Hutchison Paul: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7464] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I move  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I am very pleased to speak to the first reading of this bill and at the appropriate time I will move that it be referred to the Law and Order Committee for further deliberation. 
The genesis of this bill partly stems from the tragic events that occurred when a police officer shot and killed Steven Wallace on the main street of Waitara in April 2000. What followed was extended purgatory not only for Steven Wallace’s family but also for the police officer involved. 
I have lived in the United States and have witnessed the social impacts of an armed police force there. I was close to two shootings. One incident involved an unarmed 18-year-old who was shot in the back while trying to evade his police escort in the crowded X-ray room of the hospital where I worked. The incident was avoidable and unnecessary. My experiences left me with huge respect for the conservative approach and extra risks taken by New Zealand’s generally unarmed police force. 
This bill gives individual police officers who are involved in firearm incidents while carrying out their duty conditional name protection until the Police Complaints Authority investigation is completed. I believe that the legislation is now necessary after the High Court’s landmark decision on  
A Plaintiff 
 v  
Wilson and Horton. 
 Over the last 60 years there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in shootings while on duty. The court ruled that publication was allowed and the  
National Business Review 
 among others published the officer’s name. In this bill provided that the police officer meets certain conditions name protection will last until either the Police Complaints Authority investigation is completed or the officer is charged with a crime related to the investigation or the authority permits publication or a High Court judge rules that the public interest is best served by the name of the officer being allowed to be published. 
This bill covers only Police Complaints Authority investigations involving police use of firearms. Because of New Zealand’s conservative tradition of police not normally carrying or using firearms their lives are often put in added danger. Although the High Court ruled that “… there can be no right of privacy in respect of an action by a public officer in the course of his public duties in a public street …” and that therefore the officer should not receive special protection this bill purports that New Zealand police take on extraordinary risk in the course of duty and it is only natural justice that they and their families are not further penalised or endangered by having their names published at least until the Police Complaints Authority has released its findings or they are charged with an offence. In a small country like New Zealand where police take a conservative approach to firearms there is consequently far more media attention when police shootings occur than happens in many overseas jurisdictions. This makes the police and their families particularly vulnerable. 
On 5 March 2003 the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General issued an opinion regarding the bill and its consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I quote: “The bill raises a prima facie issue with section 14 of the Bill of Rights. The proposed new section 19A provides for a bar on the publication in any report or account relating to the investigation of the name of any member of the police involved in a firearms incident or any information likely to lead to the identification of the police officer or his or her family. We consider this clause serves the purpose of enabling the Police Complaints Authority to carry out a thorough and unhindered investigation into the incident. As this is an important and significant objective and a number of protections are built into the bill to protect the right to freedom of expression this prima facie inconsistency appears justifiable. Although we consider the issues in this bill to be finely balanced we have concluded that the bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.” 
My proposed amendment to the Police Complaints Authority Act does not represent a blanket escape clause for the police. If a High Court judge determines that the public interest is best served by the identity of the member of the police being published name suppression would not apply. It is important that the facts surrounding an incident are accurately reported after rigorous investigation. That way it is far less likely that a police officer or his or her family will be unfairly prejudiced in the heat and initial emotions that are generated at the time of a firearms incident. 
Any judgment that a police officer makes is subject to review by his or her superiors external legal experts and ultimately by the courts if necessary. Police are armed with batons pepper spray and in some cases firearms. All use of force must be reported and accounted for. Use of deadly force whether or not resulting in a fatality is always investigated and is always subject to close scrutiny by more than one agency. 
Extensive psychological research has concluded that being involved in the use of deadly force is one of the most psychologically traumatic events any police officer can experience. Officers involved will often suffer prolonged post-traumatic stress disorder require long-term counselling and continue to experience after-effects for their whole lives. 
There is almost always a public backlash when police use deadly force. Threats against police who have caused someone’s death or injury are an inevitable occurrence. If the officer’s identity were published there would be a real chance of retaliation against either the officer or his or her family or both by criminals with a grudge against police or by disgruntled members of the public or by family or friends of the dead person. If an officer’s identify is publicly released in advance of a final decision on any criminal liability it is probable that the officer will be forever associated with the event however rightly and honourably the officer might have acted. 
Recent events have shown that even if colleagues keep the officer’s identity closed the media can become aware of it through other means and will base the decision to publish on their own organisations’ priority not on the well-being of the officer. In this bill there is no question whatsoever of providing any police officer with an ability to hide from the consequences of his or her action. It is simply a question of society affording a degree of peace of mind to police officers that they will not be subjected to personal trial by media and public stigma especially in advance of any conclusions as to liability. 
I have had very strong support from my National Party colleagues on progressing this bill. The Police Association has been deeply concerned over the fact that not only its members are subjected to added ordeal by not having name protection but also their families. In the Waitara situation the constable and his family literally had to move out of town and hide for a long period. While I acknowledge there is an important civil right for the media at issue substantial harm can occur to police and their families when they themselves are not able to defend their position. I commend this bill to the House.