Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill

I move, That the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill arises from a review of the Police Complaints Authority, conducted by Sir Rodney Gallen at my request back in 2000. The bill was introduced in December 2002, and was reported back by the Law and Order Committee in late 2003. It was around that time that allegations of serious misconduct were made against members of the police. A commission of inquiry into police conduct was established to investigate the handling of the allegations by the police. However, its process and report were deferred due to criminal investigations being undertaken, and criminal proceedings have subsequently been issued in relation to the allegations of sexual assault. The commission is now continuing under a new mandate that will allow it to pursue its brief at the same time as the criminal processes are going on. The intention originally was to wait for the commission’s report before proceeding with this bill. However, the amendments made by the bill are important to the work of the authority, particularly in relation to its capacity to investigate and resolve complaints in a timely manner. Therefore, we have now decided to proceed with it at this time.

The decision to review and amend the Act did not reflect overall dissatisfaction with the authority’s track record. Over its existence there has been confidence in the independence, impartiality, and accountability of the authority. None the less, there was a perception that because the authority had to rely on serving police officers to investigate their colleagues, that might detract from its independence. The major decision that resulted from the review was to provide the authority with an enhanced investigative capacity of its own, independent from the police. Although the authority already had the statutory authority to conduct its own investigations, in the past it lacked the resources to do so.

Two years ago I gave the authority the necessary resources for that, and it has made good progress with implementing the reforms, including the appointment of independent investigators. The authority has employed four individuals with a wide range and depth of investigative experience, both internationally and in New Zealand. They are independent, impartial, and can be expected to be conscientious in investigating serious complaints about the conduct of the police. The authority is using its independent investigative capacity to deal with complaints or investigations of serious matters, such as when an offender is shot or injured as a result of police action. Its investigators have been engaged in an oversight role in relation to the conduct of the police in investigating the historical sexual assault allegations and the recent email investigations. They have, in addition, worked with the police to develop procedures and protocols enabling the engagement between the organisations to operate effectively, each independent of the other.

The bill implements the remaining recommendations of the Gallen review. It changes the name of the Police Complaints Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. The membership of the authority is increased from one to three members. The chair of the authority will be a current or retired judge, supported by the two other members. The bill also provides for a number of matters relating to the administration of the authority, and it gives the authority the powers of a commission of inquiry in order to strengthen procedures, for example, for the conducting of hearings. The bill requires the authority and staff members of the authority to maintain secrecy in respect of all matters that come to their knowledge as a result of the exercise of their functions. There are limited exceptions to that, such as information disclosed in order to justify the authority’s conclusions and recommendations.

During the drafting of the bill an issue was raised regarding a defendant’s right to a fair trial. The concern was that the authority may become privy to exculpatory information, which is information that may point to a defendant’s innocence, and that the current secrecy provisions would prohibit the authority from disclosing it. Withholding such information could obviously impact on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The bill as introduced included provisions for requests to be made to the authority for exculpatory information to be disclosed to a court. The select committee recommended that the draft disclosure provisions be revised to achieve the objective of a defendant’s right to a fair trial in a more simple way.

Under the revised provisions, the authority has the discretion to disclose exculpatory evidence directly to a defendant that it believes may point to the defendant’s innocence in relation to an offence for which he or she has been convicted or charged. Where the authority has disclosed information, it may issue a certificate that describes the circumstances and the manner in which the disclosed information came to the authority’s knowledge. A certificate is admissible and is proof of the matters stated in it. A limited exception to the rule against hearsay is created so that the authority is not required to attend court proceedings. That is because it would undermine the independence of the authority and public confidence in the process if members of the authority and its employees could be called as witnesses in court proceedings. The actual disclosed information itself is still subject to the rule against hearsay. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of that complex issue. I am confident that the new provisions strike the appropriate balance between a defendant’s right to a fair trial on the one hand, and evidential principles and the ability of the authority to perform its functions on the other.

The Government Supplementary Order Paper to be considered at the Committee stage makes a number of amendments required to align the provisions of the bill with the legislative changes made late last year by the Crown Entities Act, and makes other amendments consequential to legislative changes made since the bill was reported back from the select committee.

Recent events demonstrate that in a police force approaching 10,000 sworn and non-sworn members, not all will meet the high standards of behaviour and integrity we demand of the police staff in New Zealand. Notwithstanding that, I believe that overall our police force is amongst the best in the world. Having an effective process whereby complaints against wrongful police behaviour can be heard, and acted upon, is an important assurance that such wrongful behaviour will be properly responded to and public confidence in the police maintained. I acknowledge the excellent work done by the Police Complaints Authority over the years. The new structure of, and the resources given to, the Independent Police Complaints Authority will ensure an even better performance in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

The National Party in Opposition—for the next few months—will be supporting the progress of this bill. We look forward to being consulted by the Government about the individuals who will be appointed to the Independent Police Complaints Authority in due course. In speaking in support of this bill, and without taking too much time, there are two matters that I will raise. The first is the amount of time that the authority takes to deal with police complaints, and the second is the National Party proposal that would see the Independent Police Complaints Authority expanded to include the prison complaints service.

Information I received from the Government on Monday indicates that the Police Complaints Authority currently has 2,100 cases before it, of which one in five are over 2 years old. The reason we raise this as a concern is that that number has continued to grow. It has grown dramatically in the last few years. I would like the Government to know what impact that has. The fact that there are more police complaints coming through, that they are taking longer to be dealt with, and that the caseload is larger than it has been before, has a dramatic impact not only on the well-being of those who make the complaints but also on the police officers involved.

It is to be expected that we would get an explanation from the Government that these cases are all being held over because we are waiting for the coroner to deal with this, or some other agency to deal with that. But the fact is when there are 2,100 cases, they are not all sitting before the coroner or some other authority. In fact, the number of cases sitting before the coroner could be counted on two hands. There is a real issue with the amount of time it is taking to get police complaints dealt with. I hope that with the new Independent Police Complaints Authority, cases will be dealt with more quickly than they are at the moment. There has been an increase in the number of cases that we are seeing. One in five cases has been with the authority for more than 2 years. One in 10 cases has been there for over 3 or 3½ years.

It is a long time not only for the complaints but for the police officers involved. I have had correspondence from a number of police officers who are the subject of Police Complaints Authority investigations. Although those investigations are important and must be dealt with fairly for the complainant, we should also be aware of the cost they have on the well-being of the men and women of the New Zealand Police, who put their lives on the line every day in the protection of our safety.

The second point we raise is the principle—[Interruption] Paint is being stripped somewhere around the countryside with that rather silly little interjection from the soon-to-be former member for Whanganui.

💬 Jill Pettis: I don’t think so, Sunshine.

I do think so, and I am privy to some information that would suggest that that is absolutely the case.

The second point is the importance of expanding the Independent Police Complaints Authority to include prison complaints. I think the argument that the Minister of Justice put forward of the need for the public to feel confident also applies—[Interruption] I am absolutely awake when I say this, unlike the Associate Minister of Education who came to Parliament and slept through his own Prime Minister’s questions—

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Don’t be ridiculous.

I will say what is ridiculous: the Associate Minister of Education sleeping through question time. What does the House make of that? That was embarrassing, was it not?

National says let us have an independent police and prisons complaint service, whereby we bring the division that deals with the complaints of inmates out of the Department of Corrections. Having talked to investigators, it is apparent that the skills required to deal with prison complaints are transferable to deal with police complaints, and similarly the reverse is true of the skills required for police complaint investigations.

National supports this legislation. It is our intention, when we are in Government, to amend the legislation to incorporate the prisons complaints service. We look to the Government to ensure that there is sufficient resourcing of the new Independent Police Complaints Authority to reduce the number of outstanding cases, and to reduce the age of the cases that are outstanding, because that is the only way to deal fairly with the complainants and the police officers.

As chair of the Law and Order Committee that considered the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, first of all I acknowledge the good work of the committee, particularly the work of our deputy chair Marc Alexander, and I certainly acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, in terms of progressing this bill.

It is very important that we remind ourselves what the bill does—and it is quite an important bill. In my view, the key word in the bill title is “independent”. The authority should not just be independent, but should be seen by all the parties to be truly independent. The bill amends the Police Complaints Authority Act by changing the name of the Police Complaints Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority and increases the authority’s membership from one person to three people, one of whom will be a chairperson who will be a current or former judge.

As with the existing Police Complaints Authority, the members will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The proposed name change and the increase in the authority’s membership, which are provisions in the bill, were, in the view of the committee, needed to enhance the authority’s independence.

I would like to take the opportunity to briefly quote some of the other major provisions from the commentary. It states: “The bill also: establishes the Authority as a separate legal entity, which recognises its change of status from a single-person office to a three-person body; makes it clear that the Authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation, disciplinary investigation, or both is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter; allows the Authority, when deciding whether to hold a hearing, to have regard to whether proceedings or a coroner’s inquest is pending or in reasonable contemplation; confers on the Authority appropriate powers under the Commissions of Inquiries Act 1908 for the purposes of holding a hearing; sets out a procedure that enables the Authority to disclose information that has come to its knowledge through the exercise of its functions about a defendant who has been charged with, or has been convicted of, an offence punishable by imprisonment; provides for a number of matters relating to the appointment of members and the administration of the Authority that are consistent with the Government’s Crown entity reforms.”

Obviously, if members read the report of the Law and Order Committee—as members will have done—they will see that we go into more detail on a number of those very important issues.

I want to stress—and the Minister in his speech stressed to the Parliament early on—that it is very important that we remember, notwithstanding some of the current issues facing the New Zealand Police, that we still have the best police force in the world, in my view. I know there are some issues and problems, but they are minor and minuscule compared with a number of police forces around the world. The whole point of an Independent Police Complaints Authority process is to have a fair process of hearings and investigation, and also to honour and enhance the vast majority of people who work in the police and who are very, very fine and dedicated men and women.

Having an Independent Police Complaints Authority that will be perceived as a truly independent authority ultimately enhances the credibility of that authority and the integrity of its findings when it reaches those findings.

In conclusion, I stress that having an effective process whereby complaints against wrongful police behaviour can be heard and acted upon is an important assurance that such behaviour will be properly responded to and public confidence in the police maintained, which is critical. Along with the Minister, I personally acknowledge the excellent work done by the current authority over the years. The structure of, and resources given to, the new Independent Police Complaints Authority will ensure an even better performance in the future. I thank the Law and Order Committee for its work, and I urge passage of this bill through the House.

New Zealand First also supports the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. We are keen to see it pass through the House at a fairly rapid pace. For a long time now, we have called for the Police Complaints Authority to be made independent, and the fact that this bill does that pleases us. We also welcome the fact that the authority is to increase its membership from one to three. We think that is a good move.

If we want to maintain a very efficient and effective police force—and I am not suggesting for one moment that we do not have just that—it is essential that we have an independent Police Complaints Authority. There are two reasons. One is the practical reason of ensuring that the complaints it handles are indeed handled in an independent manner. There is also a perception in the minds of many of the public that the Police Complaints Authority, as it is currently structured, is biased towards the police. I think most of us in this House do not share that view, but that is a perception that many members of the public have.

I endorse the comments of the chairman of the Law and Order Committee. He says that we have the best police force in the world. I do not know whether I can endorse those comments to the degree of saying that it is the absolute best in the world, but I will say that New Zealand First has a very high regard for the people who make up our police force. One of the major problems—and maybe the Government will take notice of it in the Budget—is that there are not enough of them. On a per capita basis, we have something like 18 sworn police officers for every 10,000 members of the public. That is the figure that sticks in my mind. To put it another way, we have 180 police officers for every 100,000 members of the public. When compared with some other nations in the OECD, that is a dismal number. We need more police officers in this country, and we need them urgently. I know that from time to time Ministers stand up and say that crime figures are going down.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That’s good.

It would be good, if it were true.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: It’s true.

It is true for the last few months, but I invite the Hon Phil Goff, because I know he—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: It’s true over the last few years.

He should go and look at the crime figures in 1999, when Labour came into power, and compare them with the figures now.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Crime is at its lowest since 1982, on figures taken on exactly the same basis as they have always been taken.

No, no. The member can shout at me as much as he likes, but he should go and look at the figures for crime in 1999, when the Government came in, then look at the most recent figures.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Burglary is down by a third, for example.

Burglary is a concern, and it is good to see it going down, but I am not certain it has gone down from 1999. Violent crime has gone up considerably since 1999.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Yes, but it has come down over the last year and a bit.

It peaked fractionally. But I tell the honourable member, who, clearly, is listening to New Zealand First—and the best advice anyone will give him tonight is to listen to New Zealand First—that we need more cops, and we need them urgently.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: You’ve got another 1,080 already.

The member likes to muck around with statistics. He should look at the number of police on a per capita basis in a place like Ireland, which has a similar-sized population of 4 million or thereabouts.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, look—

Jill Pettis should not treat this as a joke. It is serious.

💬 Jill Pettis: Look at Ireland’s problems.

I invite members to look at any reasonably sized OECD country that has more police, then compare the numbers of police with the level of crime. It is not good enough to stand up in the House and say that crime has gone down because it peaked last year. We, collectively, as politicians and parliamentarians, can bring it down considerably by having more police. Even the National Party, which once committed to the notion that a computer would solve crime, has recognised now that it is important to have more cops.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: And they cut out policemen.

I think Labour was going to have shadow police in cars at one time. We in New Zealand First want real cops, made up of flesh and blood, who are fit, healthy, and prepared to put their—

💬 Jill Pettis: So how many extra police when New Zealand First was part of the Government?

I think that in the 2 years we were in Government the sworn police numbers went up dramatically. The figure that comes to mind is 500.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: They cut it.

No, that was after we got the grand order of the boot.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: The National Party cut the number of people.

There were no cuts while we were in the Government. If the Minister does not believe me, he can check the figures for himself. We increased the police numbers by quite a significant number, and we would do that again—significantly. It is regrettable that members are taking me away from this bill, but I want to make that point whilst I am making my speech. [Interruption] No, I am having a little bit of fun here, because I can see that I have the Government on a bit of a guilt trip. Those members know that they can do more, and I am giving them good advice on how they can do it.

New Zealand First supports this bill. We support the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, but, more important, we support having more police officers on the streets of New Zealand. That way, we really will address the crime levels in this country.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. It is a step forward from the present situation with regard to the Police Complaints Authority, where there are huge delays and huge resourcing problems, and where a big problem is that a lot of the work done for the Police Complaints Authority is done by the police—the very people, sometimes, who are being investigated. In terms of the delays, I can give a personal example. I put in a complaint in 1999 and, despite reminders, the complaint still has not been resolved 5½ years later. That is an indication of the workload before the present, one-person Police Complaints Authority. The authority is expanding to three people, which is good. It is being given a little more independence and the powers of an ombudsman, which is very good. It can have access to more staff and it will rely less on the police to investigate situations.

I had thought that this particular bill would be left until after we had had a report back on the rape allegations against police from the Rotorua district, because one of the aspects of those cases, which are proceeding through a commission of inquiry, is that the authority itself seemed to fail in those particular cases. It would seem that the police who investigated the officers whose behaviour was referred to the authority misreported on the situation to the head of the authority, and as a result of that the authority essentially covered up the situation. That indicated the problem with the police investigating their own and being largely responsible for the work of the authority on the ground. Hopefully, under the new system there will be many more independent investigatory staff. Some of them may be former police officers, because they have those investigatory skills.

There is always a problem in a police force—and this is no criticism of this particular police force—that because police officers are often in very difficult situations and do very difficult tasks, there is a very strong feeling of camaraderie. When one has been through a lot of difficult experiences with a fellow officer, one is a bit reluctant to blow the whistle on him or her. So there is sort of a structural problem in having the police investigate themselves. If the staff of the Independent Police Complaints Authority is independent, that will be good. Sometimes the police say that they are their own harshest critics, etc., etc. There is an element of truth to that statement, but I think that if we want there to be a proper investigation of complaints into possible police wrongdoing, then it has to be done independently. Also, the public of New Zealand will have greater confidence in the outcome of those inquiries if not only the three-person authority itself but also the staff working under it are independent. So the Green Party will be supporting this bill.

I think the question of disclosure that the Law and Order Committee went into quite a bit is quite important, too. The committee did not handle it too badly. It is true that if we want people, particularly those in the police force, to blow the whistle on wrongdoing to the authority, they have to be able to do it fairly confidentially. A lot of the information that comes to the attention of the new authority will come from the police themselves. When an initial complaint is made by someone outside the police who is affected by a police action, a member of the police force may say he or she does not want to be associated with the incident, and may blow the whistle. But he or she may not want to blow the whistle publicly, so the system needs to offer a bit of protection through confidentiality.

The people who do the complaining may themselves be up on trial, as the report indicates. Someone who is up on trial may have been beaten up in the cells or affected by some other wrongdoing, and may want to bring that to the attention of the authority. That person may give the authority some information, pointing to his or her guilt or innocence, that he or she does not want to brought out in the trial, for one reason or another. It would undermine the ability of the police and of accused people to go to the authority if they thought that that would compromise a later court trial. So the disclosure provisions in the bill, as the committee presents them, are more to the benefit of the accused than of the police. I think the bias has to be in that direction, so that it does not undermine the tendency to go to the authority. The bill probably does not go far enough, though, in really establishing the independence of the authority in terms of its investigatory powers.

There is also the problem we have seen in many cases—and the Steven Wallace case, that of the man shot in Waitara, is a case in point—of the authority’s investigations being suspended for very long periods, often for too long for them to be effective, because of coronial proceedings or, as in the Wallace case, a court trial. Proceedings may also be suspended for an internal police investigation. Even under this bill the authority has the right to suspend proceedings while an internal inquiry takes place. So there are various forms of inquiries or proceedings—criminal proceedings, etc.—that can prevent the authority from moving forward. I think we have to work out procedures for an authority that is not held back in that way. Possibly the very fact that there is confidentiality in the system will enable the authority to proceed with a speedy investigation.

For instance, I think the complaint I made back in 1999 relating to police actions towards the protesters against the visit of the Chinese leader for APEC over the question of Tibet has been compromised. There was police wrongdoing in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch in relation to those protests. Some of that wrongdoing has been brought out in the Justice and Electoral Committee report. The authority could have done more on that matter, and hopefully it will do more on it, even though the events took place so many years ago now. I gave a lot of information to the authority, and it took down the transcript, etc. But despite my reminding it that the matter has not been rectified, the delays in the system have been just too big for an adequate result to be achieved. People’s memories fade over time.

I think the whole question of a police complaints system is critical. We have seen the police come under a bit of criticism—often not very justified criticism—in recent times. Often there is a distrust of the police. When the police are under pressure, often they cannot fulfil all the requirements, such as attending some burglaries—they are too busy trying to catch people with little amounts of marijuana and not doing enough on the burglary front. People lose a bit of confidence in the police sometimes, not through their own fault but because of the directions that are imposed on them. So in order to keep up the confidence in the police so that they appear whiter than white, it is important to have a proper police complaints investigation system. This bill moves in that direction.

I rise for the ACT party on the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. This bill changes the name of the Police Complaints Authority and sticks the word “Independent” in, on the assumption, presumably, that someone thinks Sir Rodney Gallen, and others who have been involved, did not see with enough independence. I think it is amazing that when I listen to the speeches in this House on something that goes to the heart of the integrity of the police, and confidence of the public in the police force, I hear what are effectively a set of smoothing, smug, complacent speeches idly suggesting that there are some improvements we might deign to vote for.

This bill is the result of an inquiry in the year 2000. The Law and Order Committee reported it in 2003. We have a police force whose reputation has been bombing. We know from the polls that the police are now regarded by the public—[Interruption] We know that the polls are telling us that a police force that was regarded as being clearly the best in the world is now seriously under question by the public, and we have a Government that has trashed it.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Ha!

Mr Goff can scoff, but he knows that his Prime Minister started her rule by tossing racist jibes at the police when Steven Wallace was shot in Waitara. She jumped immediately to the conclusion that it was a racist event, made it public, and the police were already on the back foot. In fact, from then on in Waitara they were not even able to uphold the law. This Government then tried to redeem itself by suggesting that the police needed a new level of inspectorate, and so Mr Goff was sent to ride to the rescue with a relabelled Police Complaints Authority.

Well, trashing the police reputation, I think, comes naturally to this Government. A uniformed disciplined force takes its cue for integrity and ethics from the leadership—a leadership culture of a Prime Minister who repeatedly lies in Parliament, a Prime Minister who cannot tell the truth about a painting she signed, a Prime Minister who is a fraud, and a Prime Minister who has lied again today.

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need the point of order. I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise, please.

I withdraw and apologise. I trust that the Speaker would understand that there was a certain element of giving as good as is got. I am not qualifying my apology.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I accept what you say.

The fact is that any disciplined, effective, uniformed force that works under force does form a strong culture, and does take its lead from the ethics shown by its leaders—by those who give it commands.

We have seen, in a very clear instance, that this Government does not trust the institutions that surround the police. The Police Complaints Authority was not involved when the rape complaints began to be investigated. Instead, the Government leapt in and appointed two very worthy and proper people to be an independent inquiry—the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—in a panic reaction, and we did not see anything of the Police Complaints Authority in all of that. The Government did not choose to accelerate the progress of this bill, to buttress the institution that it says it now sees as so important. Instead, it got two good judges, the Hon Justice Bruce Robertson and Dame Margaret Bazley, who agreed to come in and, essentially, tell us whether the police—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: The member is terribly confused if he thinks that Margaret Bazley is a judge.

I did not say that. She is acting as a judge in this matter. Margaret Bazley is eminently qualified to exercise the powers of a commission of inquiry in this.

But what do we find? The fact this bill has been brought back to the House in such a rush after sitting around since 2003 is, I think, to try to hide the Government’s embarrassment that Justice Robertson has decided he does not want to have anything more to do with this shonky process. Justice Robertson has said he has better things to do—and undoubtedly he has—than to stay around in a commission of inquiry that is supposed to be a whitewash of a Government that has trashed the police reputation. It has trashed it consciously. It has trashed it to get out of political difficulty. When that inquiry started, and it was obvious to everyone that it was going to need criminal proceedings, why did the Prime Minister leap in and appoint a commission over the top, then have it sit there, after spending a million dollars, being utterly ineffectual? No wonder Justice Robertson said he had better things to do than be associated with such an ad hoc, useless process.

I am sure it is only a strong sense of loyalty to the public service that she has served so well for so long, and fear that it is being destroyed by the Government, that keeps Dame Margaret Bazley there. I am sure she will not be part of a cover-up, but she is certainly being used as part of a cover-up by the Government for its lack of ability to run, manage, appoint, support, and look after a police force that can maintain public confidence.

The police force cannot maintain public confidence, because it does not have confidence in its own leaders. It does not have confidence in its relationship with the Government. It knows that the statutory independence of the Commissioner of Police has been compromised. What about the timing of the announcement of the so-called “porn-gate”? Who told the commissioner to announce that a week before he even knew how many porn pictures he had? Dr Michael Cullen, the Attorney-General, who is supposed to be the chief law officer of the Crown and uphold the institutions of law and order, told the Commissioner of Police when to announce a porn inquiry.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Just an apologist.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order, Mr Goff.

I challenge the Minister to take one of the calls left to the Labour Party and explain the role of Dr Michael Cullen in the premature release of the “porn-gate” fiasco. There are 330 people under suspicion because he forced the commissioner, who did not have the spine to stand up to such a vindictive Government, to come out a week earlier and announce an inquiry. We find now that there might be eight pieces of porn. What a way to treat a police force—forcing it through the humiliation of last week, because Dr Cullen did not want an announcement coming out when the Prime Minister was about to return home! And the Prime Minister said: “Yes, get them to do it.” And what do we see? Eight pieces of porn, possibly, in a police force of 6,000—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Eight pieces of objectionable material.

Eight pieces of illegal material. So here we have an Attorney-General who does not know that his role is to uphold the mana of the law. He does not understand that if he and his Government so quickly stab the police in the back, if they are so protective of their own political careers that they do not care what that does to the police force, then it will be no wonder that the police force leaks information. The police force will be whistle-blowers on this Government, and all appeals to loyalty that this Government tries to make will fall on deaf ears. The police will have a higher loyalty—a loyalty to truth, a loyalty to someone who is loyal to them.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.