Hutchison Paul: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13880] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I move  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. As the promoter of this bill I have agreed with the Justice and Electoral Committee that the bill not proceed. However I do wish to explain why. For over 60 years there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in fatal firearm incidents while on duty. That convention was broken 3 years ago after the High Court ruled that the publication was allowed of the name of the officer who shot Steven Wallace on a street in Waitara. The police officer involved literally had to go into hiding with his family for 6 months for fear of retribution and that situation motivated me to introduce a member’s bill to allow temporary name suppression of police involved in fatal shootings. Not only did that shooting cause huge media interest but it resulted in lengthy legal proceedings including a private prosecution brought by the deceased’s family against the constable. 
The bill was supported by National Labour New Zealand First and United Future through its first reading in Parliament. The bill received five public submissions of which two supported the bill and two opposed the bill and the New Zealand Law Society expressed technical changes. 
The Commonwealth Press Union is the organisation representing the interests of newspaper editors and publishers in New Zealand on press-freedom matters. That union and John Rowan QC the lawyer who took the private prosecution for the Wallace family opposed the bill. The Commonwealth Press Union submitted: “Initial police action to suppress Constable Abbott’s identity was based on uncorroborated belief that the  
New Zealand Herald  
intended to identify.” There had been suggestions that the shooting had been racially initiated and the newspaper had reason to believe that the police officer was himself of Maori descent. Subsequent to the High Court hearing that allowed publication it was the  
National Business Review  
and the  
Waikato Times  
that published the name. The Commonwealth Press Union further submitted: “In a free and open society the media must have the ability to inquire into the validity of the cause of lethal force by an employee of the State and to do so independent of any State agency that may inquire into the circumstances. Automatic name suppression would hamper legitimate media inquiries even if there was no intention of publishing the officer’s name unless to do so was in the public interest.” 
The submission from the New Zealand Police Association was understandably strongly supportive of the bill and in line with the initial motivation I had for introducing the name protection legislation. The Police Association submitted that the protection provided by anonymity where police officers are found to have been acting lawfully and in the execution of their duty is as important for the safety of the officer and his or her family as any other protection provided by the State. The association argued further: “Police officers are public officials doing a public job often in dangerous and difficult situations. Until such time as it is proven that an officer’s actions were unlawful the law should provide for their personal physical and emotional safety and that of their families by giving them the protection of anonymity.”  
The  
Waikato Times  
was noted to have a far more fundamental view. It stated: “An open court is one of the foundations of a judicial system. It means that the public had a right to know who was appearing before the courts. It demonstrates all citizens are equal before the law. If there are extenuating circumstances that could be grounds for suppression then there are processes available.” 
The select committee having heard those competing views requested that the Commonwealth Press Union return for further questioning. It was that exchange that persuaded me to support dropping the bill. I was very impressed that the Commonwealth Press Union members were highly concerned at the breach of the long-standing convention and were very willing to reach a constructive alternative to a further law being introduced. Somewhat to my amazement it was revealed that the convention not to publish the name of an officer involved in a fatal shooting had never been written down although it had been informally reaffirmed after 60 years in 2002 after external discussions between the Minister of Justice and a wide number of television radio and print media representatives. 
At the select committee an assurance was given by the chair of the Commonwealth Press Union Mr Gavin Ellis that he would seek to have the matter of the convention put into writing perhaps with a code of conduct at the next meeting of the Press Freedom Committee. I understand that that particular committee has now changed its name. He noted that the Commonwealth Press Union does not control its members and that it is important that editors can exercise their own judgment common sense and consciences. 
The select committee in its conclusions said: “We would also like to issue a firm warning to the media that any further transgression from this convention may result in legislative intervention from Parliament.” I personally felt that it was not necessary to issue such a warning. In fact on balance I was satisfied that dropping my proposed bill without incurring further expense was potentially a win-win solution where no extra law is passed where press freedom is maintained and where the Commonwealth Press Union has reaffirmed the desire to exercise great responsibility towards the police and their families.