Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7478] 
Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
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. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will not take too long but I would first like to acknowledge the author of this bill. Members’ day is good evidence that individual members of the Parliament through the members’ ballot system do have an opportunity to introduce legislation and have it considered by the House which then determines whether it should go on to a select committee. In this case as I am sure everyone will be aware this side of the House will be supporting this bill going to the select committee. 
The bill attempts to address the serious issue of when and under what circumstances the right of free expression and the principle of open justice should be a bridge. As we are well aware the catalyst for this bill—and for the discussion that will be held in the select committee—was the tragic circumstances that arose from the shooting of Mr Wallace in Waitara by a constable whom the courts have subsequently found to have acted reasonably and in self-defence in the course of carrying out his public duties. I note that the Minister’s speech which I think deserves some emphasis made the point that in a general historical circumstance an officer’s name would be published only at the point at which disciplinary action was taken against him or her or when criminal charges were laid. The Minister strongly supports that convention and believes that a police officer acting reasonably and in the line of duty is entitled to that protection unless and until there is sufficient evidence that he or she acted wrongly to the extent that disciplinary action is taken against him or her 
In respect of the Wallace case the Minister stated his real concerns about some media outlets choosing to publish the name of the constable without there being any evidence of his wrongdoing particularly when he had already been forced to leave his home in the town where his family lived because of threats against him arising out of the shooting. I note the Minister’s request to Ministry of Justice officials to consider a proposal to provide name suppression in these circumstances. I would think that a select committee analysis of this bill will make a good contribution to the debate of the public interest being served in terms of the issue about at what point and in what circumstance one releases the name of in this case an alleged offender. What we saw in this case was a very unsatisfactory situation of trial through the media. Although understandably some attention was given to the terrible tragedy and pain to the family of the victim of the shooting I cannot begin to imagine the absolute pain and anguish that was visited upon that policeman’s family. This situation potentially dare I say it faces members of the New Zealand Police Force every day every hour and every minute. They do not have to travel too much of a journey before they can be cast in that set of very unfortunate circumstances. 
So without further ado I lend my support to this bill going to the select committee. Clearly as previous speakers have outlined that does not guarantee that Government members on that committee will support the bill in its present form. Indeed some believe there are a few flaws in it. However we believe that it will serve as a very useful and very constructive vehicle for debate over the issues. For that reason the Government supports the bill going to the select committee. 
Just in the spirit of being magnanimous which of course I always am I acknowledge my colleague Dr Hutchison—in the sense that he is a Waikato member of Parliament—for his work on this bill and for introducing it. Hopefully we will have some very useful hearings and debate in the select committee around this very important issue. 
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. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I do wish to thank my National Party colleagues for recognising the importance of this bill and for giving me advice and support and I also wish to thank other parliamentary colleagues from the Labour Party United Future New Zealand First and the Progressive Coalition for seeing fit to support the bill being at least referred to the select committee. I also thank all colleagues for their thoughtful arguments and am pleased and somewhat relieved to see the level of support this bill has engendered. I also thank the Police Association—in particular Mr Greg O’Connor—for his helpful input and the background research. 
The general public and the media are not required to put themselves in dangerous situations as part of the course of their duty. In the case of the media I acknowledge they do put themselves from time to time in dangerous situations but that is not a requirement. There is a real added risk in a small country like New Zealand that police officers and their families could be endangered if their names are published in relation to an incident. That was clearly illustrated at Waitara. That family literally was forced into hiding for many months. 
Some time ago Stephen Franks of ACT wrote: “If anyone is proposing changes that would in an unhappy future hide some secret police execution squads ACT will ensure it doesn’t get an easy ride in Parliament.” He said: “The remedy is to regain control of the streets and reinstall respect for the law generally.” That aim is valid and has been attempted for the last 160 years in New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] But there is no silver bullet with regard to law and order and I put to Mr Franks the analysis of Judge Becroft from the Youth Court that breaking cycles of disadvantage and early intervention are absolutely parts of the jigsaw puzzle. They are absolutely vital to ensure that we do have control on the streets and indeed reinstall respect for the law generally. I would debate that issue with the member for ever. 
I note that both the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon George Hawkins queried why this bill confines itself to police shootings. I believe that the Hon George Hawkins answered that question when he said how lucky we are to have a largely unarmed police force in New Zealand. It is that fact that makes the responsibilities and dangers of the New Zealand police absolutely different from other jobs. To Keith Locke I reiterate that police officers take on quite different roles from the rest of the public. It is because of those different roles and the consequences that stem from them that this bill is introduced. 
Clearly the civil rights issues around this bill are most important. It is reassuring that the Ministry of Justice concluded its scrutiny of this bill in the following way. It stated: “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.” Furthermore it went on to state: “We consider the bill also serves a significant and important objective by preserving the integrity of the investigation by the Police Complaints Authority. Restrictions on the coverage of the incidents will provide the authority with an opportunity to conduct its investigation into firearms incidents unhindered by heightened media interest created by the public disclosure of the officer’s identity. Clearly the personal safety of police officers and their families is also an important objective.” 
I once again thank my parliamentary colleagues for their thoughtful consideration of this bill and would be very pleased for their support for it to go into the select committee process. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 97 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee.