mr Jones has indicated that one may in fact be removed. The concern those amendments reflect is that when an allegation is made against somebody and is investigated and that investigation is revealed along with the person’s name in the current environment there are some people who will assume that there is guilt associated with the release of that name. 
In the Whakatane District Court earlier this year and late last year five police officers were subject to private prosecution by an individual. The judge suppressed the names of the five people who were accused by that individual. The reason for doing that was clear. The simple fact that those five officers’ names could have been published in connection with a court case would have encouraged some members of the public to draw conclusions as to their guilt or involvement in wrongdoing and such conclusions would be quite wrong. I now understand that that case has been thrown out by the judge. 
The two amendments before the House—particularly the amendment in the name of Stephen Franks—seek to address the concern that was raised in the Law and Order Committee about the nature of the information that was given to the Police Complaints Authority. That information was given by police officers under a set of confidentiality and privacy conditions and assurances in legislation that that information would be kept suppressed or secret and could not be used against those persons in any court of law unless in a matter of perjury. So the issue is how we convey Parliament’s concern to the commission. Mr Franks’ amendment—and no doubt that of Mr Alexander—is designed to do that. 
It was clear in the advice to the select committee that the evidence and material that is tabled in the commission of inquiry has the same privilege attached to it that any statements or documents have in a court of law—that is it prevents people being prosecuted and incriminating themselves in that environment and it gives the presiding officers the opportunity to suppress that information as they see appropriate. That is a very important tool for the commission to have. We do not want a situation whereby the mere fact that someone’s name is mentioned in the commission of inquiry means that people assume there is a level of guilt culpability or association that there is not. 
I would like the Minister in the chair Rick Barker to take a call and explain to the Committee how members of the Opposition can have confidence and an assurance at some level that those people who gave information on a confidential basis to the Police Complaints Authority can be assured that their names will not come into any public arena of the commission of inquiry and attract any undue public odium or scepticism. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I want to add to the good quality contribution made by Mr Ryall. I have not been directly involved with this legislation but I have read the select committee’s commentary very carefully. I find it to be a very good commentary. 
Before going on to that I will start with a couple of comments from the terms of reference to the commission of inquiry which are very pertinent to the issue. The commission of inquiry’s terms of reference state in the words of the Governor-General: “And you are strictly charged and directed that you may not at any time publish or otherwise disclose except to me in pursuance of this order or by my direction the contents or purport of any report so made or to be made by you or any evidence or information obtained by you in exercise of the powers conferred upon you except such evidence or information as is received in the course of a sitting open to the public:”. So the Governor-General’s requirement of the commission is to maintain its confidentiality.  
There are several other things that need to be clear about this. The commission of inquiry has the same authority to hear in private as a High Court. As the commission of inquiry is led by a High Court judge it has the powers of a High Court and the authority of the Judicature Act. It has widespread powers and there is an overwhelming concern within the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry that the confidentiality of people is to be protected. We have faith in the people on that commission.  
The second point I wish to make is in the report of the select committee which I thought was very good. It states quite clearly: “The Commission is still bound by the principles of natural justice in considering evidence placed before it. Any person who provides information to the Authority will have protections and that information cannot subsequently be used against them in any proceedings”. So there are natural justice provisions in the bill.  
The second issue raised in the select committee report approaches the issue raised in the United Future amendment about the suppression of information. The amendment tabled by the United Future MP seeks to have all the information concealed from the start and to be revealed only when the commission says so. Now the commission has the presumption of openness unless it states that it should not. The select committee considered the matter very carefully and in its report it states: “We consider that legislated automatic suppression of information obtained may open up the Commission and Parliament to criticism as it could be seen as compelling the Commission to operate in secrecy. We also consider that the Commission itself is best placed to make the decisions on whether or not to suppress information.”  
So there is an issue here of public confidence in the commission of inquiry. Mr Ryall noted that very clearly in his presentation saying that the public has to have confidence in the commission of inquiry which has to be seen to be open in its dealings. If the presumption is towards secrecy in our view and in the committee’s view that seems to be the wrong message to be giving the public. But the terms of reference are to treat that information very very carefully.  
There are a couple of issues in the point made by Mr Franks. There are two statutory authorities--the Police Complaints Authority and the commission of inquiry. The first reason for some disquiet about Mr Franks’ amendment is that Parliament itself should not be indicating to one statutory authority how to deal with the other. We believe that the commission of inquiry has a very clear mandate from the Governor-General about how it is to treat the information who it is to report to and the way the information is to be reported. That should not be subject to any other advice by the Police Complaints Authority.  
The purpose of the bill is quite simple. It is to give the commission of inquiry access to information held by the Police Complaints Authority. Without access to that information the commission of inquiry cannot function properly and the public would have no confidence in it. Having got the information there is adequate guidance to the commission of inquiry in the terms of reference given by the Governor-General as to how it is to handle that information. 
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. 
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. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have just a very brief comment about the two amendments. When I first saw the United Future amendment I thought it would be sufficient. I believe that it was probably done even more quickly than mine was—and indeed mine was done quickly—to address the same sorts of concerns that I had by restricting or prohibiting publication without express consent. I think the difficulties are essentially practical. The United Future amendment states “express consent” which would require anyone who is publishing at any time to go back and get that consent. However the commission will not be sitting shortly after it reports so there will not be someone to get the express consent from. I do not think United Future intended that there be a prohibition on publication forever afterwards. So although I support the sentiment in the amendment and I think it nearly got there I cannot vote for it. Like my amendment United Future’s amendment may not have the most felicitous drafting. In that case I think there would be an unintended gag which we should not legislate for. 
Also there is a gap in the second limb of the United Future amendment in relation to books pamphlets and oral statements. That might flow from having picked up a precedent. It would leave us open to the accusation that Parliament had allowed loopholes that perhaps we should have foreseen. So for that reason while I support the United Future amendment in sentiment I urge the alternative approach be adopted of leaving it to the commission but obliging the commission to assure the authority it will give the highest priority to confidentiality. That is a better way of achieving in practice the objective that I hope this Committee will adopt. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support Stephen Franks’ amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 because I think it does take us further down the track of what other speakers have talked about in terms of keeping confidential the identify of those who have provided information to the Police Complaints Authority. It does not mean that the Police Complaints Authority would bind the commission in any way. The commission would still be in charge of its destiny under new subsection (2B) to be inserted in section 32 of the principal Act by that Supplementary Order Paper. But the amendment does put a lot of pressure on the commission in terms of the acknowledgment of the undertaking to keep information confidential and it does allow confidentiality to be waived if there is informed consent by any person. But we do want to have a proper Police Complaints Authority. We want police officers or citizens to give the appropriate information and complaints to the authority and not be restrained by their names being given out and the consequences ensuing from making such complaints being bad for them. The Green Party supports this amendment. It has the best of both worlds: ensuring confidentiality and not restraining the commission in any formal sense. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 We have had a very good discussion so far and it is very interesting to see that there is no disagreement on the purpose of the bill. There is no disagreement on the need to maintain the confidentiality of the information and to maintain the integrity of the Police Complaints Authority. Similarly there is no disagreement that there needs to be public confidence in the commission of inquiry. We agree on all those things and that is quite remarkable in Parliament. What we have a slight disagreement about is simply the issue of style.Members want to be assured that when the commission of inquiry gets the information from the Police Complaints Authority the public can be assured today and in the future that the information they give to the Police Complaints Authority in confidence will remain in confidence. The Law and Order Committee has been very helpful in that respect. It has made changes to the definition to ensure that when the bill refers to police officers it refers to police officers who help the commission rather than to police officers in general. I think the select committee has done a very good job. 
The issue then is where we move to from here. We have two amendments on the floor. It seems to me that Parliament is reaching a consensus around the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Mr Stephen Franks. It enables the commission of inquiry to go about its business but provides that when the commission of inquiry gets information from the Police Complaints Authority it does so understanding the nature of that information. It seems the Committee is generally agreed that that amendment will offer confidence to the public—to those who make submissions to the Police Complaints Authority in the future—that their advice will be treated confidentially. I think there has been very good work by the Committee of the whole House. The matter will be dealt with very speedily and I am sure the public will be very reassured. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
United Future 8. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.