Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration, with a report-back date of not later than 3 May 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

The commission of inquiry into police conduct has been given the task of inquiring into the adequacy of investigations carried out by the police on behalf of the authority, with regard to complaints alleging sexual assault by members of the police and their associates. An urgent legislative amendment is required to the Police Complaints Authority Act to allow the commission to fulfil its terms of reference.

Investigation files held by the Police Complaints Authority are currently subject to blanket secrecy provisions. This is likely to include information gathered by police conducting investigations on the authority’s behalf. These secrecy provisions in the Act exist for good reason and must be retained. They allow the authority to obtain frank information from members of the public and the police during its investigations. Information that might be self-incriminating, personally embarrassing, or be feared to invite retribution might therefore be withheld if confidentiality was not assured. However, it is the view of the Government, the police, and the commission of inquiry itself that the commission’s task will be hampered by its inability to consider authority files. It is vital for public confidence in the commission, the police, and the authority, that this impediment be removed.

The extent to which the Police Complaints Authority Act secrecy provisions may hinder the commission is to be the subject of a hearing on 8 April. However, the Government has decided to introduce this bill ahead of this hearing in order to provide an assurance to the public that the commission will be able to carry out its mandate in full. It is also important to prevent any possible delays in the inquiry—delays that would not be fair to the complainants who need to see these matters concluded as quickly as is reasonable. This bill, therefore, provides an exception to the secrecy provisions to enable certain types of information to be disclosed to the commission. The public will be able to consider this bill through a select committee process, including any potential privacy concerns. Necessity dictates that the select committee period be truncated to allow the commission access to this information as soon as possible. As I have already said, it is important to avoid possible delays in the inquiry. The privacy interests of the individuals, police officers, members of the public, including complainants in cases of alleged sexual offending, who have provided information must be taken into account.

Commissions of inquiry have the same powers as are available to courts to protect witnesses. These powers may be able to be exercised to address the privacy interests of individuals. The bill will be limited in scope to allow for evidence to be provided only for the current commission of inquiry into police conduct. It will not apply to any future commissions of inquiry. The bill will come into force on the day after it receives the royal assent, and expire 1 year after the commission finally reports to the Governor-General. The expiry date will cover any possibility that further material is required for any subsequent proceeding, such as a redirection from the Government back to the commission.

Part 2 sets out the exception to the secrecy provisions to allow the authority to disclose any matter other than a restricted matter, to comply with the direction from the commission. A member of the police who was involved in investigating a complaint is also able to disclose any matter other than the restricted matter in evidence before the commission. The existing prohibition on the authority and any staff member from appearing in any proceedings of a judicial nature remains. In conclusion, the objective of this bill is to amend certain provisions of the Police Complaints Authority Act to ensure they do not prevent the current commission of inquiry from gaining access to information needed to carry out its functions. It is vital there is public confidence in the commission, the authority, and the police. This legislation assists in achieving that. I commend this bill to the House.

Before I address the quite serious substance of the bill, I would advise that the Opposition parties are disappointed that the Government did not see fit to brief us on the contents of the bill with sufficient notice. The National Party received a briefing that was emailed to our senior whip late afternoon and forwarded to us. At 20 minutes to 8 tonight we still had not actually sighted the bill the Government proposed. It was only when our junior whip approached the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen, that we were given the generosity of an advance copy of this bill.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: You never did that when you were in Government, I suppose.

I have to observe that on a bill of this import such a courtesy would have been extended to the Opposition because the Government would have wanted to have multiparty support, and it is important for multiparty support that the parties feel as though they were appropriately briefed. Don McKinnon was quite clear that bills of such import should be given in advance to the Opposition. So I comment on that disappointment.

We believe it is vital that this bill be referred to a select committee. The bill makes substantial changes to the nature in which evidence is given to the Police Complaints Authority. Currently, police officers are compelled to make statements and to give information to a Police Complaints Authority investigation. Every other New Zealander has the right to deny the police a statement—in fact, Ministers have denied that previously, I understand, although I stand to be corrected. The point is is that every other New Zealander has a right to deny making a statement to the police. However, when it comes to Police Complaints Authority investigations police are compelled to make a statement—even a self-incriminating statement—in order to assist the Police Complaints Authority in its investigations.

Police make those statements knowing that their evidence cannot be used against them, and that is part of the process. What this bill seeks to do is uncertain. It is unclear what the status is of that evidence that was given and how it can be used. I do not think the House objects to a clear indication that those who were involved as investigators for a Police Complaints Authority matter should be able to answer questions of the commission of inquiry, but we would like to pursue in the select committee the status of the evidence that was given by police officers to the commission.

This has the potential to set a quite uncomfortable precedent, in that police officers may believe that the evidence they give to the Independent Police Complaints Authority may be used against them or come to public scrutiny in a level that they had been assured would not happen. Those are the sorts of matters that we seek to discuss further in the select committee process. My colleague Richard Worth will be talking about further concerns we have in respect of this bill and some conclusions we have drawn.

The National Party in Opposition fully appreciates the concerns that the commission of inquiry may have about this. We are prepared to work with the Government to facilitate appropriate disclosure to the commission. We, too, believe it is fundamental to the integrity of the New Zealand Police that the public sees that inquiries were conducted appropriately, or if they were not, what can be done to remedy those concerns. Finally, I repeat that with a bill of this nature we would have expected an advance copy, because the advice we received by email in the late afternoon was not sufficient to draw the conclusion that we would be willing to support the bill. However, having read the bill, the National Party is prepared to support its referral to the select committee.

As the chair of the select committee to which the bill is to be referred, I have listened very, very closely to the previous speaker and to his concerns. Obviously, there will be very rigorous questioning of officials during the select committee process, and we will want to expedite that reasonably hastily. Notwithstanding that, I will also be discussing with and seeking leave from senior members opposite in terms of the ability of the select committee possibly to meet for 5 minutes during an appropriate lunch hour in order to start the advertising process for submissions. My understanding in terms of some advice is that I may need leave from the Opposition to do that, as we had resolved not to meet this urgency week. I will obviously meet with the Hon Tony Ryall to pursue that particular item.

Certainly we will, as a select committee, do our very best. Obviously, we will want not only to afford all members of the committee the opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise this bill and then meet the appropriate report-back deadline but also to give adequate opportunity for submissions to be made. I think the Minister has more than adequately gone through the details of the bill in terms of its content and why we need it. My role, as chairperson of the select committee, is to work with all members, particularly the senior members opposite, to see how we can work through the processes of the bill, and to meet the report-back deadline, as has been proposed to the House.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill, but I would like to echo the complaint of Tony Ryall that this legislation is too rushed. Just because we are now moving into an urgency week is not a good reason to short circuit the normal process whereby a bill is deposited in the House and time is allowed for members of the House to come to grips with it, talk with colleagues, check out some of its deficiencies, and look at its main and subsidiary purposes so that we can come to this first reading debate somewhat informed.

It is just not good enough that we are discussing this bill with the ink hardly dry—it having appeared only a few hours ago, at most. I do not think there is any need for that. Sure, we all want the commission of inquiry into the allegations against the police to get into its work as quickly as possible. We do not want to hold it up, that is true. But we do not need to panic in this way, introduce a bill, have the first reading during the urgency period, and avoid the normal procedures, particularly when the issue behind this—the issue of the commission of inquiry—is one of justice being done and investigations being done thoroughly. The legislation is about thoroughness and getting justice at the end, and we should set an example, as a Parliament, in treating the legislation relating to that commission in the same spirit of doing a thorough job. That cannot be done if the first reading is rushed in this way. Rushed justice is not good justice. There was a case, a couple of years ago, in urgency, of I think—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please come to this bill.

I think the context of this bill being introduced does qualify the extent to which we can discuss it—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Not very far.

Given the huge problems that this wrong procedure has led to, I will discuss the bill as best as I can.

The purpose of the bill, which is to enable the commission to have adequate evidence, is quite important because one of the issues at the heart of the inquiry is the inadequacy, or seeming inadequacy if we go by the press reports, of the investigations back in the 1980s, particularly those of Mr Dewar. If one looks at the press reports of that police officer with regard to how he dealt with the inquiry—and he was working for the Police Complaints Authority—it seems that he did not do a proper job and that his report was ticked off without proper consideration by the people at the top of the Police Complaints Authority at that time. The Independent Police Complaints Authority legislation that is before Parliament now has been put on hold while this commission is taking place—and as we deal with this legislation we want to improve the workings of the Police Complaints Authority so that it does not rely so much, in my opinion, on police investigators, but has its own independent investigators and is much better resourced to conduct its activities.

I think that the purpose of this bill—to give the commission more information from the Police Complaints Authority inquiries into the incidents it will be considering—is very important. It means, as I read this bill, that police reports as part of those inquiries will be brought before the commission. That is very good. There are a couple of definitions in the bill—about what are called restricted matter—that exclude matters from this commission. The first one seems to make sense. It is that the communications of the people who are holding office with the authority are still privileged. I think there is a reason behind that, although I would be willing to be challenged on that question. I am for as much openness as possible.

I am a little more concerned about the second part of the restricted matter definition. The bill states in clause 4 that restricted matter also “(b) includes any communication by a person to the Authority—(i) in which that person made a complaint or raised a concern about the conduct of the police, or any member of the police; and (ii) in respect of which, that person has not agreed that it may be disclosed to the Commission.” I think the purpose behind that is not to disclose the identity of somebody who may have been in a very difficult situation at the time and does not want to be harassed or to have the public attention that might flow if his or her identity was disclosed in the proceedings of the commission. So I think there is a good reason there, but I think the basic principle is keeping the identity hidden and that maybe information provided by that person can still be provided to the commission without that person’s identity being disclosed. That would be a good thing to happen.

I think that perhaps some amendments can be made to this bill as it goes through the select committee, and I hope it will have enough time to do so. I have not even got to grips so far with the time that the select committee will have to discuss this bill, but I think it has to have adequate time to seriously look at these matters. They are difficult matters: considering confidentiality; how the commission operates; how it can be as public as possible; and how to get to the bottom of the matters concerned, which are very serious matters.

New Zealand First is alarmed that it has received this bill so late in the process. It is such a serious matter that one would have thought the Government might have been in contact with us much earlier, and that we could have seen the legislation a lot earlier. But finally, when we look at what is happening out in the public arena, and particularly my reaction, I do not want to see the legal process abused. On the face of it, there might be an abuse of legal process here. As a lawyer, it really goes against the grain to allow the legal process to be abused. On the other hand, public concern has been expressed on this issue, so from the point of view of allowing the bill to go to a select committee, New Zealand First will agree.

At the select committee we expect that members of the public who are associated with the evidence at issue might be forthcoming and give us some indication of the basis on which they made the evidence available—which was about 16 years ago—and what their attitude would be to that evidence being regurgitated all over again before the commission. It suggests in many ways that no one can quite remember what happened 16 years ago, and the best evidence is what might have been recorded 16 years ago. I can hardly remember what happened this time last year. Of course, being a member of Parliament, I find it hard to remember what happened this time last week, let alone what might have happened 16 years ago. I was almost a member of Parliament 16 years ago, but I cannot remember whether I was or not—it is so long ago. In 1984 I was a member of Parliament.

I may be making a joke of it, but that is really how serious it is—to have the commission going now, and then have people trying to remember what was said all those years ago. As a lawyer, it is very hard to cross-examine somebody on evidence as old as that. At the same time, lawyers would have been advising the people who gave evidence in 1986, and would have told them that their evidence would be protected under the Police Complaints Authority legislation.

As the bill states in the explanatory note, the provisions of the Police Complaints Authority legislation “… are designed to facilitate the free flow of information essential for the effective conduct of investigations in compliance with the statutory functions of the Authority. Members of the public are able to approach the Authority in confidence with matters that may be personally sensitive or embarrassing if made public. It also enables the Authority to obtain free and frank information from members of the police regarding complaints. Secrecy is important to encourage witnesses to be frank by providing a climate in which evidence can be given without fear of self-incrimination, retribution by alleged offenders or associates, or defamation proceedings.”

That is the basis on which lawyers would have advised people to give evidence to the Police Complaints Authority—the basis on which people would have gone there—and now it is all being overturned by this one-off piece of legislation. The explanatory note quite properly sets out that “It is necessary for the Commission to have access to that material in order to complete its task. Accordingly, it is vital for public confidence in the Commission, the police, and the Authority that this uncertainty be removed.”

When one looks at it all, one wonders whether any human beings will be called to give evidence, and whether the files will just be read as they existed all those years ago. What weight will be given to those files, and what weight will be given to human evidence? It will create quite a lot of problems. New Zealand First will be very interested in the select committee process.

I appreciate Mr Martin Gallagher, the chairman of the Law and Order Committee, talking to me about this matter. He indicated the helpful way in which he intends to proceed in the select committee, and that is most appreciated. New Zealand First will take that into account as well. We must make sure that all people are protected, particularly the person who has laid the complaint that is now the subject of the commission of inquiry, but also all those people who might have expressed views one way or the other. There might be people whose names have not come before the public, and who have been shielded up until now.

On balance, New Zealand First will support the legislation to a select committee, and we look forward with considerable interest to what will happen there before we finally make our decision on this matter. We have a great deal of support for the New Zealand police force. We look forward to the submissions that no doubt will be coming from the Police Association, and will be very interested in the way the public conducts this matter in the select committee.

This bill is deemed to be required so as to allow the commission of inquiry into police conduct to fulfil terms of reference that, amongst other things, include the scrutiny of any investigations carried out by the Police Complaints Authority. In every sense, the bill is an evaluation of the adequacy of a process that represents the very means by which the integrity of the Police Complaints Authority must be assessed. It goes to the heart of how the public can have confidence in our police.

The bill is aimed at liberating—and I use that term euphemistically—files that are held by the authority and, under section 32(1) of the principal Act, are subject to blanket secrecy. Those files include information mostly gathered by police conducting investigations on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority, access to which is necessary if the commission is to inquire into the operations and processes of the Police Complaints Authority.

We have heard much, particularly recently, on alleged police activities that have not been investigated to public satisfaction. Rape allegations against police, seemingly dismissed by initial evaluations, do nothing for public confidence and nothing to reinforce the police ethic of service to the community. The real point is that without this enabling bill the commission would in all probability be stymied in carrying out its much-needed function. In short, access to Police Complaints Authority files is a necessary condition to the fulfilment of the obligations of the commission.

Although it might seem that the bill is at least 1 week premature, given that the question of the extent of the Police Complaints Authority Act secrecy provisions is to be heard on 8 April, it will nevertheless allow the select committee to address speedily the inevitable privacy and Bill of Rights concerns. Invariably, those concerns will be raised by those who, for the most part, want to protect the guilty over the legitimate rights of the innocent. The privacy interests of those who can provide valuable information—be they complainants or police officers—should not hinder and blind us to ascertaining the culpability of those police who have abused the public trust.

I understand the reasons for the bill. I also understand why its review through the Law and Order Committee needs to be truncated, but why has the bill taken so long to get to the House and deny other parties the ability to look at it as it was presented? In itself, it is hardly a rival for War and Peace; at 7 pages, it would not break one’s foot if it were dropped on it. Why was this bill not brought to the House sooner so that there could be fair examination by other parties? It could have been introduced in tandem with the commission. The Law and Order Committee would then have had a bit more time to consider the bill before returning it to the House. That fault lies firmly at the feet of this Government.

Nevertheless, United Future will support the introduction of the bill, not only to empower the commission to do its work, but also to help restore public confidence in both the Police Complaints Authority and the police. But we give that support advisedly, and only to the extent that the bill be passed over to the Law and Order Committee. After that, all bets are off.

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.

With reluctance National supports the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill. I say that it is with reservation because, for reasons I will refer to in a moment, there seem to be a number of drafting shortfalls in the legislation.

But, more significant, I would assert that the Standing Orders do not contemplate the process that has been followed in connection with the introduction and speedy passage of this bill. That is quite clear, from looking at the Standing Orders. Standing Order 273, relating to the introduction of Government bills, notes: “A Government bill is introduced by the Leader of the House informing the Clerk on any working day or by 1 pm on any sitting day of the Government’s intention to introduce the bill.” That may or may not have happened in this case—we do not know—but what we do know is that just over an hour ago was the first time that National saw this bill and was able to reflect on its implications.

It is clearly contemplated by the Standing Orders that there be a space of time between the introduction of a Government bill and the bill being set down for first reading. That is made manifest by Standing Order 280, which provides that “After its introduction a bill is set down for first reading on the third sitting day following.” This bill was introduced perhaps an hour ago, and, instead of that planned 3-day pause—which may be longer than that, because it is 3 sitting days—we are now involved in the first reading of this bill.

So it is little wonder that Opposition members are concerned about the course of process that has been followed here, and it is not surprising that one of the Opposition members should say in such a bold way—if, in fact, United Future counts itself as being in the Opposition—that all bets are off. We have seen eroded an important convention that should characterise the conduct of this House, and that is that, where practicable, the process of legislation should be accompanied by a degree of goodwill and comity. That has certainly not happened here.

The work of this commission of inquiry is, clearly, important and critical work. I do not believe that, in the lifetime of most members of this Parliament, a state of affairs has occurred where significant reservations are looming large in the public mind about the conduct and integrity of the police. As all members would accept, it is absolutely critical in a legal system that there be a high measure of confidence in the police and support for their activities. I suggest that recent newspaper publicity has put that issue clearly at risk. If it is the case that the Crown Law Office, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Justice, and the commission of inquiry believe that the commission may be hampered in carrying out its task through inability to access material held in Police Complaints Authority files, then, quite clearly, that material should be delivered up, subject to appropriate safeguards. It is absolutely vital that the work of the commission not be impeded, and that there emerge from its deliberations support for the conclusions that follow from its consideration of the issues. But I do not believe we should have been put in the position of having to hasten this legislation through Parliament. This was a readily identifiable issue at an early stage. The moment the commission reflected on what its task was to be, it should have been immediately apparent that issues touching the work of the Police Complaints Authority would arise.

The bill itself is deceptively simple. It is in two parts, but, from looking at those two parts, I think a host of issues arise that need to be considered by the select committee. For example, in clause 4 there is a definition of “member of the police” that seems to run into an immediate drafting problem. It provides: “member of the police includes a former member of the police (other than a person who is currently a staff member or employee of the Authority)”, and I fix on that phrase “staff member or employee of the Authority”. Surely, staff members are employees of the authority. How could that be otherwise?

Then there are issues that other speakers have referred to, relating to the scope and intent of the definition of “restricted matter”. There is a sunset clause that provides that the bill expires 1 year after the commission finally reports, and that, clearly, is an appropriate provision.

In Part 2, where the substance of the bill is contained, other issues arise. It is quite clear that the two critical sections are sections 32 and 33 of the principal Act. For myself, I have no quarrel with the changes proposed to section 32, but if one looks at the thrust of the drafting of the changes proposed to be made to section 33, one finds that the same cannot be said. That particular clause, which is more concerned with aspects relating to the authority, sits singularly uncomfortably with what is planned in subsection (2A) of section 32.

There is a section in the Police Complaints Authority Act that has not been altered by this bill, and that is section 25(4). So it seems to be the case that evidence that has in the past been given to the Police Complaints Authority will not be allowed to implicate, by way of admission, the officers or persons who gave that evidence. That is not absolutely clear, and needs to be considered because, quite clearly, complainants and police officers who gave that evidence to the authority did not contemplate, on the then state of the law, that that material might be used against their interest.

Finally, could I say that, in supporting this bill going to a select committee, the National Party should not be assumed to be assenting to the details of the legislation. We take the view that it is appropriate that it go before a select committee so that consideration can be given to dealing with the excrescences in the drafting, and to aiding the commission to do what is, clearly, critical work.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration, and the committee to report back by 3 May 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.