te Heuheu Georgina: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7478] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in the first reading of this bill. Over the last 60 years as we all know there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in shootings while on duty. That convention has been observed by all and sundry. However it has been thrown on its heels with the recent decision of  
A Plaintiff  
v  
Wilson and Horton  
in which the court ruled that publication of a certain police officer’s name was allowed. That ruling has now motivated my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison—I was going to say “the Hon” but he is certainly an honourable member—to propose a bill now that brings legislative authority to the issue which as I say for the last 60 years has been observed as a convention in the public domain. 
Part of the rationale for this bill as my colleague has already said in a country as small as New Zealand is the issue of the public backlash that is likely in a situation when an officer is involved in a fatal incident. Of course that backlash is more likely now than it was 60 years ago as television brings into our living rooms nightly even the smallest detail of events that occur in the country on a daily basis. 
The bill gives individual police officers who are involved in firearms incidents while carrying out their duties conditional name protection—until the proposed Police Complaints Authority investigation can be completed. I do stress that this is conditional name protection and of course that is as it should be. We must never forget that they are public officers carrying out public duties in the public domain. But in any particular incident while activity surrounding that incident is going on it seems that the public interest would not be diminished at all by the fact that under this legislation we would have statutory proposal for conditional name protection. I want to stress that point. It is conditional protection only as I say until the Police Complaints Authority investigation has been completed the officer is charged with a crime related to the investigation the Police Complaints Authority permits the naming of the officer or a High Court judge rules that it is in the public interest for the officer to be named. 
I believe that the necessary protection of the public good—the public interest—in ensuring that it has purview over public officers carrying out their duties in public places is still maintained. That is important because one does need this balance between public interest and private interest to be struck in any activities of public officers. I think the necessary safeguard is there; the protection is conditional only. 
The incident that gave rise to the case that went before the courts showed us in a fairly descriptive manner why this legislation is necessary. I commend my colleague for bringing the proposal to the House and I commend those who will support it and who will see the common sense in this matter. I stress once more that this is conditional protection only and in that sense it provides a proper safeguard and a proper balance between public and private interests.