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:12865] 
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.