Flavell Te Ururoa: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11541] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena korua ko te Minita. I just want to follow up on a few comments from our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples and speak to his amendment. The motivation for the amendment of course is to allow people to have a place to go to against a background of a lack of trust in police policy. That is the motivation to insert new clause 25A. It is quite important because some people have a theory as Dr Mapp has mentioned that there should be one law for all and that everything goes quite well when there is one law for all. But the truth and the reality is that it does not happen like that. 
As I have travelled around with the police our people have talked anecdotally to me about the issues that have happened in Rotorua. I talk with not only Maori people in the community but also Maori people within the police. They talk about institutional racism as being part of the police service. 
The report that Dr Sharples alluded to  
Maori Perceptions of the Police 
 reports the perception of Maori that “the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police should Maori bring a complaint against the institution or individuals within it.” Indeed even within the Minister Mark Burton’s own Government the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff when releasing the review of the Police Complaints Authority said: “There is a strong public view that police investigation of complaints against themselves is neither independent or appropriate” and that “it is critical that there is full public confidence that such investigations are independent.” This is the reasoning behind the amendment. The amendment is to establish an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency so that people have a place to go after an investigation of a particular incident. 
There has probably never been a more relevant time to consider the role of a Police Complaints Authority than in the wake of the investigation of the death of Steven Wallace who as most of us know was shot by police in Waitara in April 2000. Steven Wallace’s death made a total of 18 people—as Dr Sharples alluded to they were mostly Maori—who had been shot by police since 1941. No police officer has been found culpable for any of these killings but questions remain about the circumstances and huge questions remain about the background to some of those incidents. In the Steven Wallace case the Police Complaints Authority found that the police officers involved were justified in drawing firearms even though Steven Wallace was engaged in nothing more than smashing windows. It found that the use of firearms was justified because the riot batons and pepper spray of three officers were allegedly inadequate to disarm one drunken man with a baseball bat. 
The heart of the problem is that public perception—well at least Maori perception; I talk from the Maori perspective because that has come through loud and clear—is that the Police Complaints Authority has relied a bit too much on police officers for its investigatory capacity. There is a lingering suspicion about the police investigating complaints about their colleagues. The proposed amendment at least provides some opportunity for people to go to some place as I say when all else has failed. 
The other question that some members have been raising is in respect of the training of police officers. I thought I would put a question to Mr Chester Borrows about the training of officers at Porirua and ask how many weeks a training course goes for. 
Chester Borrows 
: About 26 weeks. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: It is for about 26 weeks. So the assumption is that if we train those police officers really well in 26 weeks then they will be able to handle cultural aspects of dealing with Maori relatively easily. 
Chester Borrows 
: We open their minds. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Well that might be all very well but that is about all that will be open because the practical reality is that if people are able to get into the police force at about 18 years of age—or maybe at 20 or 21—then they have a life experience to deal with first before they even get into their training. All of that training is not going to be about dealing with cultural matters. 
In fact—and Mr Borrows might be interested in this—I visited one intake the Mita Mohi wing earlier this year. Mita Mohi is well known in circles back in my area. Of the intake of around 80 people three were Maori. So what are the chances of us getting officers who will be culturally safe? This is not to say that one can necessarily be safe in the police ranks but officers should at least be able to deal with some situations around Maori people. 
Some have talked about iwi liaison officers. Mr Mark talked about iwi liaison officers as did Russell Fairbrother. Sure iwi liaison officers do a fantastic job in terms of keeping liaison with the Maori communities and that is acknowledged by all of us. But we cannot put everything to do with Maori communities on to them. It is not just about iwi liaison officers and it is not just about the cultural component of police training. It is about trying to provide a net if you like that allows people to go to a place should all things turn to mush in particular in investigating issues around the notion of one law for all. 
My colleague Metiria Turei spoke up for us in saying that Mr Mapp’s view about one law for all is all very nice but let us not forget that not long ago there was a law to allow Maori to have access to the courts of this land to test the issue of customary ownership over the seabed and foreshore of this country. Not long after because the ability to do that was so disdainful to this Government the law was changed. To whose detriment? It was to the detriment of those people who could not even test the customary ownership. 
It is all very well to talk about one law for all I say to Dr Mapp but let us put it in perspective. Laws are easily changed and in a sense the fact that the Maori Party is in this House is about trying to ensure that a Maori house is represented within this institution—albeit with four members but the time will come when that might well change. Let us not forget that that is a part of the whole notion of Treaty responsibilities. 
Therefore we ask that all parties consider again the amendments to clause 25A. We believe it is appropriate that an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency is one place to go to to allow people at least to seek some way of redress against the background I indicated earlier should the Police Complaints Authority decisions and outcomes remain to be tested. That is the contention from the Maori Party and I hope that people give it further consideration.