Hawkins George: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7469] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I think this bill should go to the select committee and there will be plenty to talk about at that committee rather than what we have just heard when someone tried— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Did the bell indicate the end of my speaking time or was it the 2-minute warning? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members’ bills have 5-minute speeches. It is the norm that the bell goes at 5 minutes. The member has had his time. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It would be good if Ron Mark took some notice beforehand rather than interrupt a speech but he does not always do his homework as has become very obvious in this House so many times with some of his misguided questions. 
The issues in this bill are a response to what happened in Waitara when a constable—in self-defence as it is now very clear—shot and killed a young person. Of course members of the media are always interested in these sorts of happenings. They are always very keen but until this case have always acted very responsibly. One media outlet was not so responsible and I think that that was all about trying to sell papers. It was a case of a struggling weekly trying to sell papers. That then made it so difficult for the constable and his family. We have to remember that when people go out tonight to protect the citizens of a town they have to have some level of comfort. It is all about people taking a responsible view. 
One trouble about this bill—and I daresay it will be looked at by the select committee—is that it refers only to shooting. But there are many many possibilities of how death can be caused by a police officer in the execution of his or her duty. We are lucky in this country—very very lucky—that we have a police force that is largely unarmed and we do not have what we see on many television shows of shoot-outs between the baddies and the police. They just do not happen here. I think that the media deserve a second chance. They need to be able to prove that they will act responsibly. In the case of “Constable A” his family became victims and when one’s family become victims one has to ask whether that is a fair go on the people out there defending the rights of other New Zealanders. 
This bill addresses that serious issue although we must also be conscious of the right to freedom of expression. Having worked for a newspaper many many years ago I know just how carefully and how jealously newspapers want that right protected. I think that that is really important. The whole case of Steven Wallace and the shooting was a tragedy. It was a complete tragedy and there are no winners in these sorts of things—no winners at all. The Wallace family is a family that is grieving as is Constable A’s family and even more important the big police family because about 7000 police feel for Constable A. They do not want to see themselves in the same position. They do not want to see their names blazoned across the papers because they were out there protecting us. That is something really that we as a Parliament must look at carefully. So this bill will I daresay go off to a select committee. People will discuss it and I hope that it is not used as a point-scoring debate.