|
|
Allegations
of Sexual Abuse |
|
|
|
|
7. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of
Police: What has been the total cost to date, including staff time, of the
police investigation announced in February last year into historical rape allegations
against the police, and what has been achieved? Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade), on behalf of the
Minister of Police: I am advised that the total operating costs of
investigations into historical rape allegations, up to 28 February 2005, is
$1,603,645. Further, I am advised that 48,500 hours had been spent on the
investigations up to the date of 28 February. I should advise the member,
however, that it is not appropriate for me to comment on ongoing police
investigations or matters that are already, or may be soon, before the
courts. Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister have any
concerns that when those costs that he has just given to the House—the costs
to date of the police inquiry—are added to the $1.4 million cost of the now
suspended Prime Minister’s commission of inquiry, it will mean that, when
completed, this matter is set to be the most expensive criminal inquiry in
New Zealand’s history; if he does have any concerns, what are they? Hon PHIL GOFF: That question is interesting in
conjunction with earlier questions where members in the House have stressed
that it is vitally important that in matters pertaining to misconduct, or
alleged misconduct, by the police there needs to be full investigation to
maintain public confidence in the police. Yes, I regret that this sort of
money has to be expended, but, yes, I also believe that it is necessary for
the money to be expended. It will not have escaped the member’s notice that
in the New Zealand Herald this week it is reported that charges have been
laid against a former police officer who operated in Kaitâia in 1988. Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister accept that
setting up two separate inquiries at the same time has resulted in this
explosion in costs; and, with the advantage of hindsight, does he think the
Commissioner of Police was wrong to set up his inquiry, or was the Prime
Minister mistaken in setting up an inquiry that has done nothing and so far
has cost $1.4 million? Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two separate purposes to
the inquiry. There is, of course, an inquiry by the police, which will lead,
or may have led, to actions before the court to determine the specific
instances where allegations have been made. Alongside that, it is important
that there is a wider inquiry into whether there was a systemic problem in
terms of the culture of the police. That is the inquiry that will be carried
out, led by the High Court judge and Margaret Bazley. It is important for
public confidence that that inquiry does take place, but not before the
matters before the court have been dealt with. Dr Muriel Newman: Why is it good government to have
initiated two inquiries, one of which has had to be suspended, but has cost
$1.4 million, because it was set up too early; and if the Prime Minister and
the public had any confidence in the Minister of Police, does he really think
she would have insisted on a second and parallel inquiry at this time? Hon PHIL GOFF: Of course, the broader inquiry
was set up first. As matters unfolded and sufficient evidence was,
apparently, gained by the police to take their inquiries further, the first
inquiry had to be suspended. But I do not recall any members of the member’s
party opposing the setting up of the committee of inquiry in the first
instance. That party seems to have changed its tune. |
