Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
Parliament's Question Time was pushed back on Wednesday as the government decided to respond to the findings from the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) into serious misconduct at the highest levels of police.
That report, released this week, uncovered serious misconduct by senior police officers in their handling of allegations against former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming. With the gravity of the report's findings impossible for the government to not address in the House, Police Minister Mark Mitchell delivered a ministerial statement in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon.
Ministerial statements are one of Parliament's set pieces that allow governments to brief the House on developing issues or significant events, outlining how they intend to respond. Taking this route can also pre-empt an urgent debate request from the opposition, allowing the government to front foot the issue, thereby setting the tone for its related discourse within Parliament.
Mitchell told the House the "behaviour outlined in the report is utterly disgraceful" and "the IPCA's findings reveal significant flaws in decision making, judgement, and actions, and are made in respect of a very small group of people in the former police executive, including the former commissioner of police, two deputy police commissioners, and an assistant police commissioner."
"The IPCA found that no effective action was taken when a comment was made on social media at the time of McSkimming's appointment as a deputy police commissioner. It found that no action was taken by senior police officers after the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre recommended referral of the allegations contained in hundreds of e-mails, three 105 reports, and a social media comment to the National Integrity Unit and the IPCA. Complaints made to 105 about police officers are required by statute and agreement to be notified to the IPCA. This was not done. The only action taken was to investigate and prosecute the complainant under the Harmful Digital Communications Act."
Opposition parties often welcome this format too. For one, they get to make their own sort of shadow ministerial statement on the topic, as Police Spokesperson for Labour Ginny Andersen did on Wednesday, perhaps giving the public a glimpse of what her party's ministerial response would be if they were in the Beehive.
"When a woman is brave enough to come forward with serious allegations against a senior officer, she should be treated with respect and have confidence that her complaint will be investigated without fear or favour. That did not happen. This was not just a failure of process; it was a failure of leadership, accountability, and duty to the public of New Zealand" she said.
"Police now have a significant job ahead of them to restore public confidence. The integrity of our police is built on public trust. Every day, New Zealanders rely on police to uphold the law, protect our communities, and respond to moments of crisis. That relationship only works if people believe that police act impartially, regardless of rank, regardless of reputation. When misconduct by senior officers is mishandled, it damages that trust. It makes it harder for victims to come forward."
Another advantage for the opposition is that ministerial statements usually come with the opportunity to question the Minister in a less restrictive setting than question time.
If you've been following political discourse around policing this year, you can probably guess who went into bat for the Green Party on this. While Andersen went purely for the speech approach, Green MP Tamatha Paul after making her statement, engaged in a back and forth Q and A between herself and the Minister.
On the IPCA's recommendations
Paul began her series of questions by asking which of the recommendations in the report the government will be adopting and by when, to which Mitchell replied "both the police and the government have been clear that we accept all of those recommendations."
On legislative change
Paul: "Will the government be looking to introduce any legislation that amends the Policing Act before the end of the year, given the graveness of this situation, and given the many statements that have been made about this never happening again? Although, I will note this has happened before."
Mitchell: "The Attorney-General will handle this, but there will probably have to be new legislation that will deal with the formation of an inspector general, and the office will provide a much higher degree of oversight, the ability to go uninvited and look at police processes, prosecutions. We think that level of oversight - it's timely for that, now."
When would this legislative change happen?
Mitchell replied to Paul's request for a timeline of planned work around the formation of an inspector-general with an assurance that the government was wasting no time in making sure the IPCA's recommendations were implemented as quickly as possible.
Would there be room for bipartisan work on this?
Because accountability on the police is something that is relatively agreed upon across the House, Paul was keen to know whether her party (and the rest of the opposition) would be able to contribute to overseeing these changes.
Mitchell: "Absolutely. There should be cross-party work on this, and I'm very happy to chair that myself to make sure that work is done."
On public perception of police
One of the biggest talking points to come out of this week's police scandal is the effect that this has on the public perception and trust in police, as both Mitchell and Andersen spoke to in their statements to the House. Paul was also keen to know how the Minister planned on earning some of that trust back.
"It would be naïve to think that there hasn't been an impact on public confidence. We are dealing with the prior Police executive; the most powerful and influential police officers in the country. We've all been horrified, I think, to see the findings of the IPCA, and how deep that ran, and the behaviour that was exhibited by those officers but I do also want to reinforce the fact that it was a small group; it wasn't our entire police service," Mitchell said.
Mitchell and Paul's exchange on Wednesday was palpably more cordial than both were perhaps used to, resulting in what was likely a more constructive dialogue than their previous bouts on police during question time.
While question time is, in theory, designed to hold the government to account, its strict rules and tendency for theatrics often make genuine answers, and illuminating questions hard to extract no matter who's sitting on what benches.
A ministerial statement, by contrast, can give the government space to set out its position in full, while also offering the opposition a chance for a more fluid and revealing cross-examination.
You can listen to the audio version of this story by clicking the link near the top of the page.
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
