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:7481] 
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.