Locke Keith: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13881] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to endorse what the previous speaker said. I would also like to congratulate Paul Hutchison on the serious way he has gone about this bill and the Law and Order Committee on the work it did in dealing with a real problem but dealing with it in a way that does not undermine our justice system and press freedom. 
I think that the underlying principle is that we cannot have two laws in this country—one for the police and one for other citizens. Of course we can do things as the Commonwealth Press Union does and as most media outlets do and operate in a responsible way recognising the difficult task the police have recognising that they often have to deal with violent situations where accidents can happen and recognising that we should act in a way that does not cause police officers unnecessary embarrassment either for themselves or for their families and lead to consequences that are unnecessary and bad for them. I think we operate with that understanding but at the end of the day there cannot be two systems particularly when what is involved are very difficult firearm incidents that cause a lot of emotion in the community. Often it is difficult for communities and the rest of the country to work out where the blame lies. 
We saw that in the Wallace case where there was quite a division of opinion in the community and that was reflected right through to the court process. It was resolved through the legal system and I think that all parties learnt something from the whole process—one system operating for all including the police in that case. Of course such a process can cause hurt and the publicity around the case can cause hurt. It is the same with other defendants particularly those who are found to be not guilty in the end. They often feel a lot of hurt and their families feel hurt for the suffering they have had in the process—a process during which their names have been blackened to some extent. 
But sometimes the convention of protecting the name of the person has to be departed from in some cases because if there is real information that perhaps a police officer was involved in some wrongdoing or criminal activity in an incident involving a firearm the case may have to go to trial. On some occasions it is actually in the interests of justice that the name of the officer is known. If we look at other cases we see that it is often the public nature of our criminal justice system and the name of the alleged offender being known that help to resolve whether that person is guilty. 
I was out on the steps of Parliament at 1 o’clock this afternoon helping to receive a petition on the Scott Watson case. I want to use that as an illustration in that Scott Watson’s name being known in the lead-up to his trial while the police investigation was going on did help the police to gather more evidence in the case. After seeing his picture people who knew Scott Watson came forward with information on his character on what else he had done and on what else had happened on the night of the sad case of the disappearance of two young people. The name of the alleged offender being known actually helped that case. 
Going beyond that there is a little bit of a turn-round to the other way at the present time and more people are coming forward. Some of the witnesses who were involved in the prosecution are now coming forward and saying: “Hold on our evidence was misused.” “There was evidence that wasn’t used.” and “You seem to have the wrong person.” etc. Because the process was public first it helped the police to convict Scott Watson and second it may at the end of the day help him to get off. That is the way the justice system works. 
I understand that on occasion the police can get upset and rightly so if the name of a police officer goes out into the media unnecessarily. Of course there is always a tendency in any social group including the police to protect one’s own. The police will tend to interpret the actions of one of their fellow officers in a more positive light than would others maybe. There will be a public debate on that as there was in the Wallace case but it is sometimes in the interests of justice for the name to come out at a certain point. 
The bill relates to protecting the name of a person during the hearings or proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority which generally goes into action on such incidents. One problem with that in my experience is that the proceedings of the Police Complaints Authority can be very drawn out and can actually prevent justice from taking place at the end of the day. In my case I put in a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority in 1999 on the issue of police actions during protests against a visiting Chinese dignitary. There is indication that I will get a result but over 4½ years later the complaint is still being processed. So if one talks about a criminal justice system involving a police officer having to wait for more than 4½ years before anything proceeds in that officer’s case and before there is any reference to the officer concerned in the media then one is putting a big restraint on the possibility of justice operating. 
On behalf of the Green Party then I support this bill not proceeding any further and I do commend members of Parliament the select committee and Mr Hutchison for the way in which the matter has been dealt with.