Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7479] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I also wish to acknowledge the work of Paul Hutchison in bringing this bill to the House’s attention. United Future will be supporting this member’s bill to select committee with caution to consider an amendment that will allow for conditional name protection when police officers are involved in a Police Complaints Authority investigation that involves a firearms incident while on duty. 
This bill outlines that the Police Complaints Authority will have the discretion to prohibit the publication of a police officer’s identity when an investigation is taking place. The bill does not require that the names and identities of officers continue to be protected after the Police Complaints Authority has released its findings or if the officer is charged with an offence. We note the bill allows this protection to be forfeited in certain circumstances. United Future supports the proposal that in some instances name protections may and should be revoked. We believe this helps the credibility of the Police Complaints Authority and it acknowledges that every case and investigation will be different. It will help ensure public confidence that all investigations will have a transparent process. The bill provides that name protection may be revoked only by the Police Complaints Authority or a High Court judge or when an officer is charged with an offence related to the investigation. 
What this bill has not detailed is the certain conditions that need to be met in order for an officer to be eligible for name protection in the first place. We consider that the criteria for name protection are an important and essential part of the bill. The criteria need to be outlined and included to make the bill transparent and accountable. United Future will support this bill to the select committee because we want to deliberate on the details of these conditions. We will want to identify exactly what these conditions are when they are administered and who will be eligible for this protection. We will want the opportunity to consider public submissions. United Future will be looking to provide an assurance to police that justice will also be served to them if they are involved in a firearms incident. We consider that name protection gives officers and their families the right to innocence until proven otherwise. 
In recent police history the Waitara shooting—which has been mentioned by other members—became a very well-known case. As a result of a fatal shooting by a police officer New Zealand experienced its first private prosecution of a police officer for murder. This officer without name suppression—he was initially known as constable A—became known as Constable Keith Abbott. His family bore an incredible hardship during the trials. With their identity known and well published in Waitara and nationally they were persecuted and threatened. His wife had to leave her job as a nurse their kids had to leave their primary school and kindergarten and they were under protective custody. Eventually they left Waitara losing $15000 on their house and moved to an undisclosed location. This is not right. An officer’s family is not meant to suffer when he acts in the line of duty. The magnitude of the suffering was made more apparent when Judge Chambers indicated to the court the suffering the family had endured. 
We support the member’s bill which wants to ensure that these circumstances do not happen again. We also want to avoid an increase in private prosecutions of police officers. This bill and subsequent submissions are a positive way to deliberate and consider this further. United Future agrees that public confidence should not hinge on the naming of the police officer in any investigation. We believe the system needs to have credibility and we believe that the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill is already addressing this issue. With increasing confidence in the system the public may draw less on the need to identify and avenge an officer who is being investigated and more on the actions of the offender. 
We support this bill’s referral to a select committee and look forward to the discussion and debate.