The Society for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) also urged the government to improve the bill, which it described as a “pale reflection” of recommendations by a 2005 royal commission on police reforms.

Among the reasons Proham listed was that the proposed IPCC would be merely advisory in nature and under executive control.

“The major weakness is that while the commission has some powers to investigate, it is merely a body that makes recommendations to the Police Force Commission,” Proham said in a statement after an online dialogue on the bill today.

“The original Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission Bill 2005 provided powers to prosecute,” it said.

Proham also said that appointments of IPCC commissioners were made on the advice of the prime minister, adding that there were no provisions for an independent review or parliamentary oversight of these appointments.

On the issue of the bill’s reduced investigative powers, it was stated in clause 26 of the IPCC Bill 2020 that police must refer to the IPCC all incidents involving sexual crime, grievous hurt or the death of any person in detention or police custody “as soon as practicable”.

“However, there is no reference to the time frame, which should be within 24 hours, and no clear indication of the role of IPCC in receiving this information.

“There needs to be explicit provisions for the IPCC to play an effective oversight role in this matter.”

Proham added that while the commission did have powers to visit detention centres and lockups, it could only do so after providing “early notice” to the relevant department heads.

“We emphasise again the urgency for the government to institute a truly independent oversight body on the police to preserve the integrity of the institution, restore public confidence in policing, and ensure police accountability.”