Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill

The debate on this part includes schedule 1.

I want to take a call in respect of Part 2 of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, and I notice two or three things have cropped up in the interim that I will comment on. The first thing to note is that this legislation will speed up the process of investigating complaints as they come through from the public, and conduct as it is scoped by the Police Complaints Authority, on a day-to-day basis—those matters that are investigated as they come to pass. I articulated earlier things such as deaths in police cells, speeding policemen, boy-racer chases that go wrong, and those sorts of situations.

The fact is that some of the cases that are presently before the Police Complaints Authority go back 5 or 6 years, awaiting the outcome of other tribunals such as the Coroner’s Court, waiting for investigations to finish, or for civil actions against the police, which are currently moving through the process, to finish. But others are caught up within the system. As part of the select committee, members such as my colleague Ron Mark will know that the only explanation given for some of the reasons why these matters have been held over for several years is that they are “still with the police” or “awaiting a response from the police.” So giving the Police Complaints Authority independence will allow it to kick on a little bit quicker, and maybe shake the tree a little bit as far as getting the police to cooperate in getting matters moving faster than they presently are, which is a good thing. I note that the Supplementary Order Paper allows for an extra two authorities, moving from one authority and a deputy as we have at the moment to five authorities, and that will increase the speed as well.

I also note that within the last hour or so, two Supplementary Order Papers have been tabled by the Māori Party, which in effect create a separate leg for a complaints process for Māori. I can understand where this comes from, because we know, for instance, that a disproportionately large number of people who are dealt with by the police as offenders are Māori, so there is a proportionate figure of complaints coming before the authority from Māori, and because quite a deal of offence comes out of an ignorance or a lack of understanding around things Māori. I do not mean that in any sort of patronising way, but I do believe that we should be living in a country where there is one law for all.

I understand there are arguments about how that plays out from time to time—accusations of institutional racism, etc, and I believe that some of those are valid—but at the same time I believe that we are not in a situation in this country where we need to have a separate leg, an investigative branch, within the Police Complaints Authority that deals particularly with Māori. One of the typewritten Supplementary Order Papers refers to new section 4AA, “Autonomous Maori Investigative Branch established”. My view is that that is not something that is required. What should happen is the police should be forced into situations where they need to take account, or at least show an understanding, of things Māori and how that will impact on investigations as the police carry them out. I know that over recent times there has been far more significant training given to police in an attempt to change culture and to gain an understanding of special considerations that might need to be made as far as various cultural groups—Pacific Island, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, as well as Māori—are concerned. National does not see a need to create a separate autonomous Māori investigative branch within the Police Complaints Authority. It does see a need for the ability to show more understanding.

The second typewritten Supplementary Order Paper asks for an appellate body that would sit above the Police Complaints Authority, as a review body. So a person who feels that his or her complaint has not been listened to or has not achieved the result expected could make an appeal to the appellate body, which would review the inquiry into the complaint made and then be able to make recommendations back to the Police Complaints Authority, but would not have the ability to make any instruction or give any direction. That seems to me to not have the grunt that one would expect such a body to have. I guess to a degree, as well, it has come along fairly late in the day and it is difficult to have had any discussions with the proponents of the Supplementary Order Paper, given the late stage at which it has come.

I would say, in trying to give some comfort to the Māori Party—and as I said earlier, I have some sympathy with the drivers of this—that as there will be five police complaints authorities now, in other words five individuals warranted as a Police Complaints Authority, there is the ability obviously to make some submissions as to who those various authorities could be. It could well be that the Māori Party has the ability to raise its concerns with the Parliament, so an appointment could well cover the anxiety that it has in a perceived lack of understanding of things Māori within the new Independent Police Conduct Authority that is to be created.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I rise to take a call on the Māori Party amendments to clause 6 and clause 12 of Part 2, which urge the Committee to consider the opportunity for an autonomous Māori investigative branch. The amendments introduce the requirement for an autonomous Māori investigative branch of the Independent Police Complaints Authority to be established in order to review complaints raised by Māori against the police and Māori relationships with the police.

Two weeks ago the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination released its concluding observations on New Zealand’s performance under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Amongst 26 areas of specific concern, the committee reiterated its concern regarding the overrepresentation of Māori and Pacific people in the prison population, and more generally at every stage of the criminal justice system.

This is not breaking news by any means to anybody. I remember back to a report by former Commissioner of Police Doone, which showed that Māori are significantly overrepresented in apprehension, prosecution, and conviction statistics. That report concluded: “… criminal justice agencies, including the Police, must work to improve their responsiveness to Māori and to overcome any negative perceptions that may inhibit that responsiveness.” The negative perception that Commissioner Doone was referring to is the fact that many police and Māori hold negative perceptions of each other. The problem becomes self-perpetuating and so we end up with a situation in which—and here are the facts—about five times as many Māori as Pākehā Europeans are apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted; nine times as many Māori are remanded in prison awaiting trial; and nearly seven times as many Māori are given a custodial sentence or are serving prison sentences.

The Māori Party will not just stand by and say that because the situation has continued for many decades it must continue for many more to come. A fundamentally different approach is required to break this cycle. Perhaps it is time for a Ngāti Kahungunu solution to be found. I say this, of course, in respect of our wonderful Ngāti Kahungunu Justice Lowell Goddard, who heads the Police Complaints Authority. We need a culture change—a giant step to really make a difference in the ongoing sad story that is the relationship between police and Māori.

This is something I have had involvement in since the 1970s—Gideon Tait was then the commissioner—and then followed on to the time of Bastion Point, right through the ages, as a member of the Auckland District Police Maori District Advisory Board and the Tutahitanga Maori/Police Joint Planning Committee for Waitakere City, North Shore City, and Rodney County, and for the last 10 years as a member of the national committee, here at national headquarters, of the Commissioner of Police’s Māori Focus Forum.

I remember that in the year 2000, Sir Rodney Gallen’s inquiry recommended that there should be a separate, autonomous unit to address complaints pertaining to Māori, or, at the very minimum, specialist Māori staff. Sir Rodney Gallen recommended that the authority should consist of three persons, of whom the chairperson should be someone who holds or has held judicial office. The second member of the authority could represent a Māori section of the New Zealand population as recognition of the Treaty partnership. The third member should represent the lay population of New Zealand as a whole. As I am advised, Cabinet did not agree to this recommendation, so my Supplementary Order Paper brings us back to the original intentions of Sir Rodney Gallen.

What Mr Chester Borrows has just said—one law for all—is just a joke. What about the foreshore and seabed? One law for all, due process—bang, get a new law to stop that. We can go on mouthing these platitudes time after time, and nothing changes. I have been working with the police for so long to try to get them to deal with their attitude towards Māori, and nothing changes. The same things go on and on. I hear it said that police have to be forced into a situation to take cognisance of cultural factors. The reality is that their day-to-day beat does not allow them to do that, if they do not have it in their minds or in their thoughts to recognise that Māori have different ways of looking at things. Thank you.

National supports the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. At this stage of the Committee process we are looking at Part 2 of this important and significant legislation. The Minister Mark Burton sought to explain a very substantial period of delay in the progress of this bill. One would have thought that if this bill had merit—which National accepts—it would have prompted a more speedy passage.

The bill amends the principal Act, which is the Police Complaints Authority Act. That Act “prescribes the principal role of the Police Complaints Authority as being to consider whether there has been misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of any member of the police, and to consider whether relevant practices, policies, and procedures of the police have been complied with.” There are a number of significant changes that the bill makes to the Act.

I would like to start by just responding to some comments from Dr Pita Sharples—for whom I have enormous respect—that he has made on behalf of the Māori Party in connection with his two proposed amendments. These amendments come very late in the piece. They come probably too late in the piece to have the consideration that they might deserve. The first amendment introduces a requirement for an independent Police Complaints Authority review agency to be established so that decisions from the authority can be appealed. The second amendment sets up an autonomous Māori investigative branch of the authority to review complaints raised by Māori against the police.

Part 2 of the bill, which is the subject of debate at the moment, contains a raft of provisions that are essentially procedural in nature relating to the constitution and operations of the authority. I just note, with reference to what Dr Sharples has said, clause 10A, which is headed “Personnel policy”. I think it is quite unusual to see this sort of provision written into statute regarding the operations of a tribunal. The personnel policy is to comply with the principle of being a good employer and the clause sets out what constitutes a good employer for the purposes of this legislation. I note that 10A(2) states: “a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment, including provisions requiring … (d) recognition of (i) the aims and aspirations of Māori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Māori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the Authority;”. That is a most unusual provision. It does tend, to some extent I would say, to run with what Dr Sharples has said, that there should be within this entity some recognition of the issue—which I am sure saddens him as much as it saddens me—of high rates of offending by Māori members of our society.

The next point I make in the context of Part 2 is that one of the very crunch issues in this bill is seen here in the implementation of a major decision arising out of the review, which is that the Police Complaints Authority should have an enhanced investigative capacity of its own, independent of the police. As I said earlier, in a fleeting way, similar conclusions have been arrived at in a number of jurisdictions such as England, Australia, and Canada. I think that is a very important fact, which provides a high level of protection to the police.

There is a significant aspect in all this that we should all be aware of. In the context of legislators who seek to strike balances, I believe that we need to look at the aspect of police morale. It is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and constant critic of the police, that will have an effect on morale. But if, on the other hand, the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police, there should be no effect on morale.

I hope Mr Fairbrother, who is still in the Chamber, might respond to an issue that I think he could make a useful contribution to. I have suggested in past comment on this legislation that there is a case to extend the scope of this bill. I believe that is an opportunity that certainly sits with us in this particular part of the process of this legislation. This legislation could be extended to deal with prison inmates’ complaints. The same arguments about the police investigating themselves apply equally to Department of Corrections staff investigating complaints against prison officers. This is something I would welcome comment on from Labour members. The situation with the Department of Corrections, as I understand it, is broadly that, currently, inmates’ complaints of mistreatment, breaches of rights, and illegality are dealt with by an in-house inspectorate of the department. There are significant numbers of complaints, many of which are dismissed. I express the hope that in the context of this legislation an opportunity may be taken to deal with that issue. I have said on earlier occasions how important that might well be as an issue to resolve.

I take up the point made by Dr Richard Worth, who has argued—as others have—that the amended Police Complaints Authority, which will now be known as the Independent Police Conduct Authority, should include a prison complaints system. It is clearly not a serious suggestion. If it is a serious suggestion, then it is one that should be considered further by Dr Worth before he advances it any further.

There is a fundamental difference between the role of the police and the role of the prison service. The police are an investigative authority—that is, they are the hard edge of relationships between the citizen and the State. The police have an obligation to investigate complaints in a fearless way. The cutting edge of the Police Complaints Authority—as it is presently called—and the new authority after it is renamed, is to reconcile the conflicts that occur during a rigorous investigation process, bearing in mind at all times the fundamental rights of any citizen of a democracy to be protected from the overbearing conduct of a Government or State agency.

An authority that relates to an investigative process is a completely different animal from an authority that relates to a custodial process, because a prison authority’s major function is that of custody. Its job is not to investigate but to hold in safe custody those persons sent to it by our judicial process. The relationship between a prison inmate and the prison officers is entirely and fundamentally different from the relationship between a suspect, a person being investigated, or a person being arrested and police officers. It would be a recipe for disaster as we try to refine and strengthen the Police Complaints Authority to confuse the picture by marrying together two disparate conceptual functions. Although there may be merit in many years’ time for a large authority that deals quite separately with these two different functions, as the role of the Police Complaints Authority evolves into the standard that is now being set by the Independent Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, we must move carefully to make sure that the good work that has occurred slowly since the first Police Complaints Authority was set up in 1988 evolves into a very effective watchdog over the police but is not a hindrance to their operation.

Moving to the thoughtful comments made behind the proposed amendment by the Māori Party, suggesting that there be a separate branch of the Police Complaints Authority for complaints from Māori, I can say that on first reading that suggestion finds considerable sympathy. In my experience of 25 or 30 years of dealing with the police, most of the people who the police dealt with were Māori. There was an attitude—certainly 10 or 15 years ago—that was quite racist. It was perhaps not deliberately so, but it was institutionalised racism. The position of Māori suspects was often hugely inferior to the position of Pākehā suspects.

I have detected a change in that attitude in recent times. I think in a large part that is because there are a number of very, very good Māori officers—both frontline and behind the scenes—who act as iwi liaison officers. That is having an effect among the community of changing the profile of the police. It also has a symbiotic effect on the police force themselves so that they are aware of the different cultural norms that exist in our two major cultures in this country, Māori and Pākehā. The Police Complaints Authority must reconcile those changing norms and be able to breed a culture that instinctively understands the different values and norms that go with two separate parts of one country and one society.

I think that the effect of the amendment proposed by the Māori Party would be to create differences where there should not be differences and to weaken the cogency of the Police Complaints Authority. The authority would become sensitive in areas where it needs expertise and professionalism rather than a fear to tread because it might be overlapping in a different area of responsibility. I agree that there is a need that should be addressed by the Police Complaints Authority. I agree that for a long time the way the police have handled Māori has led to justifiable criticism. But I do not believe that the answer is to have a separate authority, because it would seem to lead to divisive conduct when we have police officers who are becoming more rounded and more sympathetic to both the major cultures.

I want to pick up on the point my colleague Russell Fairbrother just made, because I think he provides a good response to Dr Worth. The issue that Dr Worth raised is a matter that has been dealt with elsewhere. This is not the time to try to bring together the police complaints and the prison complaints processes, for the reasons that my colleague Mr Fairbrother has just outlined. The importance of dealing with the need to restore full public confidence in the Police Complaints Authority, and the complexities of that, are significant enough. That is a matter better pursued more narrowly for the time being.

I want to touch on some of the provisions in the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill and the Supplementary Order Paper, particularly as they relate to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. I will repeat for members that the core reason for the delay in progressing this bill was sound. The delay was in order to ensure that recommendations that arose out of that commission of inquiry could be responded to quickly, gathered up in a Supplementary Order Paper as they have been, and effectively put in place. Had we proceeded—it may well have been ahead of that Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—it may well be that we would have had to revisit the whole process in order to give effect to some of those recommendations that we are now addressing here, including jurisdiction of the authority to include a new provision to clarify that the authority may investigate historical complaints that relate to incidents that occurred prior to the establishment of the authority. That is an important addition to the scope of the authority’s jurisdiction.

The time limit on notification of complaints is an issue that a number of members have referred to, either directly or indirectly, in terms of confidence and satisfaction. The Supplementary Order Paper includes a new provision requiring that the police notify the authority within five working days of the receipt of a complaint. This provision addresses one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct, but it also addresses one of the public concerns about the need for rapid response in dealing with these matters.

The reports to Government Ministers and the provision of the Supplementary Order Paper require the authority to provide a copy of its opinion and recommendations to the Minister of Police and the Attorney-General in certain situations where it is not satisfied with the police response to a recommendation. Again, it is one of those measures that is about strengthening public confidence, and indeed accountability and transparency in the process.

My colleague provided a thoughtful response to the concern—and I think it is a genuinely held concern—behind Dr Sharples’ Supplementary Order Paper. The authority membership provision in the Supplementary Order Paper appropriately addresses the issue about more diverse representation, again in a manner that is consistent with recommendations that fall out of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. It is also to ensure that there is a wider range of experience and perspective, in terms of the Independent Police Conduct Authority as it will be named.

I want to respond to Mr Guy, because I know he was deeply concerned about this question of a quorum—deeply concerned. Obviously he was fretting that we might have moved on beyond that. I suppose one of the administrative changes that falls out of Supplementary Order Paper 116 is that it removes provisions in the bill itself relating to a range of areas that are now effectively covered by the Crown Entities Act 2004. These are things like membership and appointments, removal or suspension of members, salaries, personnel policies, meeting procedures, and so on—that range of things.

If I could perhaps refer Mr Guy to schedule 5 of the Crown Entities Act, he will see that it deals with this very question. The only circumstances in which the question of a quorum of two is likely to arise is perhaps at the point at which the current authority—and, of course, there is a deputy, so it is a two member authority now—is likely to roll over and become the new Independent Police Conduct Authority. If at that point there are no additional appointees to take the quorum up to the full five, then indeed the quorum would be two for the time being, because under the Crown Entities Act if an entity has a membership of two, the Act requires that the quorum is both members. Thereafter, as this authority is increased to five members, the requirements of the Crown Entities Act apply. If there is an even number—say, four—then the Act requires that a simple half of the board constitutes a quorum. If it is an odd number, then the quorum is a majority. So in this case, the quorum almost certainly will end up being three of the five members. I hope that settles the member’s concern. I think I have dealt with most of the matters that I want to cover at this stage.

There is pretty much cross-party consensus on most of the issues here. While some people are highlighting specific issues they wish to have changed, I think that we cannot lose sight of the realities in some of the propositions that have been put. I refer to the two submissions of the Drs Worth and Sharples.

I think Dr Sharples’ submission—the Māori Party’s proposed amendments—is well considered and well written, which indicates that a degree of thoughtfulness has been put into it. But I have to put on the record that New Zealand First will not support these amendments. A couple of issues spring to mind. It is proposed in the Māori Party amendment to clause 6 that a Māori investigative branch be established that consists of three members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of iwi, rūnanga, and the Minister of Māori Affairs. Can members imagine that discussion in the current climate? Various iwi and hapū are at each other’s throats right now, stymying various settlements because of their different views on boundaries, process, and mandate. I can well imagine the degree of debate, discussion, and discourse that would emerge as each iwi tried to assert its position and right to be represented over and above all other iwis.

That is not the only reason we would not agree with such an amendment. I emphasise the point made by Russell Fairbrother, which we believe is quite an astute observation. The reality is that Māori are now climbing through the ranks of the New Zealand Police in a way very similar to the way in which they have climbed through the ranks of the Defence Force. The notion of having an autonomous Māori body set up to investigate decisions made by a newly appointed Māori Commissioner of Police is quite interesting. In effect, we could actually have a group of Māori representing an argument against a police force led by a Māori, and commanded by Māori at district and area levels, challenging those Māoris’ decisions or the appropriateness of the way in which they have dealt with Māori.

I also remind people that the reason that Māori are so overrepresented in crime statistics is that we indulge in crime to that level. The continual argument from people who advocate that there must be something wrong with society because Māori are overrepresented in prisons ignores the fact that we are overrepresented in prisons because we break the law, because we commit crime. Having said that, the argument put forward by Mr Fairbrother that the police force has historically not treated all people equally is pretty widely accepted. We know that well. We know that from the way in which our whānau and our whanaunga have been treated over the years. But that cannot be said of today’s police force. I point to a very senior officer, Wally Haumaha. Some have even tipped him as possibly being the first Māori Commissioner of Police. He has done a tremendous job. As we see more of his ilk working their way through the ranks, we will see a continuance of the improvement of attitudes in the way in which the police administer themselves, the way in which they conduct themselves, and the way in which they administer and enforce the laws of this land.

These laws are, increasingly, being passed by a House with a larger representation of Māori. As we sit here today we can see the evidence of that. Except for the Māori Party, which has 100 percent Māori representation, New Zealand First has traditionally been the party that has had the highest level of Māori representation, of all parties in this House. Indeed, you know, it was not so long ago that Labour would not even—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: What about now?

I will get to the National Party in a minute, in the second part of my call. Not so long ago, Labour would not even nominate a Māori candidate in a safe Labour general seat. That happened for many, many years. So that institutionalised approach and attitude towards Māori, well known in the past, was also carried by the Labour Party. I often used to challenge Tariana Turia, now a leader of the Māori Party, when she was in Labour. I used to ask her why the Labour Party would never stand a Māori candidate in a safe Labour general seat. She used to wink at me and say: “I know, Ron. Why do you think that is?”. These things, happily, will become something of our past, something we read about in our history as we evolve and change.

New Zealand First is fully confident that that change is occurring, and we are confident that these changes will give the Police Complaints Authority a far higher degree of scrutiny and a far greater degree of independence. I look forward to the day that, maybe—I say this to satisfy Dr Pita Sharples, my whanaunga from further north—we see Judge Joe Williams appointed to head the Police Complaints Authority. What would we say then? Would we say that Judge Joe Williams is not capable of fairly adjudicating or investigating issues that affect Māori complainants? That would be a nonsense. We in New Zealand First think that New Zealand is moving forward and beyond that. I compliment the Māori Party members on the way in which they have considered their amendment, and on the fact that they have submitted it so comprehensively and completely, but New Zealand First cannot quite see their view and will not be supporting it.

As for Dr Worth’s contribution and his philosophising about the concept of an independent prison inspectorate similar to the Police Complaints Authority, I ask whether he is a member of the same National Party that refused any investigation into the activities of the “goon squad” in Christchurch prisons. Is this the same National Party that appointed the emergency response unit, that oversaw its establishment, and that refused to accept that the unit was in any way acting inappropriately and had caused the death of a Māori inmate in Paparua prison? Is this the same National Party? My golly, maybe things have moved on for the better. Maybe we do have a realisation within the National Party ranks that its members’ behaviour and conduct in respect of the way in which prisons were managed and the way in which complaints put forward by inmates were handled was not proper and was not as it should have been.

But we in New Zealand First still have trouble balancing that view against National’s calls for no compensation for people in prisons who have been wrongly done by. We are looking for consistency in any amendments. I suspect, because Dr Worth has not put forward a Supplementary Order Paper, that much of his argument is simply philosophising, simply tongue-in-cheek surmising, and on that basis I accept it. Were Dr Worth serious, I would fully expect a Supplementary Order Paper to be on the Table and him to be championing the amendments on it. But clearly that is not the case.

We would support Dr Worth, though—New Zealand First would support him—if he wanted to move at some stage, through separate legislation or maybe through an inquiry, to examine the total independence of the Department of Corrections prison inspectorate, because we share the views that he is now espousing. It is a pity he was not the Minister of Corrections in the former National Government. Maybe we would have had a different response to the request of Brian Neeson—that highly valued member of the National Party—who joined forces with New Zealand First to call for an investigation.

There are many things about this bill that we might wish to ponder, discuss, and muse over, but, essentially, New Zealand First feels that Part 2 will give that degree of independence. We give this caveat, though: we will be watching. I guess we share the concerns of Dr Sharples. The proof of the effectiveness of this legislation and the true independence of the authority will be seen by its deeds—what it does and how it manages the complaints brought before it. I feel that this bill may not be the final throw of the dice in this respect, and that some of the concerns expressed by some people, the cautions given—including those from Russell Fairbrother—may well need to be further examined when it has a couple of years under the belt.

Tēnā koe. I would like to respond to some of the comments made about my amendment that proposes a new clause 25A and also to talk to the other one. I will begin by saying that there is a lot of concern expressed about having a different, separate authority for Māori, as opposed to a general one, and I share empathy with that thought, too. But the reality is, it is Māori who are in prison, it is Māori who are being arrested, and it is Māori who are being apprehended in ridiculous numbers, and unless we are prepared to face up to that, nothing is going to change.

I want to tell members something. I have been working with the police since the 1970s, and in those days every single recruit and cadet who was introduced into the police force I took for a course on race relations and Māoritanga—every single one in those days, including the current commissioner, a deputy commissioner, and several assistant commissioners, as they joined the force in the 1970s. I tell members that the hardest day’s work I have ever done was a refresher course for senior sergeants. They had been in the police for 10 years, in charge of the watch-house, and I was talking to them about discrimination, about prejudices. A senior sergeant stopped me and said: “This is bullshit. I don’t want to hear what you have got to say about prejudice against Māoris. The only Māori I see are bad buggers, and I lock ’em up. And you’re not going to change my attitude.”

So I had a bit of a battle with him in front of his colleagues, who were going: “Oh, oh, oh!”, and I told him to stand on the chair and say: “I am a racist.” Of course, he refused to do that. I said: “Well, you are a racist, because of your attitude and what you have said.” Finally, I got him on the chair, and everyone was saying: “Say it! Say it! Say it!”. So, when he finally said: “I am a racist.”, the attitude changed, and they realised what they had done and what they had said.

That is the kind of attitude that appears in Police Perceptions of Māori and Māori Perceptions of the Police, which were published during the 1990s. They were a collection of interviews by the police and Māori about each other. What it showed up was a distrust and a prejudice on both sides, and unless we tackle that prejudice, nothing is going to change. So what I am saying here now is that having a separate, special Māori authority to deal with those things will do much to take away the mistrust of the police that exists amongst Māori. Members know the statistics. Many Māori are arrested and apprehended. Therefore, many Māori go to court, therefore many Māori are in jail, and so on. What does that mean in real life? It means Māori families know the courts, Māori families know the police, and Māori families know all about that negative trauma that is associated with one of their family being arrested.

I am a member of a committee that is trying to do prison reform and we have come up with a lot of things, like the new units—but they are not new any more—and the first one we put in was in Hastings. Peter Grant, the superintendent there now, and I put in our model, and we have had other models come up, and so on. But the whole point of what I am talking about is that we need to do special things if we want to end the prejudice that exists out there. So I am saying to members that we can carry on in the same way and hide behind the premise that we are all equal and, therefore, we have to have one process for all people, and nothing will change. Nothing will change unless we actually make the effort. I am telling members now that the members of the committee I had that looked into prisons were all university graduates. They were leaders of their iwi or leaders of some authority, but working on this national committee, and together we designed a change in the prison system.

But two of those leading authorities on prisons had brothers in jail. So I am saying that we Māori know the courts, we know the police, and we know the prisons, because it is our families. It is the same thing when we are talking about gangs. We know them because they are our families, as well. So people just cannot talk about them like they are something out there, at all. We have to face the fact that they are us and we are them. It is about getting meaningful examples that really will make a difference and will engender the trust of Māori of the police.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It’s just wrong.

Yeah, it is wrong, but so is what is happening now; it is more wrong. It is wrong that we have so many people being apprehended so quickly. Kids walking home from an intermediate school social are laughing, and the police are being called because they are making too much noise. One car is on the footpath, another one is on the footpath, and the lights are on, because it is in an area where Māori live.

💬 Hon Member: It’s not the normal situation.

No, no—this is the reality of it. People can hide behind one law for all kind of kōrero, but at the end of the day they have attitudes like that of the senior sergeant who says that Māoris are bad and that he does not need to know anything about it. I just put that proposition to members.

Anyway, I would like to speak to the clause in my amendment, proposed clause 25A, regarding an Independent Complaints Authority Review Agency. The Māori Party obviously would prefer a Police Complaints Authority to be completely independent, like the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. My amendments introduce the requirement for an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency to be established in order to allow the decisions and activities of the authority to be appealed. Although the Police Complaints Authority reports now to the Minister of Justice rather than to the police, in many respects this is just moving the deckchairs. In all respects the independent investigative role is preferred. Otherwise there is a perception amongst members of the community that the State is acting just as judge and jury in its own actions.

I mentioned those two formative studies, Police Perceptions of Māori and Māori Perceptions of the Police. They reveal total mistrust and prejudice on both sides against each other, and that is what has to be dealt with. I refer to the fact that too many Māori have been shot by the police, and the people have not been healed over that process. In fact, I think about 14 Māori now have been shot by the police in recent years.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: 18.

Eighteen—there we go. Anyway, the amendments introduce the requirement for an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency to be established in order to allow the decisions and activities of the authority to be appealed, as is consistent with natural justice provisions. There has never been a more relevant time to be considering the role of a Police Complaints Authority, in the wake of the fact that 18 Māori have been shot and killed by the police in recent years. So it is about having trust in the authority. And what is wrong with having an appeal agency for an authority that investigates complaints, so that there is somewhere people can go to if they are not satisfied with that authority’s decision?

The function of the review agency would be to determine appeals brought under section 48. The review agency would consist of at least three members, and all members would be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister. Surely a basic tenet of all democracies is to ensure that there are checks and balances laid against the authority of the State when negotiating with citizens on matters of law and order. We want a system where the focus is restorative rather than adversarial, where reconciliation is valued, and where fairness is applied across the operations of its various parts. We need to demonstrate our belief that we can improve the lives of our victims, families, and communities. This amendment is a means towards that.

I have been listening carefully to Dr Sharples and in particular to his explanation of his proposal for an autonomous Māori investigative branch of the Police Complaints Authority and what the functions of that branch would be. I have to say that his proposal is fundamentally wrong. This is simply not the way to develop the law of our country. I would like to think that the majority of parties will be voting against his amendment.

I want to put on record why it is wrong. It is not to say that there are not many Māori people who appear before the courts, and it is not to say that many Māori people do not have difficulties with the police. I have listened to Dr Sharples, and that is what he said. I think he overstates the case and that, statistically, the majority of Māori do not have difficulty with the police. It is wrong to suggest that it is the normal or commonplace experience of Māori people in this country.

💬 Dr Pita Sharples: I didn’t say that.

Actually, the member did. The reason why it is wrong to suggest that is that it reinforces and perpetuates the idea of victimhood, the idea that Māori will always be the victims of the police, the court system, the penal system, and so on and so forth. Surely we want a more aspirational message than that. Even if many Māori—not the majority, but many—do have that experience, surely it is better to concentrate on the successes of real people in life, because they will be the best role models.

I want to talk more specifically about the amendment itself and why I think it is fundamentally wrong. Dr Sharples pointed out that National has the principle or philosophy of one law for all. He mentioned it in a pejorative way, as if it is somehow a bad thing to have one law for all. But he is actually ignoring the reason why the principle exists. Let us forget about the terminology that is used and focus on the principle behind it. It is, surely, fundamental that all citizens of our country, irrespective of ethnicity or background, are treated equally before the law. That is actually what the principle is about. It is about equality before the law. Each one of us, irrespective of our background and ethnicity, can expect fair and equal treatment by our institutions. Our institutions, of course, should reflect the totality of life. So when I hear the suggestion that Judge Joe Williams be put forward as an appropriate representative, that is not because he is Māori; it is because he is a learned judge. He is learned in law and able to apply the law equally to all citizens irrespective of ethnicity. When we say, as a nation, that the law should be colour-blind, we are really saying that the law should treat us all equally.

I must say that I find this idea of having an autonomous branch inserted into the criminal justice system in terms of the Police Complaints Authority offensive. I find it offensive in the sense that it betrays the idea that we all have the rights as citizens to be treated equally and that we should endeavour that our institutions reflect the totality of life. If we want to solve the problem—and I think there is broad agreement that there is an issue to be dealt with—surely the appropriate way to do so is to ensure not separate institutions, which is actually what this is, but rather that the institutions we create reflect the diversity and totality of all New Zealanders. That, surely, is the best way to achieve this.

I say to the Government, which has the responsibility to appoint the relevant people to these organisations, that it must be mindful of whom it appoints so that all New Zealanders have an assurance they will be treated equally and fairly before the law. I wanted to take this call after hearing Dr Sharples’ proposal, to say why his amendment is wrong in principle and why it offends our deepest notions of what our democracy should be about, and that surely is that all citizens have equal treatment and can trust the institutions of our country to deal with them fairly. The right way to achieve that is to ensure that people who reflect the diversity of our country are appointed to its institutions.

I say to the Māori Party members that although their concerns are valid—I accept that aspect of the argument; the concerns are valid and people might feel that they do not receive equal treatment—the solution proposed is wrong in principle. I apologise if Māori Party members were offended by the use of the word “offensive” but I meant it in the sense of being offensive in principle to the ideas of equality and fairness. Although they identify an issue, the solution they have come up with is fundamentally wrong.

I say to the Government that when it appoints the relevant people to the Independent Police Conduct Authority it should listen to the concerns that the Māori Party has put forward to Parliament and take those into account—when the people are appointed to the institutions, to the extent that the Government has that appointing authority. That is the way to deal with the concern.

But I want to put on the record this particular point: our country is built on the principle that all citizens, irrespective of race, gender, or otherwise, are treated equally, and that we should all be able to look to our institutions—

💬 Metiria Turei: What about the foreshore?

—to treat us fairly and equally. If things need to be fixed—and I acknowledge that things do need to be fixed—there are ways to do that without creating separate institutions. I ask the Māori Party, and its Green Party supporters, to think more imaginatively and more creatively on how the fundamental principles of our country can be realised in practice.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā kōrua 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 Māori people in the community but also Māori people within the police. They talk about institutional racism as being part of the police service.

The report that Dr Sharples alluded to, Māori Perceptions of the Police, reports the perception of Māori that “the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police should Māori 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 Māori—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 Māori perception; I talk from the Māori 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.

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 Māori relatively easily.

💬 Chester Borrows: We open their minds.

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 Māori. 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 Māori 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 Māori communities, and that is acknowledged by all of us. But we cannot put everything to do with Māori 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 Māori 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 Māori Party is in this House is about trying to ensure that a Māori 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 Māori Party, and I hope that people give it further consideration.

I rise to speak to this part of the bill because I was a little bit astounded to hear Dr Mapp’s contribution. He told us that basically we should ignore the presence of racism in our country, and we should simply celebrate Māori success.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I didn’t say that at all.

I listened pretty carefully at least to the beginning of his speech, as halfway through it I was on my way to the Chamber. I had to come down to make a contribution because I was so astounded at what Dr Mapp had said. This is the party that has been engaging in dog-whistle politics for some time. This is the party that put up billboards telling us that iwi was not Kiwi. When we talk about celebrating the success of Māori, let us get real about what we are dealing with here.

The reality is that one law for all is not a founding notion of this State. We have only to look at the history of legislation that has been passed through this Parliament to see the plethora of laws passed specifically to discriminate against Māori. There is a list as long as my arm, and the most recent example, of course, is the foreshore and seabed legislation. But that was not an isolated one. This House has passed numerous pieces of legislation specifically to dispossess Māori and specifically to disadvantage Māori. The idea that somehow our laws are based on this principle of one law for all is a fallacy. Certainly it could not be said to be a founding principle of the State of New Zealand. [Interruption] Certainly it could be an aspiration, I say to Mr Borrows. I totally agree with that. I think that this is our opportunity to put right those injustices of the past. But we do not do that by pretending we have this level playing field and that all is fine and dandy. We have to face up to the reality of the institutional racism that pervades our country and the way that this happens through the institutions of our State.

I was at a party recently and a number of the Māori people at that party, it seemed to me pretty clearly, experience the police and the New Zealand State as a colonial imposition, as a colonial occupation, because of the racism that is inherent in the institutions of the State that they face, the passing of racist laws, racism in the application of the law, and racism in the implementation of the law.

Those feelings of those people will continue until we actually start to get a system that treats Māori people with genuine fairness and starts genuinely to address the injustices that are so longstanding and so deep-seated in our nation. That includes racism in the police and in other Government departments, as well. The Green Party is supporting Dr Sharples’ amendments, because we think he raises an extremely important issue. He is looking for solutions on how to address this matter in a realistic and significant manner.

It may be that if we develop a genuinely independent Police Complaints Authority that shows itself able to fearlessly investigate the police, to hold the police to account, and to fearlessly tackle head-on the racism that studies have shown quite clearly exist in the police service—and I am not saying that all police are racist, by any means; I am talking about the institutional racism and the racism that is certainly present among some police officers, and I have observed that for myself firsthand—then we do need the kind of body that Dr Sharples suggests. It may be that a genuinely independent Police Complaints Authority would prove such a body to be unnecessary, because that authority itself can properly deal with those issues. But why would anyone have any faith that there is an ability to do that, until there is a proven track record, which certainly is not the case to date? Until we have actually seen some proof that the Police Complaints Authority as a body is able to address these problems, then how can we have assurance that there is any way of addressing these issues without the kinds of measures that Dr Sharples is proposing? The Green Party is supporting his amendments, because it is so crucial that we have an effective and fearless Police Complaints Authority.

I move, That the question be now put.

I just want to pick up on a couple of points. There are, of course, two lots of amendments in the name of Dr Sharples. The first is the one I spoke about earlier in relation to the establishment of an autonomous Māori investigative branch. I set out why I thought that was wrong in principle. The second amendment seeks to institutionally establish—which, I think, was the institution Mr Tanczos was speaking about—the appellate organisation. I would have to say that this idea is an interesting one, and I can see the motivation and argument for it. The whole purpose of tonight’s debate is to establish in a much more deeply grounded way the idea in the public mind of an Independent Police Complaints Authority. There is no question about that, and that has broad support within the Chamber. To reinforce that point further, Dr Sharples then proposes essentially an appellate authority, and his long, complex amendment sets out the rules on it.

One of the difficulties, I guess one would say, about our legislative procedures is that it is asking a bit much of Parliament to vote for something we have had 30 minutes’ notice of, in terms of establishing a new institution.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: You’re a quick reader.

It is not just a question of whether one is a quick reader; it is a question of whether, in principle, one should establish an entirely new institution on the basis of an amendment that has been introduced at very short notice. I would suggest—and I say to the Government—that perhaps the best way to deal with this is not to support it tonight but to hold the issue under observance and consider it after the new organisation has been established for some time. See whether the authority works in practice, then actually determine by review whether an appeal authority would be the right way to go.

So I say to Dr Sharples that this is an interesting idea, and I can see merit in it. I am, however, reluctant to support it at this point in time. Indeed, I do not think it should be supported at this point in time, because institutions of this nature should not be established, effectively, ad hoc. But I do think it is one of those things that ought to be kept under review. I would hope that the Government will take the appropriate steps—certainly we would in Government—to look at this concept once the independent authority has been established. We are bound to get a sense of its track record. Does it need this addition? Should there be a proper review? Should an appellate authority be established for the authority itself?

So I congratulate the Māori Party on this issue, as opposed to the other issue, on at least putting forward the idea, because it is one of those things that will, and should, be taken into account in the future once the authority has been established.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 6 be agreed to:

to insert in clause 6 the following new heading and new section 4AA before “Independent Police Complaints Authority”:

Autonomous Māori Investigative Branch

4AA Autonomous Māori Investigative Branch established

(1) This section establishes the Autonomous Māori Investigative Branch (in this section and section 12C called the Māori Branch).

(2) The Māori Branch consists of at least three members, appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of iwi rūnanga and the Minister of Māori Affairs.