Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations, and State Enterprises — Independent Police Conduct Authority

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa. Kia ora taku tama e noho mai rā ki runga ake nā.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chair, and to all of us. Greetings, my son seated up there.]

The Māori Party enters this debate with the clear line that we took to the polls last year when we sought to disestablish the Independent Police Conduct Authority. We believe that the public needs to have trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police and, unfortunately, recent history has not enabled that to occur. I have to say that I have got great admiration for the job the police do, having been out with them, but, unfortunately, some issues have been really testing that admiration. In fact, our full trust and confidence in the police is actually at an all-time low. Recent surveys have reported 28 percent of New Zealanders have full trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police. Whether it is perception or practice, this is about the fragile trust and confidence that New Zealanders have in our police force.

I would have to say that the financial review that we have in front of us, or at least I have in front of me, is not all that flash. The report of the Law and Order Committee revealed that there was a deficit of $538,000 in the 2010-11 year and, despite a goal of inspecting 30 detention facilities during the year, the authority managed about 20. The number of open files is still quite high. In 2011 there remained 584 open files. The Māori Party believes that every New Zealander has the right to expect trust, accountability, and transparency out of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and we are mindful of the observations of Transparency International that “The numerous agencies in government responsible for minimising corruption represent a problem. … There should be fewer, more centralised, controlling agencies.” It was in light of that that the Māori Party called for a single anti-corruption commission, which might bring together the Independent Police Conduct Authority, the Serious Fraud Office, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the Judicial Conduct Panel, and even the investigative functions of the State Services Commission.

It is a real worry that in the financial review there is comment that the authority has had to rely on staff taking on extra work in order to meet its responsibilities. Something, I think, is terribly wrong if the workload does not appear to have been reduced. There is a significant deficit return and some work simply is not getting done. Particular concern is related to the responsibilities of the authority to issue its report into the activities of what has now become known as the Tūhoe raids back in October 2007. Five years on it is a miscarriage of justice if the State agent established to report on matters such as this has still not offered up its report. When I asked questions of the former Minister of Police last October, the response from Minister Collins was that in the interests of justice, that report would not be public until the court case had been completed. Well, as the local MP, I am pretty disappointed that the reports into the treatment suffered by the people living in and around the Ruātoki valley have not seen the light of day—both the Independent Police Conduct Authority report and the Human Rights Commission report. The violations of human rights that occurred on 15 October 2007 have cast a real, sad, and wide shadow over this nation, and it is my belief—it is the Māori Party belief—that it is time that the events of that day were exposed for all to see.

Finally, there is a headline comment made in the report of the Law and Order Committee about the role of the New Zealand Police and the Independent Police Conduct Authority that these two organisations are “on a ‘parallel path’ towards ensuring public confidence in policing.” If that is really the case, then I would hope that there is someone listening who might have some courage to have those reports issued so that all New Zealanders then can make up their minds. Kia ora tātou.

I want to take a short call just to address a couple of points that the previous speaker, Te Ururoa Flavell, made, particularly in relation to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Operation Eight report. I want to preface it by saying, as a relatively new Minister of Police and having received only one report from the authority, that the quality of that report was outstanding. I think the authority should be commended for the very thorough work that it does do in reporting on some of these major events in a way that the general public can follow pretty carefully through what has happened. Of course the report that I am referring to is the report into the accidental shooting of an innocent bystander when the police were pursuing an armed offender in Auckland.

If I come back to Operation Eight, the member himself made the point that the previous Minister of Police commented on the delay in the report from the Independent Police Conduct Authority until the court case was completed. Well, it might be 5 years down the track, but we are still awaiting the finalisation of that court case. We are still awaiting appeals. So in the interests of justice, as much as all of us would like to have that Independent Police Conduct Authority report finished and have the report out in the public, we do have to await the finality of the justice system.

In the meantime, I commend the Commissioner of Police for his meetings with Tūhoe. The point he has made is the fact that the operation was not against Tūhoe; in fact, the operation took place right across the country, against a wide array of people. But no doubt the people of Tūhoe await with the most interest the report from the Independent Police Conduct Authority—as we all do. Once the court case has been completed, I have no doubt that that report will be forthcoming very promptly.

So I would just like to finish by saying that I think we are very well served by the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and, of course, we have a new head of that authority in Judge Carruthers. I am sure that the very high standard that has been set will continue under its new leadership.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority is an independent Crown entity, and, as it notes in its statement of intent for 2009-12, it has a role as watchdog over police actions. When the Chair of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, Justice Goddard, appeared before the Law and Order Committee she was very clear on that point—that the Independent Police Conduct Authority is there as an independent body on behalf of the public of New Zealand to scrutinise and take complaints about, and write reports on behalf of the people of New Zealand on, the New Zealand Police.

It was interesting also in the evidence that Justice Goddard gave to the Law and Order Committee that she was well aware of the fiscal constraints that this present Government has and was satisfied also that the Independent Police Conduct Authority could fulfil its functions as a Crown entity in that environment. In fact, Justice Goddard made no complaint at all about the requirement to operate within a constrained fiscal environment, and seemed rightly satisfied with the work of the Independent Police Conduct Authority over the previous year in her evidence to the committee.

What I believe was most notable in the evidence in the financial review to the Law and Order Committee was the comments that Justice Goddard made around its investigative capacity. In respect of the most serious matters brought to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, it had been the practice that the authority would wait for the police investigation of that particular serious matter, and then perhaps review it afterwards. So what is now the practice of the Independent Police Conduct Authority is that it itself undertakes the investigation, rather than sitting back and waiting for the police to investigate themselves, and then review that complaint after it had been determined. I thought that was a very powerful attitude to take and I commend the Independent Police Conduct Authority for taking that approach. As the Minister of Police has just mentioned, Justice Carruthers will pick up the role of the Chair of the Independent Police Conduct Authority and we look forward to continuing with his contribution to the watchdog role over the New Zealand Police.

The authority independently investigates all deaths and all instances of serious bodily harm caused by police employees. It also investigates or directly oversees the investigation of the most serious complaints against the New Zealand Police. This is an incredibly important role that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has, and so the committee questioned the relationship the Independent Police Conduct Authority has with the police, and what the relationship is like between those two organisations: the police and the watchdog.

Well, we were told that although the authority has a memorandum of understanding with the police—which was signed in 1994, so it is now a few years old—there is a good spirit of cooperation between the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the police, and that in its view that agreement, although it was useful, is now largely irrelevant because both bodies understand very clearly their role. The point was made also that the two authorities were not in an adversarial relationship, but actually were working on—and these are the words of the Independent Police Conduct Authority—a parallel path towards ensuring public confidence in policing.

I just want to pick up on the comment made by the Māori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell about the deficit that was recorded, of $538,000. The Māori Party member noted that this was a bad thing. Well, actually there is a simple explanation for that. The shortfall came about because of a very important child abuse inquiry, for which it received an allocation spanning 2 financial years. Thank you.

Report noted.

Privacy Commissioner